Architecture as an art form. Architecture and its functions in human life.
- Architecture as an art form
Construction is one of the most ancient types of human activity, which means that many millennia ago the foundations for all further development of architecture were laid. Arriving in any city, we see palaces, town halls, private cottages built in a variety of architectural styles. And it is by these styles that we determine the era of their construction, the socio-economic level of the country, the morals, traditions and customs of a particular people, its culture, history, national and spiritual heredity, even the temperaments and characters of the people of this country.
Architecture, or architecture, forms the spatial environment for people's life and activities. Individual buildings and their ensembles, squares and avenues, parks and stadiums, towns and entire cities - their beauty can evoke certain feelings and moods in viewers. This is what makes architecture an art - the art of creating buildings and structures according to the laws of beauty. And, like any type of art, architecture is closely related to the life of society, its history, views and ideology. The best architectural buildings and ensembles are remembered as symbols of countries and cities. The whole world knows the ancient Acropolis in Athens, the Great Wall of China, St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome, and the Eiffel Tower in Paris. The art of architecture is truly a social art. Even today, it interacts with history in complex ways and is directly integrated into the culture of its time. In a society of mass consumption, private orders, and commercially oriented construction activities, the architect is often very limited in his actions, but he always retains the right to choose the language of architecture, and at all times it has been a difficult search for the path to architecture as a great art and an exact science. It is no coincidence that great civilizations are remembered not only by wars or trade, but, above all, by the architectural monuments they left behind. Therefore, it is worth especially noting that important detail that architecture is also a very accurate barometer of the level of development of civilization, its history, culture and intellectual level different nations, since each country of Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, Denmark, Poland, Ukraine, India, Japan, China, Egypt has its own face, its own internal national flavor, its own traditions and customs. All this is so impressive, so bright and so uniquely reflected in the architecture of each country, directly in its own history. And the architecture itself is unique business card cities, states, and eras in general.
Architecture is one of the most important areas of human activity, which includes the design and construction of all kinds of structures and is the oldest occupation on organizing space.
Occupying one of the most important positions in the development of society, architecture has always been inextricably linked with painting, sculpture, decorative arts, and developed in accordance with the style of a particular era.
IN modern world The following main areas of architecture are distinguished:
· Design of buildings and structures
· Urban planning activities
· Landscape architecture
· Interior design
The architecture of public buildings and structures is designed to satisfy the diverse aspects of human life, reflecting in an artistic and figurative form construction projects social processes of society development. While meeting certain material and spiritual needs, public* buildings must at the same time correspond to the worldview and ideology of society. .
At all times, the most expressive and impressive works of architecture are public buildings and structures that embody the highest aspirations of the human spirit and the skill of architects and builders construction projects.
Significant in their architectural and artistic image, public buildings, especially their complexes, regardless of their size, organize urban spaces, becoming an architectural dominant.
Social, scientific and technological progress, as well as the development of urban planning in our country, increase the importance of the public service sector and are associated with an increase in the scale of construction of various institutions and service enterprises to improve the working, living and leisure conditions of the population.
Among other types of construction, public buildings occupy one of the leading places in terms of volume. Of the total urban planning costs for a residential area, capital investments in the construction of public buildings average 28-30%. The proportion of construction of public buildings in resort cities, tourist, scientific centers, in cities of all-Union and republican significance, where, as a rule, they are built. theaters, libraries, museums, exhibition halls and pavilions, sports facilities, administrative buildings, large shopping centers, hotels, air terminals, etc.
It is known that cities and urban settlements play a vital role in the formation of settlement systems in the country, being the main centers of industrial production, science, education, culture, transport, etc. Special significance This form of settlement acquires in the conditions of Siberia with its sparsely populated territories, the specificity of natural and climatic conditions and the traditionally established attitude on the part of the state towards the natural and human resources of this huge region.
on the one hand, the city is a product of the development of society, created by the labor of people to satisfy their vital needs (self-preservation, survival, reproduction, development, satisfaction of material and spiritual needs, etc.) On the other hand, it must be stated that the city, arising, developing and dying out, it goes through all the stages characteristic of a living organism, and, like all living things, it has, depending on the species, different periods of existence (from several years or tens of years to thousands of years).
When considering such a highly complex phenomenon in the life of society as architecture, in conditions where sometimes unfounded, harsh criticism is heard, its essential analysis, an accurate consideration of the problems facing it, is more necessary than ever. One gets the impression that architecture is to blame for the mistakes of construction concepts, for the administrative or financial pressure that it often resisted. Of course, it should be recognized that architecture sometimes “lowered the bar” of its social significance, which is unacceptable. A traditional but logical consideration of the essence of architecture is carried out on the basis of consideration of the social need for it and the specifics of its activities. The emergence of a need for architecture can hardly be considered a one-time, quickly manifested act. It was as if society and people at one fine moment suddenly clearly realized that they were clearly missing something. And they clearly understood that this is the need for architecture. It should be assumed that the process of its formation took a long time and was correlated with the process of human development, his sensory and intellectual abilities, with his creativity, activity, and ability to cognition, which was inseparable from the process of development of society.
