I definitely agree with Gregotti, Frascari and Frampton that details make up the particular architectural language and show how the project was constructed and carried out. First off details can be compared to ornament in classical architecture, yet details are the minimal essence of the tectonics in architecture. I think it takes time for one to really appreciate the significance in details and how specific joints are composed together. After practicing architecture or even studying design for a while, you can approach a building and begin to identify a hierarchy of structural details as well as transitions of materiality and the joint work involved in building the building. Technology, as Frascari said, plays a large part in details too, where certain construction methods will evolve and therefore can be identified in a project.
The authors suggested that in contemporary architecture, details have been lost and are not accounted for like they were with Mies, Kahn, and Scarpa. I think that many kind of commercialized architects have lost this aspect in detailing properly because the craft in drawing and communicating these ideas takes great time and skill which can be forgotten or dismissed when rushed. Renzo Piano, Patkau architects and more have stayed loyal to detailing properly and you can see it right away in their buildings.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment