introduction to disertatie

8/10/2019 Introduction to Disertatie

1/33

Introduction to Pattern Language

Using the work of Christopher Alexander and Nikos Salingaros, I present a paper that want discuss the philosophical

structure that are behind The Pattern Language (PL). Through a simple way Ill show you the intimate connection

existing among the PL and other cultural aspect like painting as well as the fractal geometry. I have referred my

philosophical approach especially to the work of Oswald Spengler and his work Der Untergang des Abendlandes

Philosophical aspect

Before introducing the essential elements to be exposed by Salingaros I would like todevote our attention, even though in a concise way, to the philosophical structure whichhas generatedAlexandersresearch on Pattern Language [1].The structure that can be individuated within the Pattern Language is the result of aculture that has seen its flourishing during the first years of the 20th century.Spenglers philosophical studies, which in their aspects of reaction to the illuministiccultural structure have tried an historical-ideological reconstruction of the historical

processes, attributing to these a cyclic structure in which the cosmic symbolism, so filledwith poetry, juxtaposes to our modern cultural structure, so strongly centred on technicaland scientific progress and on the principle of cause and effect that it has ended bylosing into the mazes of our centuries-old cultural matrix; the research in the logic-

mathematical field of Gdel, Boole and Morgan, or of logic applied to the machines as inthe case of the mathematician Turing, the discovery and definition of the fractalstructure, and lastly the works of the Dutch painter Escher; all these have supplied thecultural background from which Alexander has certainly started to give birth to his

theory about Patterns. Certainly it has beenand still is a current of thought whichbelongs to an lite, to those few that, according to the main culture, think nostalgically topast realizations. This is a culture, as abovesaid, born from a reaction to the illuministic

spirit; yet I believe it is mainly an attempt to renewcertainly not in a trivial, or worse ina merely imitative way, the primeval link from whose essence springs the element ofcreation.


2/33

Here are then the attempts to reinforce the concept of Pattern as an architectonicarchetype, as an essence which is able to communicate, through the language of

patterned forms, i.e. of those symbolic structures which have imbued all the cultures,throughout the world, patterns which have had not only architectural, but also musical,theatrical and singing expressions and which have given form to the same mythology.Salingaros has become a lover and a scholar of that theory, producing a great deal of

essays to demonstrate Alexanders thesis. According to Salingaros, the intimateconnection that has always existed between mathematics and architecture has been

almost thoroughly broken during the 20th century. The greatest expressions ofarchitecture had never broken off this link before.

In order to demonstrate this deep connection, Salingaros reports in his works thevarious historical times characterized by it. As a matter of fact, since ancient times thearchitects were mathematicians and their constructionsfrom Egyptian pyramids to theziqqurat up to the projects of hydraulic engineeringeven now fill us with wonder andenchantment.The same can be said about the works realized at the time of ancient Greece or Rome;

just think, for instance, that emperor Justinian commissioned two mathematicians to

build the Hagia Sophia, so that they would realize a sublime structure. This tradition has

maintained even in the Islamic world, where the architects have created arichness ofbi-dimensional elements which have preceded by centuries the classification worked outby Western mathematicians.This constructive process, linked to an intimateneed of mankind to generate patternsis not only valid for the great architectures, as the Pantheon of St. Peters Basilica where it is clearly visible the mathematical element in the structure and itshierarchisation into sub-elements characterized by symmetries that go perfectly wellwith the microscopic structure of the materialbut also for architectures that come out


3/33

of popular traditions, where the basic idea of re-employment of information and astrongly geometric vision end by producing structures which are mathematical

expressions and, therefore, evident expression of patterns.All this tradition has, however, undergone deep wrenchings during the 20th century;according to Salingaros, this is due to two reasons:

i) the achievements of the Modern Movement;ii) a socio-cultural structure that has a world vision centred on anti-pattern. The author indicates the Modern Movement as the suppressor of pattern in architecture.The works of modern masters show a vision of architecture based on anti-pattern.Contrasting with the traditional works which are intrinsecallymathematical, the works of

a Le Corbusier or of Loos result devoid of patterns, although many of these worksrecover elements of geometry from the classics.But then, what does Salingaros ask to this architecture in order to define it asintrinsecally mathematical and therefore adhering to the principles of the Pattern

Language?Well, according to Salingaros, architecture and town-planning from the ModernMovement onwards have no fractal properties; on the contrary, nearly all of thearchitectural and urbanistic realisation of the moderns have done nothing but remove

the fractal structure from our environment.Besides, the fact that many moderns have employed elements of classical geometrydoes not necessarily involve the compatibility of these realizations with fractals.

Even le Corbusier, though he had created the MODULORa system of modelling able

to create a link between architecture and mathematics has never applied it to thedesign of surfaces, since he preferred to realize empty and raw surfaces in concrete.This happens also in the faade of the convent of Ste Marie de la Touretteproducedtogether with the composer Xenakis where he has produced at random a merely

ornamental faade and not a pattern.The same principle is valid for town-planning. According to Salingaros, the ModernMovement, though it has regularizedthe roads and disposed the buildings in accurate


4/33

modular rows has been merely able to generate an oversimplified geometry in thetown form, producing an environment in which the mathematical complexity which

was on the contrary so present in the historical areas has been strongly reduced,leading in this way to a removal of spatial and dynamic pattens, which brought to thecreation of empty and deprived-of-life suburbs.

The methodology of the Pattern Language, instead, proposes itself as a method able toguarantee a global order, a planning process able to produce a balanced developmentbetween the needs of the various social groups and the whole, adapting, thanks to alight bureaucratic structure, to the unpredictable environmental and social changes.This is a methodology that greatly strays from present planning procedures for two

reasons:1. first of all, because it is not a design method, i.e. patterns are not graphicrepresentations, but elements which define a philosophical structure, deeply linkedwith the socio-cultural processes that have always distinguished, in a clear and

coherent way, the history of a place and the relations of these elements with man; it ison the basis of similar considerations that indications may originate in order to let aplace become the extension of man and of his activities; every act of urban creationshould then be consistent with some principles such as:

ORGANIC UNITY, i.e. the constructive processes which can be considered as parts ofa whole;

PARTICIPATION, i.e. citizens should be the protagonists of the planning process oftheir environment; that is, a process of self-construction will be accomplished, the only

process being able to generate a superior urban quality that, though the result of anunplanned operation, succeeds in defining a formal and cultural coherence through thelanguage of patterns.

GROWTH BY PARTS, i.e. the ability to grow through small plans carried out in short

times, which will nevertheless allow a unitary growth through patterns; PATTERNS, i.e. the leading principles for the actual building of plans;

DIAGNOSES, i.e. the creation of a light structure being able to preserve the well-beingof the whole through a yearly diagnosis, aimed at the individuation within the urban

structure, of the spaces which remain dynamic from those that lose their dynamism;

COORDINATION, i.e. the ability to guarantee the organic unity of the interventionsthrough a regular financial flux;

2. the interventions, mainly when operating at the level of town planning, are no longercharacterized by a verticalmethodology, i.e. by a methodology which excludes, or at

least takes into little account, the real contingencies of citizens. That methodology, inAlexandersopinion, does not end by being a limitation of planningfreedom, on the contrary, it offers a myriad of possibilities among the directions offered

by patterns. This architecturebecomes then the only one able to offer a syntaxwhichallows qualitatively superior urban developments, because it succeeds in conjugating allthe different elements into a unique complex and coherent creative act.As suggested before, the Pattern Language differs from the classical methodology ofplanning which is static and distant from the citizens needs. It aims at being amethodology exalting an urban quality attained through an urbanising process highly


5/33


6/33

25. Access to Water.

26. Life Cycle.

27. Men and Women.

The process undergoes then a more detailed examination, such as in the definition of

gardens, roofs and terraces, of the volume of buildings and the spaces between them,of open and enclosed spaces:

110. Main Entrance.

111. Half-Hidden Garden.

112. Entrance Transition.

113. Car Connection.

114. Hierarchy of Open Space.

115. Courtyards which Live.

116. Cascade of Roads.

117. Sheltering Roof.

118. Roof Garden..

As a conclusion, it is possible to assert that Pattern Language is the attempt to permit

the survival in the human languagebe it in architectural or in other formsof thosecomplex forms characterising both our biochemical development and the developmentof the unconscious needs of man.Alexander tries to perpetrate an urban development based on free choices, yet at the

same time expression of an ancestral language and deeply rooted into the historical,cultural and evolution processes.A development which proceeds according to general guidelines supplied by patterns;which allows man to feel he is the author of his own environment, re-appropriating of

that cultural entity that architecture and town-planning of the 20th century have deprivedhim of.It will certainly be a hard task, on the account that never before the processes ofalphabetisation have produced on the one hand a middle culture that has much raised

than in past centuries, and on the other hand they have determined a disaffectiontowards that cultural structurethe matrix of our culturewhich has produced so manymasterpieces. It is probably this cultural relaxation, this feeling orphans of our socio-cultural matrixes that makes us feel the environment we have built more hostile thanwelcoming.

Arch. Antonio Caperna, PhD | International Society of Biourbanism

NOTE[1] Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I. and

Angel, S. (1977) A Pattern Language (Oxford University Press, New York).[2] Spengler Oswald, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, C.H. BeckscheVerlagsbuchhandlung (Oscar Beck) Mnchen 1923[3] Escher M.C. Many Eschersworks are a sort of paradoxt. The mathematicians werefirst admirer because in this work its possible to look at a fractal expression and therepresentation of the flight between finite and infinite.


7/33

As you may have seen, ArchDaily has been publishingUNIFIED ARCHITECTURAL THEORY,by the urbanist and

controversial theorist Nikos A. Salingaros, in serial form. However, in order to explain certain concepts in greater

detail, we have decided to pause this serialization and publish three excerpts from another of Salingaros books: A

THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE. The following excerpt, the first, explains the terms Pattern Language (as well

asantipatterns) and Form Language.

Design in architecture and urbanism is guided by two distinct complementary languages: apattern language, and

a form language.

The pattern languagecontains rules for how human beings interact with built formsa pattern language codifies

practical solutions developed over millennia, which are appropriate to local customs, society, and climate.

A form language, on the other hand, consists ofgeometrical rules for putting matter together. It is visual and

tectonic, traditionally arising from available materials and their human uses rather than from images. Different form

languages correspond to different architectural traditions, or styles. The problem is that not all form languages are

adaptive to human sensibilities. Those that are not adaptive can never connect to a pattern language.Every adaptive

design method combines a pattern language with a viable form language, otherwise it inevitably creates alien

environments.

Architectural design is a highly complex undertaking. Heretofore, the processes at its base have not been made

clear. There have been many attempts to clarify the design process, yet we still dont have a design method that can

be used by students and novices to achieve practical, meaningful, nourishing, human results.

In the absence of a design method and accompanying criteria for judging a design, things have become very

subjective, and therefore what is built today appears to be influenced largely by fashion, forced tastes, and an

individuals desire to garner attention through novel and sometimes shocking expressions.

This Chapter puts forward a theory of architecture and urbanism based on two distinct languages: the pattern

language, and theform language.

The pattern languagecodifies the interaction of human beings with their environment, and determines how and

where we naturally prefer to walk, sit, sleep, enter and move through a building, enjoy a room or open space, and feel

at ease or not in our garden. The pattern language is a set of inherited tried-and-true solutions that optimize how the

built environment promotes human life and sense of wellbeing. It combines geometry and social behavior patterns

into a set of useful relationships, summarizing how built form can accommodate human activities.
http://www.archdaily.com/tag/unified-architectural-theory/http://www.archdaily.com/tag/unified-architectural-theory/http://www.archdaily.com/tag/unified-architectural-theory/http://www.archdaily.com/tag/unified-architectural-theory/


8/33


9/33


10/33


11/33

Architecture:

A recognizable similarity of form between a large number of buildings irrespective of their function.

How else would we recognize the existence of architecture other than by noting such regularities of

form? Architecture is information which characterizes the forms of buildings which are material objects.

Style:

The particular set of characteristic forms which produces a similarity between buildings based on the

use of a typical set of forms which architects select and combine into new buildings.

Meta-style:

The dominant style of a particular historical period derived from a synthesis of the characteristics of a

previous set of styles. Sometimes referred to as a classical architecture.

Typological Process:

The normal processes of communication and exchange between architects which results in the

collective production of typical sets of stylistic forms. The process involves mutual selection and

combination of forms by architects within a defined geographical or discursive environment.

Environment:

The cumulative effect of all the other cultural systems which architecture represents in built form within

a given society.

2. Architectural systems as Networks of Communication and Exchange

Communication and exchange between architects takes place through a process of mutual selection and

combination of the forms available in many individual works. This continuous sharing of experienceinvolves the selection of real and observable elements drawn from other peoples work and combined in

new contexts. These elements are the means of communication within the system. This network of

exchanges taking place within a defined environment leads to an increasing similarity of form within the

architectural system based on the most typical or essential aspects of the exchanged elements. This

similarity is the basis of the stylistic paradigms which emerge as representative models of collective


12/33

experience and which act as constraints on future selections.

3. The Emergence of a Meta-style in Architecture

The emergence of a dominant style within architecture may be defined as: a single stylistic set projected

out of a number of previous styles through continuous communication and exchange between

architects. That is, it is the emergence of a new level of organisation in the systemthe meta-style. We

may suggest the following:

a) While each of the original styles represents the cumulative experience of many individual acts of

selection and combination of form by architects in particular localities, the meta-style represents the

cumulative experience and essential characteristics of the several such styles. In effect it becomes the

classical style for a whole society.

b) While the number of individual works by produced by architects within a society may stay the

same or increase, they become increasingly similar to one another in the sense that their components

are now selected from a single and very specific stylistic set of forms.

c) The original differences between the styles which merge into a meta-style are usually based on

the geographical dispersion of groups of architects who work within the system. There is in effect a

communicational barrier between these groups which leads to a variety of different ways of doing the

same thing'. That is, different forms for solving the same problems.

However, increased communication (connectivity) between these diverse groups by means of new

technologies, trade, cultural exchange, voluntary integration or imperial acquisition establish the basis

for the integration of architecture around a single style. The various elements of the original paradigms

are selected and exchanged in terms of their fundamental similarities and differences. The almost

similar becomes the similar in an essentially economic selective process where the mostrepresentative and TYPICAL routines which underlie circumstantial differences become the single

behavioural set which one can call the Meta-style.

Note that it is the contextual or circumstantial aspects of the original forms that are eliminated or

repressed during the processes of exchange in favour of a single comprehensive model which can be


13/33

applied across a wide range of contexts within the same architectural system. If we want to 'see' a style

or meta-style, we must look at the uniformity of characteristics which increasingly link many different

individual works.

4. The Evolution of Architecture

In order to examine the concept of evolution in this sense we may note that the state of architecture

varies considerably throughout history. For example:

a) Stylistically the character of architecture is sometimes extremely diverse with many different

styles while at others it is almost completely unified around a particular style.

b) The emergence of global similarities of form - the great classical styles which can dominate

architecture for long periods of time.

c) The disintegration of classical architectures into several equally-valid styles.

d) The sometimes considerable variation in the lifespan of styles with some lasting only a decade

while others last a millenium.

e) The later forms of a style are more articulate, rhetorical and exaggerated than those of the

earlier phases. (The circle becomes the ellipse in Baroque terms and in Modern architecture a new

formalism of texture and shape replaces classical restraint. Even so-called Functionalism requires the

exaggerated emphasis of particular forms at the expense of others for spurious ideological reasons. The

syntactic results are the same).

f) Details are emphasised at the expense of wholes as the character of particular elements are

ever more precisely defined to the point where the whole becomes an assemblage of parts. (In

communicational terms the flexibility and complexity of the original elements is split or punctuated into

several discrete and precise elements).


14/33

g) There is a tendency towards decomposition of the whole building into distinct volumes or

assemblies as each part of the building becomes a self-referencing identity. In Modern architecture this

can be seen in the so-called functionalist phase.

h) There is in some periods a greater use of decoration and proportional systems as a means of

maintaining the unity and the meaning of the forms used in a building.

i) In the later stages of a style there is a tendency towards irony, parody, play, illusion and self-

reference in post-classical architecture. At one level these may be seen as language games made

possible when the system is freed from any dependence on context. It is the architectural language itself

which becomes the subject of experiment and further coordination rather than its relation to the reality

outside the system itself.

5. The System of Patronage

The only factor which can explain these historical variables is the effect of some constraint on the

`behaviour' of architecture as a whole which would reinforce or reduce its normal tendency towards

producing uniformity of characteristics. Such global limitations can only arise outside the architectural

system itself, in the state of its environment. The specific mechanism by which these external relations

are mapped on to architecture is the system of patronage in existence at the time which reflects the

number and relative power of the institutions within a society. This can be precisely defined as the

institutions or individuals who have the economic power to commission buildings. The motivating force

and the very existence of architecture depends entirely on the production of buildings. These are the

social and economic relationships of the time realized in built form and represent the varying degrees of

economic power of different institutions. A power which is realized in the large concentrations of capital

required to build buildings.