There is no doubt that this need was initially dissolved in many other needs: to preserve life, to ensure one’s health and the health of one’s loved ones, to maintain warmth, so necessary in a harsh climate. All these needs were necessarily satisfied using one or another maximum or minimum of funds, which we now classify as construction and architecture resources. The same applied to the limitations and diversity of forms used at one time or another, and which, to one degree or another, we can attribute to construction and architectural forms. It is not for nothing that we combine construction and architecture in defining this need, since we quite reasonably assume that it was originally in the nature of the need to do, build, build something, create. But at the same time, the need cannot simply be characterized as a need for activity. The modern, activity-based approach often confuses the concepts of the need for activity, activity and its consideration as a means of satisfying a particular need.
The concept of “activity” refers to the ultimate, abstract philosophical categories, the content of which contains all the results of research and implementation of human activity and practice. The way to study any problem, starting with the use of the ultimate concept, which is the concept of “activity”, we must move from the study of the specifics of this or that activity, this or that doing, considered in the process of their change and development, to the definition of the essence expressed in this or that a different concept. If this possibility of expression is not available explicitly, then a demonstration of the path of the analysis being carried out will make it possible to recreate the essential connections of the object under study. This proposal does not at all mean a refusal to put forward fruitful hypotheses regarding the definition of basic approaches to considering the essence of architecture as an important socially significant phenomenon. The essence of things is determined by the needs of people. It is not a real, not a nominal, but a teleological entity. Teleology appears where a degree of freedom appears that exceeds the degree of connection, where choice appears. It is not clear how things happen where there is no choice mechanism. But still, the goal is the ability to choose based on a comparison of explicit and implicit existing knowledge.
In the theory of architecture, its essence was considered on the basis of various approaches. The specificity of the historical approach within the framework of the history of architecture considers it from the point of view of identifying patterns of change and development, identifying the main factors influencing them. This approach has managed to accumulate significant empirical material, analyzing in detail certain features of the work of outstanding architects, identifying some patterns of architecture, without giving a complete explanation of the peculiarities of the need for it, the specifics of its formation, and its significance in human life and society.
Based on the culturological approach, architecture is considered from the position of cultural conditioning of its origin and development, and the forms of architecture - as cultural forms expressions of the ideal wealth of society. Architecture is seen here as an organic inclusion in the system national cultures, as well as into the system of universal human culture.
The specificity of the aesthetic approach allows us to consider architecture from the perspective of identifying its artistic and aesthetic significance. Form formation in it is analyzed from the point of view of identifying the perfect form, the laws of beauty. Architecture is considered as a type of art, sometimes characterized quite aphoristically (“architecture is frozen music”). The comparative architectural approach allows you to analyze architecture, identifying the general and special in its stylistic changes, contrasting features and combining the features of creativity.
The semiotic approach examines architecture from the perspective of its sign-linguistic specificity. Architecture is analyzed as a certain sign system.
The information approach, using the fruitful developments of classical and non-classical information theories, attempts to analyze architecture as an information system.
It is very important to distinguish the fruitfulness of various approaches in considering architecture (and here there are simply no restrictions: psychological, aesthetic, semiotic, informational, model, constructive, etc.) from a fundamental clarification: how it appears, what need or What needs does it satisfy and will it satisfy? That is main problem is a description of the phenomenon of architecture, which in itself is interesting for research, as well as knowledge of its essence.
In determining the essence of architecture, one should go from its analysis to concepts (terms, words, beautiful expressions, borrowings, etc.), and not vice versa. Only when the object of research is precisely defined, its differences from similar objects, when the relationship between the elements of a given object is found, analyzed and recorded and the process of its formation, functioning, structure, change and development of these relationships is determined, only then can it receive an identifier, definition and concept .
The most important problem is the definition of an architectural object in its difference from a construction object. We believe that the main difference is the difference between the need for architecture and the need for construction activities. These differences arise from the internal unity of these two types of activity, which is emphasized by Vitruvius' formula. The difference between these needs can be briefly formulated as a difference in architectural and construction objects.
