Tectonics and Detail

These articles were quite different from all the ones that preceded them. Before, all the articles were about grand, overarching architectural theory. This, by contrast, was about the smallest unit of architecture, the detail. Despite this, the writers elevated the detail to extreme importance, treating it as the most important part of a design. To a great extent, I believe they are correct to do so. In a survey of the accepted great architects of past and present, nearly all are highly proficient if not masterful at the art of the detail. Details are certainly more noticeable in a design than the systems architects use to make buildings supposedly coherent. You could even say that detail architects design for the sake of the inhabitants, while some of the "starchitects" currently practicing design for the photographers and magazines.

An unfortunate truth is that details have been quite neglected in our design classes at school. This is not on purpose, exactly. I'm sure you wouldn't find a single one of our design professors who thought they were unimportant. However, as a simple question of time, details necessarily get left out because we don't have a chance to resolve them. Furthermore, they don't really matter in our reviews, because the models and drawings we show are typically not at a large enough scale for details to be visible anyway. I'm afraid this could be what leads some architecture to look like massively expanded models, with little or nothing to provide fine visual interest, and no real engagement at the human scale.

All of this said, I am not willing to credit everything in the articles. For example, Semper's discussion of the wall as an evolution of the carpet seems arguable even on a historical basis. More importantly though, I don't believe for a minute that there is a cultural memory of "carpet walls" that should be taken into account when designing walls. I think he has gotten lost in his own metaphor and carried it beyond any possible meaning.

I also don't believe the reasons Frampton gives for the justification of architectural detail. First off, I'm distrustful any time someone speaks of "justifying" design. Only bad architecture needs justification. Good architecture justifies itself. In any case, the visible architectural detail is not the structural imperative that Frampton describes it as. In most cases there are many simpler ways to make a joint function. A good detail is expressive and, in a sense, artistic. It is not concerned first and foremost with construction, even when it is trying to express construction. Buildings that show their structure are invariably more difficult and expensive to build due to the work required to make the exposed structure aesthetic.

This doesn't mean that details are unjustified, it merely means that when they're done well they need no outside justification. The reason they are so rarely challenged, far from their constructional necessity, is that they are small. If you don't like one, you can simply not look at it. In criticism, it is extremely time-consuming to form and state an opinion about every detail, so they are generally given a pass. Finally, in my opinion, a client probably will not have time to address every detail in a project. Essentially, details, good and bad, usually slip through the cracks and are never critiqued. In the end, though, I would say that even a badly detailed building will in most cases be better than an undetailed building. Even a bad detail will still add visual interest, human scale, and a sense of craft, that cannot help but improve a project.