6. Integration and Plurality of Patronage

The variation in the number and importance of styles throughout history is an effect of changing

relationships within the economic system transmitted through to architecture by a corresponding

change in the number and commissioning power of the patrons. Like any other dynamic system, the

socioeconomic state of a society changes from time to time. For example:


15/33

a) The total wealth of a society may be centred on a small number of large institutions. This can be

referred to as an Integrated state. In this the various institutions which make up a society are in some

sense coordinated with one another and appear to act as one single system.

b) The total wealth of a society may be dispersed amongst a large number of small institutions. This

can be referred to as a Plural state. In this the various institutions within a society are autonomous and

have random or variable relations with one another.

c) The socioeconomic system moves unpredictably between these two poles of organization with

consequent change in the number and relative power of the patrons who will commission buildings.

7. Effects of the system of Patronage

Architectural activity, acting within one or another of these socioeconomic states - of integration or

plurality - will produce different degrees of uniformity of style in the repertoire. That is, the same

process acting within different environments will produce different end results. The mechanism for this

is as follows: In an INTEGRATED system of patronage, a few powerful institutions will each commission a

large number of buildings similar in character and requirements. In a PLURAL system of patronage a

large number of less powerful institutions will each commission a few buildings similar in character and

requirements. One system of patronage will tend to concentrate a large number of similar buildings

within a few styles, thereby increasing the relative significance of these styles in the repertoire. (In

purely numerical terms, other styles will be marginalized). The other will disperse a large number ofbuildings throughout many styles.

From the above one can summarize the effects of the system of patronage on architecture as follows:

a) Integrated systems of patronage reinforce the tendency of architectural activity to produce

uniformity of style.

b) Plural systems of patronage retard the tendency of the architectural activity to produce

uniformity of style


16/33

c) Architectural activitycollective selection and combination of forms - is invariant no matter

what the current state of the system of patronage.

8. Permutations

In order to produce an evolutionary model of architectural history and architecture as system one can

permutate the relations between architecture and its variable environments. The two initial

components for this model would be as follows:

a) The constant factor - the collective algorithm of selection and recombination of architectural

form taking place through normal communication and exchange of experience between a large number

of architects.

b) The variable factor - two possible socioeconomic states, whether Integrated or Plural and their

equivalent systems of patronage.

From the interaction of these two factors over time one can suggest three possible historical states for

architecture. These states will affect the degree of diversity or uniformity of style within architecture at

any given time and ultimately through the semiotic freedom made available to architects, the kind of

formal characteristics which will be exhibited within each period. Along these lines one can suggest the

results of various possible interactions in the following way:

9. Normal Architectural Processes in a Plural System of Patronage will Produce an Pragmatic State in

architecture. That is Continuous Undifferentiated Change. (Ref. 19th Century)

The character of architecture in a Pragmatic state may be suggested as follows:

a) The continuous production of different behaviours, styles and sets of forms. Given the

institutional diversity of the Plural environment the number and relationships between institutions

keeps changing. The only thing that can be achieved in the exchange between architects is the creation

of temporarily stable groups of forms produced by local circumstances. The lifespan of these styles will

be limited.


17/33

b) Several equally valid styles co-existing during the same period. This is consistent with the

diversity of the socioeconomic system at that time. Architects in this situation have a choice of styles

which they can use to represent different social institutions. There are in a sense more stylistic answers

than there are questions and always several different ways of doing the same thing - of representing thesame experience.

c) Since the same institution can legitimately be represented by different and equally valid styles,

the prevailing trait of the Pragmatic state is ambiguity. There is a continual crisis of meaning since it is

impossible to establish and maintain a coherent and generally accepted set of typical forms for similar

situations. The key semiotic aspect of the Pragmatic state is that it cannot represent the similarities

between different experiences.

