| |
A
Theory of Architecture, by Nikos
A. Salingaros.
Professor of mathematics, urbanist
and architectural theorist Nikos Salingaros is one of a
group of thinkers, based around the writings of Christopher
Alexander, espousing the qualities of traditional architecture
and urbanism, and therefore countering most contemporary
movements in the same, which he has strongly criticized
in the past. These past critiques, collected in 2004's Anti-Architecture
and Deconstruction, lacked alternatives, positive
examples to what Salingaros sees as destructive tendencies
within the architectural profession foisted upon the public
sphere. In his latest book, Professor Salingaros takes that
positive stance, using mathematics and science as a framework
for creating an architectural theory that students and practitioners
can apply to projects great and small, though it is a theory
tempered by the same criticisms of contemporary architecture
and the deconstructivist strain.
The book is comprised of twelve essays
spanning over ten years that are culled from various academic
and professional journals, like Journal
of Architectural and Planning Research and Nexus
Network Journal. Though not explicit, the book
is organized into roughly three general areas, from beginning
to end: scientific views on architecture, visual patterning
in architecture, and arguments against contemporary (i.e.
Modernist in origin) architecture. This last is what Salingaros
is known for in architectural circles, though its location
at the end of the book seems to be misplaced, as these arguments
appear to justify the content of the rest of the book. Regardless,
the essays can be read in any order, individually or as
a whole; what pervades throughout -- and can be seen as
the first of three critiques of Salingaros's theory presented
here -- is its limitation to the visual, in particular surfaces,
making for a theory focused on aesthetics but ignoring the
context of architecture, be it political, economical, or
social.
Considerations throughout include
contrast, order, symmetry, and hierarchy, recalling traditional
architecture, which the author admits buildings designed
per his theory would resemble. Herein lies the second critique:
does the outcome merely resemble traditional architecture
or does the theory attempt to replicate traditional architecture,
aided by mathematics and a scientific, objective justification
for it? Historical precedent is strong in the work of Alexander,
Salingaros, and others, so it is not off base to contend
that the latter is true.
The third, and last, critique of
his theory is not the application of science and math to
architecture and its process -- a claim Salingaros explains
thoroughly, though not necessarily convincingly enough to
sway readers who accept if art and intuition have a place
in architecture -- but the manner in which it is
done. One example is the author's application of entropy,
the second
law of thermodynamics, which he translates as simply
disorder, a justification for symmetry and alignment in
the arrangement of buildings and the architectural elements
thereof. But if one takes the law a bit more literally,
then it points towards the ways in which buildings use energy,
an argument more aligned with sustainability than aesthetics.
Is Salingaros's theory, perhaps inadvertently, asserting
that the architect's role is limited to merely aesthetics,
a traditional view that has changed in the last two centuries?
It is an important question at a time when architects are
seen to play a role in aiding global warming, and therefore
to play a role in reversing it or slowing it down.
Even with these three critiques,
it must be said that some of the essays are successful in
placing the human experience above all, something severely
deficient from architectural theory today. While Salingaros's
theory is incomplete, as it fails to address the complex
issues that are today typically lumped under sustainability
(limiting energy use, preserving biodiversity, respecting
natural ecosystems), he has presented something that attempts
to place architectural theory where it belongs: in the human
experience of space and place, rather than in formal novelty
and invention.
or 
|