Under the object we are in in this case we understand what the subject’s activity is aimed at. At the same time, it is an object of both architectural and construction design. Although we will immediately make a reservation that we use the term “architectural object” with a certain degree of convention. The traditional division of these objects along the lines of “material-ideal”, “subjective-objective”, “definite-indefinite”, “explicit-implicit”, “utilitarian-supra-utilitarian”, “formal-informal”, etc. will give us the characteristics of the manifestations of these opposites in the specifics of the construction site. Thus, the specificity of this object is manifested in the dominance of one of the opposites, subordinating the other: “ideal - material”, “unstable - stable”, “aesthetic - utilitarian”, etc. It would be wrong, in turn, to consider the appearance of these objects without the participation of architect. Although very often this is also subordinate to financial or administrative influences. Architectural objects are important as conditions of our life, our survival, a statement of our existence, its consolidation. At the same time, they are necessary as indicators of the connectedness of everything with everything: past and present, local and many, limited and infinite. Moreover, the change architectural object, both in relation to others and in relation to those who perceive, is significant, influencing the preservation, improvement and development of the human world. Properties and relations exist in reality. The relationships objectified by architecture are no less real than the material objects created as a result of construction activities. Moreover, these relationships act as a real resolution of many contradictions, as a result of which certainty, uniformity, limited information content, and the limited reality of the material substrate of the object are overcome. Overcoming, but not breaking with it.
The multiformity of architecture allows a person to exist in many realities, as a way out of their traditional limitations. But this “output” is also not unlimited, since architecture organizes and directs the activities of people through its influence on their world.
The organizational side of architecture is one of the essential ones. But what specifically does architecture organize? Space taken in a geographical sense? But construction activities do the same. Space in architecture can be considered as a certain form, as the interaction between material and ideal processes and states, their coexistence, as an event characterized by dimension, the unification of consciousness and the objective world with the formation of stable systems in various types reality. But architecture is about sustainability. Stability is a criterion for highlighting what is essential; it is the stability of connections, interactions and relationships, dynamics, variability. Hence the repetition in architecture, the reproducibility of its forms. Dynamic stability is higher than static. In architecture, therefore, we can talk about the measure, degree, order of stability, and measure it.
Analysis of sustainability, its role and factors is one of the areas of architectural research. The pattern is based on sustainability. Statics is a moment of movement, self-reflection of architecture, striving to realize what has been “conquered.” Architecture is always directed towards eternity, always relevant, realized present, modeling, improving and developing the world of man, society, humanity. Sustainability is ensured by architecture that creates stable directions for human interactions that are not random, stochastic. Although very often the arbitrariness of the construction of architectural objects is noted, without visible cause and effect. But in any case, the construction must be subject to the requirement of optimization and expediency, both in general and in particular. This is always a targeted focus on creating a socially significant new, more advanced one, since the main vector of architecture is creativity.
Architecture, as the organization of the human world, is universal, since it connects together the real and unreal, explicit and implicit, material and ideal, simple and complex, utilitarian and supra-utilitarian, stable and unstable, uniformity and multiformity, intelligible and sensory data, etc. Belonging architecture to many, “everyone” at once, assumes that it immediately embraces the multiworldliness of people, forms a community as a super complex system of connections and interactions, their multiworldliness. Real reality can be reduced to a limited number of traditional forms of reality. And this is naturally predetermined by the logic of everyday life. The effectiveness of architecture lies in its multiformity, in its formative ability. This is also its logical proof of social effectiveness.
The multiformity of architecture, as well as design, therefore acts as a realization of the most important social need. This is a social need that is clearly unconscious. Hence the inexplicitness and multivariate definitions of architecture, the impossibility at times of expressing its essence rationally and conceptually. Only the visual possibility of expressing real connections between people, real interactions in the sensory form of an object means it as a certain concept, as a definition. This explains why, both in Russian and foreign architectural theory, the empiricism of research, replete with colorful epithets, phrases, neologisms, and terms that describe the phenomena of one’s own consciousness, prevails.
Every architectural form is new language, a new verbal system. The specificity of a language lies in its applicability to many, if not all, conventionality. A language that is not used is a dead language. A significant exaggeration of the semiotic specificity of architecture not only does not help improve its understanding, but, on the contrary, narrows the possibilities of using other approaches. The verbal form is a translation, service capabilities for the user, an explanation of the essence.
Architecture acts as a modeling of the world, defining a whole system of connections, interactions between people, and new forms. Architecture influences the organization, modeling, improvement and development of the world of man and society, cognizing, feeling it, modeling it, doubling it, forcing at the same time to be determined by its objectivity in the creation of its interactions and connections. Doing in architecture is also an understanding of this world, its self-realization, its existence, its creative essence. There is no doubt that creative ideas play an important role in architecture. The idea is multifaceted and multifaceted, it is like a diagram, like a theory, in relation to which reality is considered as an interpretation. An idea as an essence, as a whole, united in connections and interactions, but not having a tangible, sensually perceived form of existence.
Modeling acts as an essential characteristic of architecture. Moreover, modeling is a means of not only formalization, but also understanding. A model is both a technology of cognition, a method of proof, and a means of understanding and explanation. Therefore, the result of doing, building, creating architectural and urban planning activities is the organization, improvement, modeling and development of the human world through influence on it subject environment, materially embodied and subjectively implicitly expressed in the ideality of the image. An object that has diverse qualities and properties, both utilitarian and supra-utilitarian. Architecture is the activity of organizing, modeling, improving and developing the world of man and society through the influence of objects created by the architect, which have various qualities and properties: utilitarian and aesthetic, sensory-material certainty and ideal variability.
A certain complexity arises when we analyze the general, special and individual phenomena such as architecture and urban planning. Architecture and urban planning should be compared within the framework of the specifics of these types of activities. Construction in architecture and the architectural nature of urban planning are manifested in the creation, “making” of the architectural world, its organization. It is the imparting of stability to the objective world that is carried out through the construction specifics of architecture. At the same time, the architecture of urban planning, as the organization, modeling, improvement and development of the human world, is a constant overcoming of stability, inertia, and temporary stagnation of the created objective world. Architecture therefore exists as a constantly created and constantly resolved contradiction between the material and the ideal, stable and changeable, new and old. At the same time, this is a constant overcoming of relativism by giving architectural forms material stability existing for centuries, either quickly destroyed objectively, or at someone’s whim.
The dialectical nature of architecture is sometimes perceived as a manifestation of its synthetic and syncretic nature. It is understood as a resolved contradiction, where various opposites transform into each other, determining the development of architecture. Does this mean that the architecture, for example, of a city, can be considered in the utmost syncretism and syntheticity of the “tower” and the “colorful garden”? One can agree with this interpretation if a certain dominant principle of architecture is identified, implemented at one time or another. If we consider architecture from a historical perspective, then we can identify other dialectical components: “arch” and “pyramid”, “square” and “ball”, “web” and “open square”, “network” and “network cell”, “graph” and “graph edge”, etc.
Walking along the streets of our city, we often just look at buildings, shopping centers, parks with benches and fountains, and think: “Oh, how beautiful!” Involuntarily we admire many architectural structures; they evoke certain feelings and moods in us. Nowadays architecture is really well developed and diverse. Certainly, historical development culture different countries and nationalities determines the functions and appearance architectural structures. Architecture is closely related to the life of society. Its most famous monuments become symbols of different cities and countries for us: let’s remember the Eiffel Tower in Paris, the Great Wall of China or the Moscow Kremlin. But what does it mean for a person, for each of us?
Architecture is art. We can say that every time we go outside, we find ourselves in a huge gallery of buildings. But we don’t always notice it, because we need to rush to work, to the store, to Lyudmila Sergeevna, or simply because we are accustomed to this everyday landscape. But at one moment something stops us, makes us walk more slowly and look back, take a new look at what was familiar to our eyes.
Surprisingly, architecture is actually a dialogue. Behind every building, behind every architectural complex or small structure there is a person, an architect. So unusual language he is trying to convey to society some thought, an idea in artistic image. We certainly react to it: it can be agreement, acceptance, but also protest or even hostility. Famous Italian architect Renzo Piano said that architecture is a very difficult job. If the writer doesn't write very well good books, people may simply not read them. But if an architect does his design poorly, he condemns some area of the city to ugliness for hundreds of years.
Architects often sought inspiration from nature, even learned from it, repeating graceful lines in their works, unusual shapes, sizes and color combinations. For example, the roof of a building Art Museum Milwaukee, designed by Santiago Calatrava, resembles the wings of a bird or a sail. The architect found such a gentle image while observing Lake Michigan. And the building of the national center in the city of Taichung in Taiwan looks like something magical, fabulous. Architect Toyo Ito expressed his inspiration from caves and lines of water currents.
At the same time, the architecture itself, its beauty and uniqueness inspires a person to do something unusual. It is interesting that the artists of the Walt Disney studio, who created the colorful cartoons we all know, found inspiration in places and architectural structures real-life ones, such as Mont Saint-Michel in France or the Taj Mahal in India. These places are truly mesmerizing. Having visited them, it is difficult to remain without new thoughts and impressions.
Architecture can calm a person, set him in a harmonious mood, and pacify him. It’s not for nothing that many people in their free time go to the park, to a quiet place next to a fountain, to read, think or have a pleasant conversation with a friend. Psychologist K. Ellard notes in his works that architecture has a psychological effect on a person: “buildings make us feel.”
And yet, architecture, how important is it? What does it mean for each of us? A person sees and recognizes in the world around him what is in himself. This means that in architecture he sees those features that are an indivisible part of him. He can find a place in it for deception, ugliness, and hypocrisy. But a person will also see in it a reflection of love, beauty and honesty.
