Reading Comprehension 5

Point esay: Alternatives

Reading Comprehension 4

Point: Foundations

Reading Comprehension 3

[1]

Amiens-Salisbury

It is important to start with a spatial analysis of Amiens and Salisbury Cathedral in order to compare one another in terms of cohesion. What is obvious and significant of these to cathedrals and most of Gothic Cathedrals is that they are organized in a crucifix shape ( Latin cross). Another feature is that cathedrals especially Amiens and Salisbury cathedrals are big on their volume and represent power to a location. While Amiens is an initial point on urban development after a disastrous fire destruction of almost entire city to become a major centre of Christian France, Salisbury cathedral is somewhat more rural but not inferior to its possessive monumentality. Both of the cathedrals are set to be dominant on a region by their vertical expansion, a highest point to heaven. Amiens nave is unique with its monochromatic labyrinth on a marble which starts at the center and expands in a broken radial direction. Both of the cathedrals took a considerable time to build except that Salisbury cathedral was build under one generation of continuous building whereas Amiens cathedral took over to centuries to be built and facing a lot of structural difficulties, particularly around the nave that may have resulted to a fatal collision and collapse.

Amiens-Cologne

The fact that renaissance period tried to overlap the medieval period and underrating its innovative techniques made its impact over the times until late centuries when critics and artists discovered a blossom of true values especially on the architecture field of studies. The difficulties were present more than ever; stacking couldn’t be more dangerous with all of those flexible tall columns. Serial vaults even though enforced in axial direction, transversal direction those were loaded with a big question mark on top.

We can say about Amiens Cathedral that it is composure of volumes and braces on its entire structure. Flying buttresses were never seen before and even nowadays we see a lot of improvisation. It is complex structure with a lot of components only to achieve light and bring it inside and dismantle the renaissance replica calling it a dark age.  At Cologne cathedral we see similar effects and its transcended from Amiens including symmetrical towers, flying buttresses and most notably the identical cross shaped fundament based on which it rises above the city. Even though towers do not match completely from the two cathedrals there is a similarity on a concept, a guardian to a powerful house of God. If it would not be a distinction of towers on both cathedrals, people would easily confuse those two without having a deep analytical approach. As for the technique I would doubt to be a difference between those two cathedrals.

Amiens-Duomo

Each of the cathedrals speaks a different language in design but not in difficulties these two cathedrals face in trying to articulate syntax in order to bring a fine artistic language.

It is known that both cathedrals took lifetimes to be built and completed, they both represent an era that seem to be vanished overtime to be back with all their mysteries. Amiens had two towers, flying buttresses, labyrinth nave, that are unidentified at Duomo. On the other hand Duomo even though it is Latin cross on the floor plan, it employs a different approach in radiating its monumentality. It has a single tower (Bell tower), octagonal dome on base, geometrical decoration on the façade, etc.  

Amiens dealt with tying stacked composures having solid knots whereas Duomo dealt with precision of stacking. Amiens tried to correct itself over the time while Duomo after it was built, all it needed was a dome, and it was a one trick thing until a magician came to the podium. It took a long time to bring the right effort from a brave designer like Brunelleschi after previous several attempts done by many other designers that cost lives and money to Medici Family. After all one thing can be said, “The sunset in Florence and the cupola at Santa Maria del Fiore, a piece of heaven on earth”- unknown.   

[2] 

Roth described on how a medieval house would be organized and gave a clear imagery of a communal space and it would make sense even though the image from A Medieval Home Companion is not so expressive. We can see a woman that is engaged to her domestic commitment supposedly on a kitchen. Based on the reading of medieval domestic architecture, Roth explains how kitchen is located on the backside of the house which was axially stretched rectangle in shape, connected by a length wide hall borderd by an exterior side wall that makes a connection of other parts of the house. Seen from an image there is a doorway that may lead to other parts of the house or backyard that was planted with fruit trees and vines, herbs, flowers, etc.. The kitchen was surrounded by several fireplaces used for cooking purposes. There was a scullery outside the kitchen as well.  

Reading Comprehension 2

[1] Hersey’s understanding is quite impressive, his assumption about temples origin derived from rituals that were constipated around sacred tree which were decorated with a scarified warriors remainins like weapons, bones, horn, relics, etc. What we see on a temple is a numerous decorative elements like Metope especially the ones in Doric Frieze of Parthenon fragmenting war between Centaurs and Lapiths, last ones were pre-Hellenic people that lived in Thessaly. Greeks has been associated with civilized Lapiths on a war against Persians which were seen as barbarians-Centaurs. In this case those fragments may portray heroic scarifying of a Greek warrior. Another aspect is columns that were applied in Doric order that symbolizes a virtue of a man, is approximately of a Lapith man proportion.

[2] McCauley in humorous way expresses some imaginary history of the future (year 4022) with his intention to describe problems that some archeologists and journalists face when they encounter archeological facts. He writes in narrating way as an archeologist discovers a complex (motel) and the funny way how archeologist indicates element of an apartment and confuses those with a much older elements in pre-history. This is quite similar to most of undesired moments of trying to find information on internet and using it as a primarily source. Wrong or inadequate images, short and wrong description are mostly found on internet sources. It results in poor work and achieving a better knowledge.

[3] Temple of Queen Hatshepsut is a mortuary building like other pharaohs but as a architectural building it differs from the rest. It is built partially in a rock (mountain) which is not common to pyramids of other pharaohs; it deviates from traditional way of baring the tomb that used to be epicenter of the whole complex. It doesn’t have the physical majesty, or pre-dominance of pyramids, but is as impressive in terms of a cultural and ceremonial building. First element that is encountered is long ramps that will lead up to the three levels of terraces that are manifested by colonnades in linear expansion, column, a unit that is not encountered in “masculine” mortuary structures and it may emphasis a much flexible and sensible element than mass megalithic structures at pyramids. Another thought that contribute to diversity between feminism and masculinity is that Limestone was used as material instead of sandstone which was used for other buildings describing smooth surface for feminism and. rough texture for masculine.

[4] Similarity exists as much as diversity in both cultures and principles of building. The effect of monumentality is applied in both civilizations when it comes to sacral (sacred) architecture. Colorful murals on interior part is well emphasized, treatment of columns looks like there is strong connection between two civilization as much as spatial organization and best example is the comparison of egyptian hypostyle hall and Portico of Megaron. Columns treated in northwest side at Temple of Queen Hatshepsut serves as prototype of Doric column or columns from Temple of Obo (Egypt} comparing with Corinthian column at Zeus Temple in Athens with a slight distinction on their capitals of column, speculating that Egyptian column was an influence on Greek column. Difference exist in the way cities are organized which is related more to the social and cultural aspect. Temples even though had similar purpose, a slight relation in spatial organization there was a different approach on exterior aspect. Difference consist at enclosure of the temple in Grece it is manifested proportionally by columns on 4 sides whereas in Egypt temples are enclosed by walls at some cases, and a height difference is another element.

[5] This section may be addressed to importance and the impact that both section have regarding to early Egyptian era. Tomb architecture was the main priority and it proved to be the significant element that captured so many disciplines including art and craft. Because of the monopolized economy where all the material credits were addressed to a single person, Pharaoh, there was a clear idea where all the richness is going to end. Just to mention all the gold that was used only for the sarcophagi (Tutankhamun's tomb). That in perception can look pretty heavy. Egyptian furniture is quite similar to what we have nowadays but unproportional to those we have and there is a lack of craftsmanship. Furniture was made of wood mainly and highly decorated.

[6] Gender unequality was known to be a common phenomenon for humankind until last century, its interesting to know that  it was pretty common for ancient time. What is portrayed on the two pictures is that there is a disproportional relation between a man and a woman, a rough separation of roles in a family unit. One that possess authority, in this case it is a man who orders a woman to serve for a resting mans' needs. In one of a pictures, I can easily assume that it may portrays bigamy. However, there is a quite distinct situation that proves the poverty of a man. 

Theory Unit

One asks of architecture and there may be million emotional expressions from tangible to invisible, from solid to fluid, from whisper to cacophony. There should be a disinterested contemplation or better saying a clinical argumentation on what architecture is and what does it represents. What does architecture encompass, is it something that must attract us or is it an ugly necessity? History is a great lesson on how architecture has evolved. It is architecture nowadays, it was architecture back then and, most important thing is that there is a connection through time so, architecture is both art and science.

Prior to general understanding of architectural values, distinction of architectural values, there is a complex and diverse evaluation on what essentially those values rely on. How it is perceived, on what condition or context? Is there a measurement to evaluate all the characteristics of the building? According to R.Barthes, ”There exists a normally hidden set of rules, codes, and conventions through which meanings particular to specific social groups are made.” I can allude there is not a universal distinction as there can not be a unifying set of rules, codes and conventions.

Commodity, firmness and delight are three elements of how architecture is organized, three components that confirm that architecture is both art and science. Commodity is accepted wide as a component that has to deal with practicality of any object that serves as a function part of a building. It can be a group of elements that altogether convey an uninterrupted visible sight, a path on which we fundamentally rely as an ordinary action takes place. “A house is a machine for living in”- Le Corbusier. It is understood that a building without a life in it is simple an ornament if it has geometrical order, if not then it’s a sculpture.
Firmness is a path that we unconsciously rely as action takes place; it’s the strength of an order. As a perception it’s a rigid attitude when we approach a building on every sequence of our movement. Buildings manifested by a bigger volume of elements are considered firm in both aspect but it can not be a precedent of delusional thought for a flexible forms of structures. Through time, deliberation has improved in combining commodity and firmness. Perceptual structure is quite distinct from Physical structure. In so many high-rise buildings, we se structures of glass and sub-structures such as concrete floors and in some cases we see only glass, we may assume that a glass structure can not hold a concrete structure and it is actually right. It is not a glass that holds the weight of concrete, structures like columns with few exceptions on walls are not far away from glass but are deeper to see those from outside.
Delight is the third but nevertheless a crucial element in architecture. It is a composition of forms and shapes, structures and décor-a composition of spaces that captures neutrality in essence. It should be an environment where harmony of all components dominates among all. It requires a master of both understanding the space and a highly skill developed on crafting and decorating.