10. Normal Architectural Processes in an Integrated System of Patronage will Produce a Developmental

State in Architecture. That is, the Formation of a Single Stylistic Paradigm or Meta-style out of the Last

set of Diverse Styles. (Ref. Early Modern)

The same collective processes acting in an INTEGRATED environment will produce an increasing

convergence in the characteristics of different styles within architecture This may be called the

Developmental or Paradigmatic state where the interchange and combination of elements underlying

different styles results in the formation of a simple, global routine or predominant style. In systemicterms there is a shift from the evolution of new forms of behaviour to the development and elaboration

of a single behavioural program. The characteristics of architecture in the Developmental state can be

outlined a s follows:

a) Concentration of patronage derived from more integrated relations between different parts of

the socioeconomic system allows increased connectivity between architects. The normal collective

processes of communication and exchange between architects NOW results in the synthesis of the

elements and geometries which underlie different styles into a single limited set of forms.

b) The first stage of this synthesis may be recognized as a period of eclecticism where the forms

drawn from different styles are combined while still retaining their own stylistic identities. Further

exchanges in the context of a stable environment reduces these identities to their most fundamental or

typical characteristics and these are essentially geometric, spatial or organizational in nature. For


18/33

instance, Modern architecture as a synthesis of the orthogonal grid of Classicism and the so-called free

plan of Neo-Gothic or vernacular. The Developmental state produces a set of forms which can be seen

as a single economic answer to a number of different representational problems.

c) The ambiguities of architecture in the Pragmatic state are resolved since there is now a single

but flexible instrument of expression which can be adapted to suit different contexts and yet maintain

its stylistic identity. It is able to represent both the similarities and the differences between different

institutions with various combinations of its generic typical set. There is no further need to invent new

solutions for different problems. Buildings are now seen to be variations on a single theme, combined as

they are from a recognizable set of forms. This meta-style is eventually recognized as a classical

architecture and comes to be closely associated with a particular historical and social era.

11. Normal Architectural Activity in a Continuous Integrated System of Patronage will Produce anInvolutionary State in Architecture. That is, Over Time it will Result in the Fragmentation of the

Developmental Synthesis and its Classical Architecture. (Ref. Late 20th century, Postmodernism)

The continuity of the Integrated state leads to ultra-stable environmental conditions where the same

systemic processes produce entirely different and apparently contradictory end results, namely the

fragmentation of the Meta-style itself. During an Involutionary period the quite natural tendency of

architecture to produce uniformity (driven by communication and exchange between its agents) is

reinforced by the further integration of its socio-economic environment. In cybernetic terms this is the

equivalent of positive feedback which reinforces the tendency towards uniformity. While in the

Developmental period this process simply meant that the almost similar became the similar, in the

Involutionary period of a system the similar becomes the identical. In the Involutionary state systemic

processes trapped within a highly-integrated and seemingly 'immortal' socio-economic environment

subject the Meta-style itself and its uniformity to selective re-combination. The architectural

characteristics of the Involutionary state can be outlined as follows:

a) There is an increasing disarticulation of architectural form. The classical set is fragmented into a

number of variations on its own theme. While the selection-combination mechanism inevitablyarticulates architectural form around its most probable elements, in the Involutionary phase this results

in the disarticulation of the classical set. There is a tendency to integrate what is already integrated, to

clarify what is already clarified and to further articulate the most probable elements of the classical

(Developmental) paradigm. The result is to stereotype the elements of the classical set by identifying

and fixing their most probable and precise characteristics. In effect the set is bureaucratized and made

inflexible.


19/33

b) Only the most probable characteristics of forms can be legitimately selected. Buildings become

increasingly similar to one another to the point where they can be termed identical. Architecture is

unable to represent the differences between different contexts. It can only speak of what is similar. This

results in an inevitable crisis of meaning. In this post-classical state there is a drastic reduction in thesemiotic freedom of the architectural language. The function of architecture requires it to represent the

full complexity of relations in the environment - it no longer has adequate means of doing so. It has

been rendered rigid and inarticulate. It now has very limited semiotic freedom to express what it must

express.

c) During this period architectural canons, compositional rules, standards and practices are precisely

formulated by finally eliminating contextual or circumstantial characteristics. All are fixed and

categorized and in social and institutional terms given the authority of law.

d) Decoration becomes the predominant visual feature of the Involutionary architecture. It is used

as a remedial device to resolve current semantic problems by introducing an apparent diversity of form

to the primary (but inflexible) elements of the typical set. Given the rigidity of Involutionary forms they

cannot represent differences of context. Therefore decoration in the Involutionary phase must be fluid

and diverse to give a fictitious diversity of character to possibly identical buildings. Decoration acts as

fictitious context.

e) So too during this period, proportional systems are introduced as a remedial device to ensure

the visual coherence of increasingly disarticulated forms. The stereotyping of architectural form means

that the character of the elements used in a building must be precisely defined. They will not be adapted

to suit their particular location in a building or their relationship to the buildings context. The building in

this case becomes an assemblage of self-referencing parts.

