Architecture Vs Building by Eyuel Kokeb - Theory of Architecture
Architecture Vs Building by Eyuel Kokeb - Theory of Architecture
Architecture Vs Building by Eyuel Kokeb - Theory of Architecture
22
Nov
Bahir Dar University Architecture Department
INTRODUCTION
“Is a birds nest a w ork of Architecture?”, This was the first question that was
asked on a lecture on our first year. The way in which a bird builds its nest, seem-
ingly without instruction, thought, or experience, has been repeatedly brought
forward as a convincing proof of blind infallible instinct governing it in its task.
No more popular proof has been brought forward by the supporters of the blind
instinct theory than that of bird-architecture. It is thought a wonderful thing
for a bird to build a nest without any instruction, or without ever seeing a nest
typical of its species ( Bird Architceture, 1885 ). Although that may still hold true,
the word INSTICT still stands to deny the fact that this makes the structure archi-
tecture. Architecture has many definitions. But none of them include the term
instinct or unconscious planning in it. The thing that makes a birds nest and
a buillding different is that, birds or any other orgnanism are genetically pro-
grammed to do a certain routine which results in a nest or a certain structure.
This cannot be called Architecture as one needs to know what it is that they are
doing while designing. There is a certain freedom to understand and do things
differently when it comes to this subject. Now let us go even deeper and ask
what if the process of designing was conscious but was of a different exper-
tise, for example a buillding designed by an engineer or any other field with
the exception of the architectural field. Can that be referred to as architecture ?
THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE
Bahir Dar University Architecture Department
THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE
Bahir Dar University Architecture Department
conscious and also care more about the feel of the space which
sometimes allows the architect to break certain rules of it. The ar-
chitect follows his own ideology and defines and invents and inno-
vates space and tries to convey that ideology to the users. That is
my take on the differences between a work of architecture and a
certain building. Of course one can disagree but that is th beauty
of architecture. We all have a certain philosophy of what it is and
how it should be implemented which makes the discourse result-
ing from the indifference really interesting. But i still stand by my
statement of what it is not which i have yet to be proven wrong.
Giving Meaning
Bert Bielefeld, the editor of the book Basic Design Ideas states that
“Every design begins with a search for an idea or for an intuitive un-
derstanding of how an assignment should be solved. This design
idea is the start of a long journey on which the designer defines the
idea more precisely, modifies it, adds details and repeatedly rejects
results.” This gives you a comprehensive look into the process of giv-
ing meaning. Like most things in architecture there is no one way of
describing it. But it is most certainly not just randomly arranging the
spaces. Like the quote previoulsy described said it is a long journey
in which architects search the identity of the buildings they are de-
signing. Let us see a case building to get a more detailed look.
THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE
Bahir Dar University Architecture Department
Kunsthaus Bregenz
by Peter Zumthor
THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE
Bahir Dar University Architecture Department
THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE
Bahir Dar University Architecture Department
CONCLUSION
So in conclusion, Architecture is the soul of the building and is the further ex-
emplification of th personality, philosophy or even methodology of the architect.
Each architect has their own philosophy and methods on what architecture is and
how it should be done, creating the need for the creation of theories which still,
to this day have no definitive definition. A piece of architecture whethher you like
it or not creates a certain discourse between the viewers allowing you to under-
stamd the building and feel its spaces. But a building has none of these qualities.
It is simply there to accomodate, it has no other motive. But an archiect conveys
THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE