IAR 221 Unit 3 Summary

EXPLORATIONS

     In Unit 1 (Foundations), we learned about the basic rules of design, which were established millenia ago but still apply today.  In Unit 2 (Reverberations), we thought about what those rules meant and how they might mean something else to another person.  In this unit, Explorations, we saw what happened when people stared making their own rules, or trying not to follow rules at all.  At the core of this departure from the rules--which is still ongoing--were a revival of old styles by means of a World's Fair (specifically the Chicago World's Fair of 1893) and the idea of sustainability.  I believe that the Chicago World's Fair was incredibly beneficial to the field of design despite its Classical elements and that sustainability is the most pressing issue in the design world today.

THE WHITE CITY: THE CHICAGO WORLD'S FAIR OF 1893

      The World's Columbian Exposition, also called the Chicago World's Fair, was held in 1893 in Jackson Park.  Intended to rival the 1889 World's Fair in Paris, the fair was designed primarily by a man named Daniel Burnham, an architect who had helped build the world's first skyscraper.  The fair would become known as "The White City," and for good reason:  Most of the fair's main attraction buildings were covered with a white stucco.  They seemingly lit up at night, when the fair's electric lights came on, awing the visitors with its brilliance.  The buildings themselves, however, were built in a classical style.  This is initially puzzling to many:  Why, during this time of great progress and innovation in American history, would the fair's architects not design buildings that reflected this ideal?  Why would they use such old and familiar structures, when there were so many advances being made in every field?  The answer is deceptively simple:  The fair's designers chose a classical style to invoke a sense of nostalgia among the visitors.  The fair was the celebration of Columbus' discovery of the New World (various issues delayed the fair's opening from its intended date in 1892 to early 1893).  Yes, much progress was being made, but men such as Burnham wanted people to remember where that progress had got its start.  The classical form served to remind people of their roots, as well as to inspire awe.  Of course, not everyone agreed with this design choice--Louis Sullivan believed that the choice to build the fair in a classical style set modern architecture back by decades.  But overall, the classical design of the fair was a major contributing factor to its splendor, and the success of the fair's design inspired the idea of modern city planning.

GOING GREEN:  THE ISSUE OF SUSTAINABILITY

        The issue of sustainability has been around for as long as the idea of design has been around; however, the term "sustainability" is fairly recent.  The first modern attempt at sustainability is Le Corbusier and his idea of a garden on the roof of the home to replace the green space occupied by the house.  Unfortunately, after Le Corbusier's death, designers seemed to stop caring about the land.  The modern architecture that arises after Le Corbusier fails to take into account the environment, placing emphasis on the building itself rather than the ground on which it sits.  In the defense of those designers, they were not necessarily to blame for this.  Architects had been building structures with little regard to the landscape for many, many years, and Le Corbusier was a lone man operating with a radical new idea.  After his death, it was easier for many to go back to the old way of doing things, rather than struggle to create a new earth-friendly design process.  Now, however, the issue of sustainability as noted by Le Corbusier can no longer be ignored.  The data we have is telling us that, unless we change our behaviors, the planet will be severely damaged, possibly beyond repair.  Thus, it is our jobs not only as designers but as human beings to do whatever is possible to keep this from happening.  In our case, this means designing more eco-friendly and sustainable buildings.  Progress is already being made in this area but there is still a long way to go.  We cannot hope to think about designing long-term, permanent structures if we do not first think about how to make them sustainable.

Image Sources
--http://www.albinocrowgallery.com/murals.html
--http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/chicago-world%27s-fair
--http://wsa.wesleyan.edu/2012/03/13/apply-to-be-sustainability-coordinator/

IAR 221 Final Blog Post: Where Are We Now?

OBJECT:  HILL HOUSE CHAIR     I first came across Charles Mackintosh's Hill House chair while doing the chair cards for this class, and immediately became a fan.  Out of all the chairs we studied during the semester, this chair remains my absolute favorite; I even drew this chair as part of my application to the Interior Architecture department at UNCG.  I like this chair because of how its beauty and elegance stems solely from its simple design.  Other chairs, like Michael Thonet's Rocker No. 1, rely on complicated patterns of swooping, swerving lines for their beauty.  But this chair is comprised of nothing but straight lines.  There are a lot of them, yes, but there isn't a single curve to be found anywhere.  The back of the chair is a series of horizontal lines, but because there are so many of them they emphasize the chair's height.  The top of the back throws several short vertical lines into the mix, creating a 5x5 grid that serves as the chair's "crown."  The overall effect of this use of lines makes the chair appear much taller than it is, creating a sense of majesty and awe.  The other beautiful aspect of this chair's design is its use of a single material; in this case, a dark wood.  This creates a sense of unity and harmony about the chair.  There is no clashing of colors, nothing garish or gaudy.  There is simply this one material, which is both attention-grabbing and easy to look at.  I am a big fan of the idea of beauty by simplicity, so this chair instantly became my favorite. 