While architects will continue to select forms from the available repertoire for their individual works,

they will find that the degree of semiotic freedom they have to do so changes over time. The too-flexible

repertoire of the Pragmatic period eliminates the regularities of form which define what is probable or

what is general. The rigidity of form during an Involutionary period cannot represent anything in

particular. Apart from the Developmental period described above, in the other two phases architects

are forced to add determinative clues to their buildings to indicate the precise meaning of the forms

used. Thus decoration - a secondary formal language derived from the past is now used to maintain the

necessary quota of meaning required by architectural form. In practical terms, decoration in the


20/33

Pragmatic period provides a fictitious unity of form while in the Involutionary period it provides a

fictitious diversity of form.

12. The Collapse of the Meta-style

In the extreme conditions of the Involutionary state it can no longer refer to particular times and

particular places. For this reason in its final stages, the Meta-style begins to display pathological

symptoms. In communicational terms, this pathological state is equivalent to schizophrenia where

diverse behavioural fragments are assembled to meet complex social situations. The inevitable

differences of form which must occur in the system over time in order to cope with complex realities are

now dealt with by the production of a secondary language of decorative `fictitious' differences.

Subject to intense selective pressure the Meta-style disintegrates into variations on variations of itself

giving rise to an allegorical or scholastic phase where a superficial plurality of behaviours is emphasised

by decoration In concrete terms, overwhelmed by the decorative elements required to maintain itssemantic credibility, the single dominant style seems to fragment into a series of different but related

sub-styles as in Postmodern architecture.

Architecture as System

By Alex Brown

A THEORY OF THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE

1. INTRODUCTION

Theory of Architecture is not History of Architecture by another name. History deals with buildings and

the various styles of architecture which have arisen throughout time. History in this sense is a

DESCRIPTION of the architectural facts.

Theory attempts to provide an EXPLANATION for those facts. It looks at the reasons why buildings look

the way they do and why architects have chosen to design their buildings in particular ways. It also looks

at the reasons why architectural styles have changed over time and the assumptions and attitudes of

architects which influenced their thinking during particular periods and led to those changes. Equally it

looks at the sources for the ideas that architects use in the design of their buildings. Where do


21/33

architectural ideas come from? How do they get into circulation? Examples of movements, influences,

ideas and theories in architecture which changed the course of architecture over timethe way it

looked and the styles that were used. That is which made buildings different to what they were before.

How theory influenced the practice of architecture by introducing new perceptions of the same events -

new way of looking at reality and therefore new ways of representing that reality in built form.

2. BUILDINGS STYLE AND ARCHITECTURE

a) Buildings are material facts. They are physical things. No matter how complicated they are,

their basic function is to provide shelter for human beings against a hostile climate. As physical

enclosures they also provide a psychological sense of security to their inhabitants.

b) Because buildings contain different activities and are built in different locations, they are

necessarily different to one another. They respond to their particular context (time, place, technology &

programme). Individual buildings represent very particular individual circumstances.

c) Yet there are similarities between buildings -sometimes considerable similarities even

between buildings of different size and function. A survey of the many buildings built during a period of

history will show that they can be classified into groups of similar buildings. That is, buildings which

share similar characteristics. They use the same basic set of forms to solve their very different

programmatic, climatic or locational problems. In other words they use the same language to express

their different situations.

d) Architects in the same geographic area exchange information and experiences. They look at

each others work and select forms which they combine in their own individual projects. The forms used

in these projects are then selected by other architects. This continuous selection of forms between the

architects within the same architectural area produces an increasing similarity of form. Buildings begin

to look similar to one another because certain architectural forms are selected more often than others.

These forms become typical of an architectural group. They become its identity and define its character.

e) This typical set of forms used by a number of different buildings is called a STYLE. Styles are

groups of similar buildings. Sometimes there are several styles existing together. Sometimes there is a

single dominant style which most architects use.

A style is a similarity between a large number of different buildings no matter what their purpose or

function. The style emerges over time and through the practice of many architects. It acts a model of


22/33

behaviour for architects and provides an economic solution to the problem of designing buildings. The

architects does not have to invent every building from nothing. The style (as model), offers a ready-

made set of elements which have been developed and tried by many architects over time and which are

understood or familiar to the public. These few elements can be selected and combined for new

projects.

f) Architecture can be defined as the stylistic similarity between different buildings. Architecture in

this sense is not a physical state but rather INFORMATION. That is, information which characterizes

(gives a particular identity) to buildings which are physical objectsmaterial facts. Communication

between architects produces informationstyles or patterns of behaviour which influence or shape

buildings.

