Theory of Composition

I found it interesting that Colin Rowe and Robert Slutzky were able to collect a range of building examples throughout history and compare and contrast there phenomenal and literal transparencies. There is obviously rich and tedious layers of phenomenal transparent patterns that are described in this essay, yet I would have to agree that with others below that the experiential qualities and maybe even the literal transparencies in architecture are more important for the occupant or visitor to the building. Rem Koolhaas came to my mind when thinking about literal transparencies in contemporary architecture where one can view many different programs at once and get a sense of the layering and intersection of space. I find this type of experience to be more valuable in architecture than looking at a facade of a building and trying to break down the intricacies of the structural system versus the mullions, etc. I mean I guess if the building was in a very dense urban environment and it was all about the facade than that is where the details and real composition lies and ultimately thats what makes the overall character of the building. I understand how in classical renaissance and medieval architecture, the idea of phenomenal transparency is intriguing because that is where the creativity and innovation lies since there are such strict rules to follow. In modern architecture, I would favor form, materiality and relationship of program which seems closer to literal transparency.

I think in cubist art and visual art in general, phenomenal transparency can be explored greatly and with a specific idea in mind. Although the 2D art form is limiting to the viewer, the artist is able to explore a variety of compositions in a series of pieces. The viewer can than begin to dissect the underlying forms in the painting that make up the phenomenal or literal transparency.