SPACE:  FALLINGWATER
    While I have never personally been to Fallingwater, it is--and has been--on my list of "Places To See Before I Die."  From everything I have seen and heard about it, it is a gorgeous home and a brilliant design.  Fallingwater is a fantastic example of Frank Lloyd Wright's "Prairie House" movement, with its emphasis on the horizontal, cooperation with the environment around it, and its open floorplan.  The open floorplan is my favorite aspect of these types of homes.  With rooms defined not by walls but by the arrangement of furniture, Fallingwater (and houses like it) gain a versatility not seen in other, traditional houses.  In homes where each room is defined by walls within the house, changing the function of each room (e.g., turning a bedroom into a family room) is a difficult process.  In a house like Fallingwater, however, this process is a simple matter of moving furniture.  The open floorplan is also more intimate, a perfect environment for a family.  In short, Fallingwater as a space is a near-perfect blend of intimacy and comfort.  Its lack of walls and a traditional floorplan, in favor of an open and more innovative one, create a space that is both personal and comforting.

BUILDING:  THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING
     The Empire State Building was not the first skyscraper in the world, but it is easily one of the most recognizable.   Part of, perhaps even most of, the building's identity lies in its Art Deco style, my favorite of the "Art" styles.  Art Deco emphasizes (among other things) the use of metal, the use of lighting, and the vertical, all of which are present in the Empire State Building.  Its height is made possible by a steel frame, which allows for curtain rather than load-bearing walls.  The Empire State Building also makes good use of light:  after the sun sets, floodlights light up the top of the building.  This, combined with the sheer number of offices in use during the evening, turn the building into a pillar of light.  Finally, and perhaps most obviously, is the clear emphasis on the vertical.  The Empire State Building itself was constructed as part of an unofficial competition for title of "world's tallest building," beating 40 Wall Street and the Chrysler Building for the title.  In addition, the long vertical lines on the building's exterior draw the eyes upwards, where the "stacked" top rises into an antennae, which itself reaches incredibly high.  The Empire State Building, which has always been a gorgeous building to me, has only become more elegant after I learned more about its history and the style in which it was built.

PLACE:  THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO
     I remember walking down College Avenue for the very first time, looking around at UNCG's campus, and being in awe of how official everything looked. It sounds stupid now, but I had never really seen a college campus before (not even UNCG...the first time I saw campus was on move-in day).  I never really stopped and put much thought into why everything looked like it did.  I never thought about why the Jackson Library looked like a huge prison, or why there were circles everywhere, or why there were two Walker Avenues on either side of campus.  I didn't think of these things because, at the time, they weren't of any importance to me--I knew where each building was, and how to get there from my dorm.  That was it.  But now I find myself walking around campus and thinking "Those are ionic columns."  Or "Why isn't this connector on a straight axis?"  As I've learned more about the principles of design and how they apply to the real world, I've started seeing those things around me in everyday life.  It has made for much more interesting walks to and from class, that's for sure. 

FINAL THOUGHTS...
--Simple design, simple color scheme, simple style...I am a big fan of the simple.  I believe that the greatest beauty often comes from creative use of simple ideas and techniques.
--I also think it is in our best interests, both as designers and as human beings, to find a way to create environment-friendly designs.  I think we're starting for the first time to really care about "going green," but there is still much more to be done.
--While every design has its merits, Art Deco is arguably the most pleasing and awe-inspiring.  It was started as a purely decorative style, whereas other styles had "messages" associated with them, so it would make perfect sense that Art Deco would be the most eye-pleasing.
--It is impossible to escape the design influences that have come before us.  As much as we might try to fight it, we are all operating in the wake of Palladio, Wright, van der Rohe, Mackintosh, and countless others.  If we can take the best of each design style, and find an innovative way to incorporate them on the landscape, we will truly be successful designers.

Image Sources
--http://www.hiphop-eshop.de/gx/product_info.php?language=en&info=p31_400--designer-stuhl-hill-house--von-charles-rennie-mackintosh.html&
--http://homesinteriordesign.info/fallingwater-interior-design.html
--http://www.poctos.com/live/empire-state-building
--http://www.psncabarrus.org/index.php?page=research

IAR 221 Blog Post 13: A Tragic Failure in the Modernist Movement

     While the Modernist movement brought about a staggering number of architectural innovations and successes, it is important to remember that the best lessons are learned from mistakes.  Not every structure built during the Modernism era was perfect, and while much was learned from these small mistakes, there was often a price associated with them.  Perhaps the most famous--or rather infamous--example is the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Kansas City, Missouri (pictured above).  Begun in 1978 and completed in 1980, the hotel is a massive building and an impressive display of Modernism at work.  The height of the building, the UFO-like disc at the top, the heavy use of glass in its design--all of these things place the Hyatt Regency comfortably in the "modernist" category.  But what could be so dangerous about such a simple design, a design that was by the late 1970's one that had been built and rebuilt all over the world many times?  The problem originates here:

   Inside the hotel were superimposed walkways, that were supposed to be held up by a single long rod with individual bolts supporting each individual walkway.  During construction, however, the design was changed so that several smaller poles, with two bolts at either end, supported the walkways instead:

     This design change, while seemingly harmless, is actually incredibly dangerous.  The nut on the far right, while only rated to support the weight of a single platform, now has to support two platforms.  On the night of 17 July 1981, the support system failed, and the walkways collapsed on top of each other.

