detail

I appreciate and agree with most said on the topic of details and tectonics. Semper says it best when commenting on if we should decide to again build Greek temples: “That would be a terrible misfortune!” I agree that architecture should serve its purpose and a wall should be a wall. But then what makes good architecture? This makes architects unnecessary if people just build what they need. All we would need is builders. Perhaps the answer is in the details. How things connect and how things are made. I suppose there is a reason architects look at the vernacular and draw so much meaning and use out of it. However, an architect can not just build the vernacular. There is “the need of the return of the architectural detail to [the] guiding concept.” I really agree with Frascari in seeing the detail as the generator of meaning: “The fertile detail can also be seen as an aesthetic expression of structure and use” and that a “detail or joint can impose its order on the whole.” Many of the articles go back and reference Scarpa and Wright. Both of which have amazing details, but their details go beyond just that of joinery. Details most certainly influence the design as a whole and respect the materials used. However, in this day and age, their styles and attention to detail could possibly be seen as excessive and over ornamented. An attention to materiality and detail is something lacking in today’s architecture which is dominated by big box buildings with faux façades, and a return to this mindset could be beneficial for the role of architects. However, it needs to be done in a manner appropriate to current materials and design practices.