     Approximately 114 people were killed instantly, and another 200 received lifelong injuries. The idea of superimposed walkways suspended in midair was "the direct result of the modernist impulse to appear to defy gravity"  (Roth 568).  Eventually the mistake was discovered, and steps were taken to ensure that a disaster such as this would never occur.  And the steps have proven effective:  to this day, the Hyatt Regency disaster remains the worst accident where poor architectural design and engineering were the primary causes.  Yes, the Modernist movement brought many new ideas, technologies, and procedures to life.  But we must not forget that some of these new innovations did not come without a price.

Final Thoughts...
--The Hyatt Regency Hotel disaster of 1981 is the single worst building failure where architectural design and engineering were the sole causes.
--The simple design change from a single rod to multiple smaller rods was the cause of this terrible accident.
--The Modernism movement was not a perfect movement:  it had its share of mistakes and errors; some (like the one presented here) were not without tragic consequences.

Image Sources:
--http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=154955
--http://frogstorm.com/?p=4319
--http://www.cracked.com/article_19623_6-small-math-errors-that-caused-huge-disasters.html  (Item #4)

IAR 221 Blog Post: Good Design for All

     I think the glass skyscraper (seen here as the Lake Shore Drive Apartments in Chicago), designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, is a great example of "good design for all."  They were built approximately 60 years ago, and were the first iteration of the glass skyscraper that is today a prominent building in any city's skyline.  In its short lifespan, the glass tower has become an important, almost necessary, building in cities around the world.  This is due largely to its versatility as a structure.  Van der Rohe built the tower as an apartment complex, but since its construction the glass skyscraper has been used as office buildings and rental offices.  The glass tower is "good design for all" because anyone can use it, for almost any purpose.  It is also, when one learns the history of it, a symbol of unity and togetherness in a very volatile time in history.  Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, the man who designed the tower, was a German architect who came to America in 1937, during Hitler's rise to power.  However, construction on the tower didn't begin until 1948, after WWII had ended.  In a postwar America, Germans still remained, in the minds of many, "the enemy."  So it must have been a surprise when van der Rohe built his impressive tower.  But it was even more of a surprise when, suddenly, people started copying his building.  Despite the fact that van der Rohe was a German, in a time when Germany was for many reasons very looked down upon, people found his work to be of a higher quality than anything else before it.  His imitators were able to look past his nationality and instead focused on his work; they put their biases aside and focused on what he had built.  In a divided world, this is an important step on the path to healing and reunion:  the ability to put one's own personal views and opinions away and focus on the quality of the work; to focus on the thing produced and not the one producing it.  In this way--how van der Rohe's glass tower helped mend a postwar world--the glass skyscraper is truly a "good design for all."  It is both practical as a building and a symbol of acceptance. 

Image Source:
--http://www.aviewoncities.com/buildings/chicago/lakeshoredriveapartments.htm

IAR 221 Reading Response: The Advent of the Glass Tower

     A perfectly normal part of the modern cityscape, the glass tower is a fairly recent architectural invention.  Glass has been around for a long time.  The technology needed to build skyscrapers, while newer, has also been around for quite some time.  But the combination of the two, into an enormous glass structure, did not arise until 1951.  It was then that the Lake Shore Drive Apartments in Chicago (seen above) were completed and ushered in a new era in architecture.  The glass tower quickly became a staple of city planning, and today many buildings in cities all over the world are imitations of this building. 

     The man behind the glass tower was a German-born architect named Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.  Born in 1886, he worked in Germany until he was forced to immigrate to the United States in 1937.  He took a position at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago, and immediately began building large, upward reaching skyscrapers and horizontal, single-space buildings.  But the building he most wanted to build was one that he had dreamed of since his days in Germany:  a glass skyscraper.  In Germany, he was unable to build this structure because of Germany's relatively weak production power.  In the United States, however, he found that industrial power would not be an issue.  All that was left was a suitable location for the building.

     He soon found the perfect site:  a plot of land near Lake Michigan, the body of water that had helped Chicago become one of the most popular cities in America during the 19th century.  The land selected for the building was shaped like a trapezoid, which forced van der Rohe to rethink his tower.  Instead of building a single dominating tower, he instead built two towers in an L-shape to fit in the trapezoid.  The facades of the buildings were also made uniform:  there is no difference between the sides that face the lake and the others.  Soon van der Rohe's towers were copied all over the country and eventually the world, and were used for a variety of purposes.  Van der Rohe built other glass towers throughout his career, but the Lake Shore Apartments remained his crowning achievement and the prototype for glass towers the world over.

Final Thoughts...
--The glass tower has only been in existence for ~50 years, but is already one of the most important buildings in city construction.
--Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, in fleeing The National Socialists of his native Germany, came to America and began building prototypical building, the most influential of which were his Lake Shore Apartment buildings.
--Because they can be used for an incredible number of purposes, glass towers quickly became a staple of architecture, and today stand as an integral part of the modern cityscape.

Image Sources
--http://www.architravel.com/architravel/building/860-880-lake-shore-drive-apartments
--http://vincentloy.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/todays-google-doodle-dedicated-to-mies-van-der-rohe-the-father-of-modern-architecture/
--http://draketoulouse.com/2010/07/12/hey-chicago-bps-already-spilling-into-lake-michigan/

IAR 221 Reading Response: Erich Mendelsohn and German Expressionism

     Erich Mendelsohn was a German architect working in the early 20th century.  This puts him in the same era as great architects such as Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Le Corbusier, but while they worked in the same time, Mendelsohn was the antithesis of the "Cartesian" school of design practiced his colleagues.  Instead of the logical rational architecture being built by van der Rohe and Le Corbusier, Mendelsohn was one of a large group who favored architecture as a medium for expressing the power of emotion.

     Built outside of Berlin just after the end of World War I, the Einstein Tower is one of the German Expressionist's exemplary works.  Erich Mendelsohn, its designer, began sketching the tower during the war, and was commissioned to build the tower as a place for scientists to prove Einstein's theories of relativity.  However, Mendelsohn's plans called for the tower to be built out of concrete, which was hard to find in Germany after the war.  So the foundation was made of concrete, and the rest of the structure was built of brick and covered with a concrete stucco.  To van der Rohe and the like, this change in material could not be made unless the structure itself was redesigned.  But Mendelsohn disagreed, focusing more on the essence of the structure and paying less attention to what it was made of.  As long as the design of the structure remained the same, its physical composition was not an issue. 

     Of course, Mendelsohn was not alone in his way of thinking, just like how Le Corbusier and van der Rohe were not alone in theirs.  In 1914, Paul Scheerbart published an article called "Glass Architecture," in which he commented that people work and live in enclosed spaces.  He believed that in order for culture to move forward, the way people viewed buildings and structures must change; buildings must be more open and allow for natural light to penetrate the building.  Scheerbart and Mendelsohn shared the idea that architecture shaped culture, not the other way around (as van der Rohe and Le Corbusier might believe).

Final Thoughts:
--Erich Mendelsohn believed architecture to be a way of expressing emotion, which resulted in almost sculpture-like designs.
--His Einstein Tower was both a place to house equipment for scientists to test the theory of relativity, and a symbol of the power of the modern world that had been revealed during WWI.
--Fellow Expressionists such as Paul Scheerbart believed that a culture was defined by its architecture, and that for a culture to advance, it must first rethink its architecture and the values therein.

Image Sources:
http://www.kvl.cch.kcl.ac.uk/THEATRON/biographys/bioemendelsohn.html

http://www.3-co.com/Public/Technical%20Information/architecture.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Scheerbart

IAR Blog Post 10

     I believe that the most revolutionary object in the world today is something that most people carry in their pockets:  a cell phone.  And not just any kind of cell phone, but a relatively new phone that has been dubbed the "smart phone."  The smart phone represents a completely new and unique way we gather information, and it has come along fairly recently.  In order to understand how influential this device is, one must first understand what came before it.  First, early humans communicated through primitive languages, both oral and pictorial.  Later, we developed a system of writing, and began putting our thoughts, ideas, and knowledge on paper.  Then, around 1440, the printing press made writings available to scores of people, writings that hadn't previously been available, and suddenly information was something readily available to everyone.  This continued for centuries, with improvements here and there, until the digital age, when the computer allowed users to store information in cyberspace.  Shortly after, the Internet allowed people around the globe to communicate with one another, and nearly all the world's collective knowledge became just a click away.  The smart phone represents the next step in how we send and receive information.  The one thing that all these steps had in common was the need to be in a single place:  early humans needed to be near other humans to gain new knowledge, books could only be read if you had them with you, and even the Internet is useless unless one is at a computer.  The smart phone changes all that by making information available to anyone, anywhere, at any time.  From the time they were first invented until very recently, phones existed solely as a link between two people.  But at some point along the line, someone stopped and said "What if people could access the Internet, and all the information it contains, no matter where they were?"  The cell phone was an obvious choice to serve this purpose:  it was the most sophisticated piece of technology people regularly carried, they used it all the time, and it was easy to carry on one's person.  So several years ago, we were introduced to the smart phone, and now we can access scores of information no matter where we are.  We live in an age where the world's vast stores of knowledge can be reached from anywhere, by any person, at any time.  We as a species have never had such easy access to such a powerful resource at any time in history, and it is clear to even the most casual observer that this power will allow us to move forward in directions and at speeds that have never been dreamed of.

Image source:
--http://www.aftermarketcellular.com/cart/images/pcs/SAMI897SKIN1.gif

IAR RR 10: The Early Work of Frank Lloyd Wright

     Frank Lloyd Wright is arguably the most famous American architect in history.  Wright began his career during the Arts and Crafts movement begun by William Morris in England, and was a major pioneer of the movement in the United States.  While he differed from the English movement in several areas, he was a major believer in the idea that all aspects of a home had to stem from the same idea, that all areas of the house should be part of a whole.  This idea became a sort of calling card for Wright, as all of his works revolved around a central theme. 

     Wright was also an advocate of the Prairie House movement, an school of thought first fully embodied in the Ward Willits House in Illinois.  Wright took advantage of the large lot and built the house outwards from a central chimney.  The public rooms on the main floor of the house--such as the living and dining rooms--are separated only by thin panels, and the house as a whole is inspired by Japanese architecture. 

     But while the Ward Willits House was the first representation of the Prairie House school of thought, Wright's Robie House is the finest.  When he designed the house, Wright "elevated" the house, putting the main living level on the upper floor instead of on the bottom.  Again, Wright emphasizes the horizontal by spreading the house out over a large area.  On the interior, the main living space is one long room divided only by a freestanding fireplace.  In constructing the house, Wright deviated from the English Arts and Crafts movement by using machine-made steel to support the roof (he believed that machines were necessary for production).  He also designed all the furniture in the house, creating a final product that was completely his.  The Robie House became a source of inspiration for European architects, and even today stands as one of the most well-designed homes in the world.

Final Thoughts:
--While he adhered to much of the beliefs of the Arts and Crafts movement, Frank Lloyd Wright (correctly) believed that the advent of machines would become central to design, and encouraged fellow architects to embrace them.
--The Ward Willits House, designed and built 1900-1902, combined traditional Japanese architecture and the concept of outward expansion.
--The Robie House (1908-1909) was designed to create a sense of unity with the earth, utilizing both exaggerated horizontal lines and a natural color scheme to achieve this end.

Image Sources:
http://www.oregonlive.com/hg/index.ssf/2009/06/if_youre_a_fan_of_frank_lloyd.html
http://www.delmars.com/wright/flw8-3.htm
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/377345
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lloyd_Wright

IAR 221: Design Autobiography 2

IAR Reading Response 6: Humanism during the Renaissance

     Humanism was a school of thought that arose during the Renaissance period (14th to 17th century CE).  Its main focus was on rethinking human history from an objective standpoint rather than a religious one.  While it was not a religious movement, it did seek to reconcile this new view of history with the Christian faith.  Humanists emphasized both the greatness of the human race as a whole and the spirit of each individual human being.

     Until the advent of humanism, the large majority of the study of ancient texts was concerned with advancing and supplementing church doctrines.  Humanists were instead more interested in the actual words and ideas of the ancient philosophers than in how they could be used.  The biggest example of this would be Petrarch's climb of Mount Ventoux in 1336.  Saint Augustine had previously warned against taking too much pleasure from the senses, but Petrarch made his climb solely to enjoy the surrounding countryside.  This new-found appreciation for nature became one of the most important contributions of the humanists to the Renaissance, and this appreciation has made a long-lasting impression on many different fields of study, including architecture.

     The most profound effect that humanism had on society was that it made man the center of his universe.  The individual man was given greater emphasis, while still retaining the importance on mankind as a whole.  This sense of greatness and accomplishment led to a desire to reflect that feeling in their architecture.  The Renaissance, therefore, was in part a re-imagining of architecture and building design.

Image sources:
--http://www.humanetwork.org/about_humanism/about_humanism.htm
--http://www.humanismandculture.com/the-call-to-rediscover-humanism/
--http://www.life123.com/arts-culture/architecture-2/renaissance-architecture/european-renaissance-architecture.shtml

IAR 221: Unit I Summary

UNIT ONE: FOUNDATIONS
Week 1:  Object, space, building, place
Week 2:  Circles, groups/groves, stacks
Week 3:  Prototype, archetype, hybrid
Week 4:  Firmness, commodity, delight

     In 1970 a British mathematician named John Conway developed something called "The Game of Life."  The Game of Life is essentially a simulation, which requires only an initial input of data to operate.  From that input, four rules govern the progress of the simulation, and continue for as long as the rules allows.  The Game of Life is perhaps the most famous example of  how a simple set of rules, when applied to various situations, can create incredibly vast and complex works.

     I believe that this same idea--that simple rules can lead to complexity--applies to this first unit of the class.  Every week we were introduced to a new "set" of rules, which applied to things like scale (Week 1), organization (Week 2), development (Week 3), and perception (Week 4).  There were never more than 4 rules per set, so it is safe to say that these rules are fairly simple.  What we have seen during this unit however, in terms of architecture and various structures, has been incredibly diverse.  Underlying all this diversity has been these simple rules that we have learned during the first four weeks of the course.

     It is my opinion that the first unit in this course has introduced us to simple rules that, when applied by different people with varying ideas in unique situations, can and do result in an incredible amount of complexity in design.  Their simplicity makes them easy to remember, which in turn allows us to break down seemingly overcomplicated structures into manageable parts.  These rules allow us to analyze every single structure we have seen and will see, both over the length of the course and in our day-to-day lives.  While there are in fact other circumstances that we must consider when analyzing buildings (things such as political climate, physical environment, and values of the builders), the rules we have been introduced to in Unit I will be invaluable resources when analyzing structures on a deeper level. 

IAR RR 5: The Rise of Islam and Its Effect on the Middle East

     As the second-largest and one of the fastest growing religions in the world, Islam is a powerful force in today's society.  It has 1.5 billion followers (22% of the world's population) in almost every country on Earth.  Because it is so dominant in the modern world, it has affected many different aspects of everyday life.  This impact is not a new development in Islam:  the religion has a rich history going all the way back to its origins during the 6th century CE.

     Islam was founded by a man named Muhammad, who was born in Mecca in 570 CE.  When he was forty years old, he received his first vision, and shortly thereafter began preaching monotheism.  Because the large majority of the Middle East were polytheists, his message was opposed by many.  But for as many people who opposed his teachings, there were just as many who listened to and followed him.  He warred against many Arab tribes, but was eventually successful in conquering Mecca and making it the center of the Islam faith.  He died in 632 CE, but even after his death Muslims were continuing to unite the Middle East, until Islam was the largest political entity in the West.

     The most prominent effect Islam has had on the world--specifically, the world of design and architecture--is the creation of the mosque.  Because Islam's origins lay in the Middle East, away from Greece and its architecture, the structure of the mosque is entirely different from that of the Christian church (which has its roots in Greek architecture).  It too has a rectangular shape; however, the mosque is constructed around its orientation to the city of Mecca, with a qibla wall standing at a right angle to a line towards Mecca.  It is this wall that Muslims face during sermons.  A standard mosque also includes a courtyard at the entrance, and a fountain used for washing the body.  While mosques and churches are similar (rectangular shape, courtyards, etc), the circumstances surrounding their origins have shaped them very differently overall. 

THINGS TO REMEMBER:
--Since its origination in the 6th CE, Islam has become one of the largest and most influential forces on the planet, with nearly a quarter of the world's population adhering to its tenets.
--Because Muhammad died without leaving instructions for a successor, Islam split over how his territory should be ruled.  This divide exists even to this day.
--While a building of worship is not required in Islam, the mosque has evolved as a center of worship for Muslims.  Because Islam originated in the Middle East and not the West (where Greek-inspired architecture is the norm), the mosque and the Christian church are designed very differently and reflect differences in the two faiths.

IMAGE SOURCES:
--https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhropOq5iUDuAmf9DGQLSAH4LTIZ7ow9ogu94wQ9Feu0lbT6LG_MPvbaLUvWiWMCjnEn_z2nbUPp0q87pXK9pbZZtcnMkbfLzgUaN27uEfd1jMN1oWkx_UtLFtFqOZ8j8Av7qn8AG3uudc/s1600/Muslims-praying-.jpg
--http://www.proprofs.com/flashcards/upload/q8793112.jpg
--http://americanvision.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Dome_of_Rock.jpg

IAR RR 4: The Hagia Sophia as a Monument to Justinian

     Little is known about the original Hagia Sophia, as it was damaged during the reign of Emperor Justinian.  What is known, however, is that it has always been one of the most impressive structures in Western architecture.  Emperor Justinian decided that its reconstruction would serve as a monument to his victory over the rebellion of 532 CE.  And, because this would be a lasting symbol of his triumph, he made sure it would be a structure unlike any other.  Even to this day, this holds true--the Hagia Sophia is one of the most unique and awe-inspiring buildings in the world.

     To make sure that the Hagia Sophia was an unrivaled marvel of architecture, he employed two philosophers--Anthemios and Isidoros, famous for their work in theoretical geometry--to concieve of plans for the new church.  The result was a centralized and axial building unlike anything that had been seen before.  It was topped with a golden dome, which also had to be rebuilt after an earthquake in 557 CE.  The interior was decorated with multiple mosaics made of marble from throughout the Byzantine Empire.  It also made use of recycled materials from non-Christian temples; this was a common building practice of the day, but it was also a symbolic domination of the old "pagan" religions.

     The Hagia Sophia is both a physical and symbolic representation of Justinian's triumphant rule.  As a building, it is unmatched anywhere in the world, ancient or modern.  It is also a strongly symbolic representation of Christianity over the old ways, and of the beginnings of the union of church and state (in this case, the Byzantine Empire). 

Things to Remember:
--  Dedicated by Constantine in 360 CE, but damaged during uprisings in 532 CE.
--  Designed not by master builders, but by two philosophers who were experts in theoretical physics and geometry.
--  Seen as a physical representation of the universe:  the cube (earth) topped by the dome (heaven).

Image Sources:
--http://www.sacred-destinations.com/turkey/istanbul-hagia-sophia
--http://outlookturkey.com/archives/tag/hagia-sophia
--http://www.teslasociety.com/hagiasophia.htm

Blog Post 3: Xianyang and the Acropolis

     I believe that, while there are similarities between the Xianyang Palace and the Acropolis, they are more different than they are alike.  This conclusion is evident when looking at three different aspects:  the building's purpose, how the building was seen by the common people, and the building itself.

     The Xianyang palace was built as that--a palace.  It was meant to be a representation of the emperor's power and influence; this is reflected in the fact that the palace's rooms was filled with wealth.  It is also apparent in the so-called "Terracotta Army" that stands below the palace.  This army faces south, where the emperor's enemies would have been located when the palace was built.  These two facts--the wealth-filled rooms and the "army"--indicate that the palace was meant to intimidate.  The Acropolis, however, was not intimidating but inviting.  It was a place of worship, built not for any emperor but for the Greek gods themselves.  The Acropolis was a welcoming place, meant more for the Athenians themselves than for any outsider.

     In the same way, the Acropolis was revered by its own people, but in its approachability.  Every four years a massive procession involving all Athenians made its way to the Acropolis, where there was a great festival to the gods.  Despite its size, the Athenians did not fear the Acropolis.  On the other hand, the Xianyang palace was only used by the emperor and his staff--common people had no reason to ever enter it.  Its reverence stemmed from its "untouchability," its distance from the everyday man.

     Finally, the buildings themselves are two completely different structures.  The Acropolis is very open dotted with buildings, each of which was constructed by a different person at a different time for a different purpose.  The Xianyang palace is not like this at all--it is one large building, built at one time and overseen by one person, for the purpose of serving the emperor's needs.  Thus, it is obvious to even the most casual observer that, while both structures are impressive, they are polar opposites of one another.

Reading Response 3: The Colosseum as a Symbol of Rome

       The Colosseum represents one of the most perfectly planned, supervised, and constructed buildings in history.  Despite being built in the first century C.E., it still remains largely intact, and might still be complete if it weren't for earthquakes in 1231 and 1349.  It was a powerful cultural symbol of the Roman Empire during its height, and even today remains one of the most easily recognizable structures in the world. 

     The Colosseum, while not the first theater to be built in Rome, was in fact the first theater built as a freestanding object.  It could hold fifty thousand spectators, who would gather to watch various events.  The large capacity was possible because of the Roman's innovative idea to combine two smaller, half-circle theaters to form one large oval-shaped space that could host multiple events.  The Colosseum is most famous for hosting gladitorial fights, but it also hosted the exhibitions of wild animals, a variety of games,and public punishments.  The skill and precision that went into the Colosseum's construction is apparent in multiple aspects of the historical and modern record.

     The name of the Colosseum's chief architect is now unknown, but he must have been very famous in his day.  This is because the Colosseum was being constructed by multiple work crews in several areas and over a long span of time--it would take a master architect and supervisor to successfully coordinate such an effort.  The Colosseum itself is an incredible structure, both in size and in detail.  It is divided into four stories:  the first three each utilize a specific style of column (Doric, Ionic, or Corinthian), while the fourth is adorned with brackets that allowed for awnings to be stretched over the audience.  However, while these columns seem to be more ornamental than structural in purpose, the truth is in fact the opposite.  The columns bear much more weight than is immediately obvious, while the vaults bear much less.  This is an incredibly risky, yet ultimately powerful, construction choice that helps make the Colosseum that much more impressive.

Some final thoughts:
--  Built in 80 C.E. and remains standing, a clear indicator of well-planned and executed construction.
--  Host to many different events, the last of which (public punishments) was not ended until the 8th century.
--  An awe-inspiring structure that perfectly balances function and beauty, the Colosseum remains an impressive cultural icon.

Image sources:
--http://www.sacred-destinations.com/italy/rome-colosseum
--http://www.legionxxiv.org/colosseum/
--http://www.aboutroma.com/colosseum.html

IAR RR 2: The Rise and Fall of Babylon and Its Impact on Modern Life

IAR Blog Post 2

QUESTION:  DO ENVIRONMENTS INFLUENCE RITUALS, OR DO RITUALS INFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTS?

ANSWER:  Mesopotamians and Egyptians, despite being thousands of miles apart, were similar in their ritual beliefs.  Both had extensive pantheons, and both believed that food was necessary not only for humans, but for their gods as well.  Thus, both societies sacrificed food to their respective gods.  However, there is a striking difference between the food that was sacrificed.  Egyptians were able to hunt animals such as various birds, antelopes, and gazelle; therefore, their sacrifices included much more meat and animals.  However, Mesopotamians did not have the same luxury, due to the scarcity of animals in their region--their food sacrifices consisted much more of crops and breads.  This indicates that the environment influences the ritual:  the presence or scarcity of meat was reflected in the Egyptians' and Mesopotamians' sacrifices, respectively.  Does this mean that rituals have no influence on the environment?  The answer, quite simply, is no.

     Stonehenge supports the idea that rituals influence environments.  While it is not the only such structure in England, it certainly stands out, and its very presence is perplexing.  The stones that remains today came from a quarry 30 kilometers (18.5 miles) away, and since the average weight the stones is 26 tons, a great effort must have been put into transporting them.  Since it is highly unlikely that such energy would be expended on something insignificant, we must assume that there was some great purpose to Stongehenge's creation.  The general consensus is that Stonehenge is a ritual site, but what these rituals might have been has been lost to time.  Thus, the society that built Stonehenge did so because of powerful ritual beliefs.  They modified their environment to meet their rituals; therefore, the belief that rituals influence environment also holds true.

     The only conclusion we can draw, therefore, is that both statements are true.  Both the environment and the ritual influence each other equally, in a symbiotic relationship where neither aspect has the upper hand.

IAR In-Class Assignment: Circles, Groups, Stacks

 

     The circle that I chose for this assignment is a fountain on the High Point University campus.  I picked this because this fountain is the first structure one encounters when one gets on campus.  Because circles are a representation of equality, the circular fountain symbolizes equality in education--that all students, no matter what their background, are equal, and the fountain's placement at the entrance to campus indicates that this is the school's most important belief.

     My dorm building, Reynolds, serves as my choice of group.  Tight-knit groups have always been an integral part of human society, and this is no different in today's day and age.  This is reflected in this building, in which approximately 350 people live in very close quarters.  The close proximity of the residents promotes new relationships, which has and always will be important in modern civilization.

     I chose the Jackson Library to serve as my stack for this assignment.  The library consists of floors of books, each stacked on top of each other to form a massive structure that exists solely as a house for knowledge.  This enormous library is filled with most, if not all, the knowledge that humans have acquired over the centuries.

     I think these three design themes have survived for so long because they are simple representations of the most important aspects of human life.  The circle is a physical representation of belief systems:  how there is one incredibly important thing (for example, a god), and many lesser yet equal things (humans, subservient to the god).  The groups are examples of human society--from the days when people huddled around campfires, to today when college students live in such tight quarters, closeness has always been a staple of civilization.  Thus, groups are a reflection of that closeness that makes civilization possible.  Finally, stacks have a two-fold meaning.  Gathered resources were stacked in order to keep better track of them; an architectural stack is an echo of this.  Secondly, a stack can be seen as a way of reaching towards the sky, which is where many early societies believed their gods resided.  Thus, a stack was an attempt to be closer to the gods, and while this idea has died out over time, the stack remains as a symbol of power and authority.

IAR 221 Reading Response 1

IAR 221: Design Autobiography 1

     As you can (hopefully) see, my name is Robert Harrison Prince, and this is my first post for IAR 221.  Our first assignment is to "post an image of yourself along with a meaningful, well-designed object that tells something about you as a designer or an appreciator of design."

     The object I decided to write about is my Moleskine pocket planner.  It may not seem like much to some people, but to me this notebook is a life-saver.  I got it back in early December, to help me keep organized and on top of all the stuff I have to do.  Again, to some of you that might not be a big deal but I've always been something of a procrastinator, so it's important that I keep a detailed schedule.  But enough backstory.

     The reason I chose this object is because, to me, it symbolizes order and organization.  It is first and foremost a weekly calendar, a tool that proves incredibly useful to someone as disorganized as I.  It is small, easily carried in one's pocket. It is a simple shade of blue--no fancy patterns, no bright colors, nothing that grabs the attention of an onlooker.  Just a dark shade of blue.  Despite having only been in use since late December, it is well worn, with many of the pages having already been written on.  It is well-constructed, sturdy, and reliable.  It is, essentially, a physical representation of myself.  I am organized, or at least trying very hard to be.  I am on the smaller side, and do not stand out in a crowd.  Despite being only nineteen years old I have a fair amount of life experience (that's what I get for having a father in the Air Force).  And, last but certainly not least, I am reliable.  Trustworthy.  Always available to lend a helping hand.

     This notebook and I are incredibly similar, but only to someone who knows me very well.  To a total stranger, this notebook is something else entirely.  It can be seen as a sign of weakness, I imagine.  "He needs a notebook to help him stay organized?" someone might say to themselves.  They might see the book as a crutch, as an extension of a disorganized mind.  One might look at this notebook and wonder exactly how much I have to deal with on a daily basis that I feel the need to carry a planner with me at all times to manage it.  Some might see it as a hindrance--it takes up an entire pocket, and a stranger might wonder if it is worth carrying around all day long.  "Just use the calendar on your phone," one could say.  "It would be much more efficient to do that than to use that thing."  And they're probably right.  But I'm old-fashioned that way.

     And that is perhaps the most noticeable characteristic of this notebook--it is old-fashioned.  Nowadays, everyone has their schedule with them on their phones or their laptops or their PDAs.  And while I do have my schedule on my computer as well, my notebook is my primary resource for my schedule.  This is highly unusual, and very "yesterday".  People could have a hard time understanding why I feel the need to rely on such "old" technology.  And I don't think I could even explain it to them.  The notebook is just more suited for me.  It fits me.  It's much easier to use and faster and more reliable than anything I've come across.  It simply works.

     That is perhaps the most important reason I chose this planner as my object for this design autobiography:  it works.  It may be outdated, or old-fashioned, or even obsolete.  But at the end of the day, when my phone and my computer are dead and I have no way to charge them, the book is there.  When the Internet is down and I have no way of looking at my syllabi to see what I have going on in class this week, the book lets me know.  It takes little effort to prepare and maintain, and that effort goes a long way.  And, when it's all said and done, that's what the book and I truly have in common:  we are both solid.  No matter what happens, we are willing and able to get the job done.