3. ARCHITECTURE AS REPRESENTATION

To understand what Theory of Architecture is, we must first look at what architects DO in the design

buildings.

The basic function of architecture is to REPRESENT social institutions in built form.

To do this they TRANSLATE the complex relationships of an institution into the language of architecture.

(That is the programme of the institution). These are relationships between the various activities which

take place within the institution. Architects give each of these activities a particular physical space and

these spaces are arranged according to the functional relationships between groups of activities within

the institution. In this way a building represents the ORGANIZATION of the institution in physical form.

a) Individual buildings represent individual programmes, circumstances and institutions. They

REPRESENT the relations between different parts of the institution. They represent those relations IN

BUILT FORM. That is, in the language of architecture.

b) The styleas a collective phenomenonREPRESENTS the relations between all of the

architectural work in a given area and the many institutions which they represent. These institutions

outside architecture act as the ENVIRONMENT of architecture. Architecture represents that

environment with built form. Not, however with any kind of forms, but with the typical set of forms

produced by the interaction between many architects over time. That is, with the current style.


23/33

c) Theory of Architecture looks at the kind of choices architects can make in selecting forms for their

buildings. When architects select forms from the work of other architects to be combined in their own

work, they are making a choice. Eg. What is the most suitable combination of forms for this particular

circumstance or project? What is the most suitable combination of forms which can EXPRESS(represent) the character of this particular institution? Does this building (this representation) match

the organization, the complexity, the symbolic character or expected social meaning of the institution

which is being represented.

At the level of the whole of architecture, Theory of architecture asks the same sort of questions:

does the current style match the state of the environment which it is meant to represent? Does it offer

enough choice to the architect to accurately express the character and complexity of social institutions?

The environment changes over time. Styles change too, but at a different rate. It is possible that the

style no longer adequately represents the environment. It may be that a new style is necessarya new

approach to architecture.

4. WHAT IS THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE?

This relation between the architectural form of buildings during a particular periodthe historical facts -

and the institutions (the environment) which they represent is the area of Theory of architecture.

Theory of architecture can be understood in several ways:

a) Theory acts as a critical function between what architects actually do and what they think

they are doing or what they should be doing. It identifies the difference between performance and

achievement. If the task of architecture is the correct or accurate representation of its environment

(social institutions), then theory assesses how well that task has been achieved.

b) Theory identifies problems which occur when architecture fails to represent its environment

successfully. These are semantic problems. That is, problems of MEANING where the identity of the

institution (its character, purpose or organization) cannot be understood or PREDICTED by looking at itsarchitectural form.

Theory of architecture analyses the causes of such problems and in some cases offers solutions. When

we say that Theory is used to analyse something, we mean something quite specific. That is, HOW

SUCCESSFULLY architecture represents that particular institution.


24/33

c) The analysis of the success or failure of a single building or the work of a small group of

architects in the task of architectural representation is called: architectural criticism. Theory applies the

same kind of critical thinking to the global level of architecture - to the whole of architectural

production. It looks at the stylistic choices currently available to architecture and asks whether they are

capable of adequately representing the current environment. This is theorys critical role.

d) Do the current styles match the complexity of the environment? Do they allow architects the

necessary vocabulary to respond to human psychological, physical, social and symbolic needs. If they do

not, why not and what are the options open to architects to solve these problems. Architects do not

design styles. They emerge over long periods of historical time through the work of many architects.

Thus individual architects cannot invent styles on their own which work better. In order to be

understood, they MUST use the currently available styles. These are the only language available to them

even if they dont work too well. Architects cannot choose NOT to use the styles. They are trapped in

history - they have to use them. If they dont use the available styles (architectural languages), no one

will understand their buildings.

Theory of architecture analyses this condition and identifies the nature of architectural problems,

suggesting alternative approaches. That is, ways in which architects can break out of this historical trap

ways they can successfully represent social institutions with architectural form.

e) Theory of Architecture offers critical analysis of the relation between architecture and other

institutions. It does so by:

i. Offering architectural criticism of the design of single works or groups of works in terms of

their success or failure.

ii. Looking at what architects WANT TO ACHIEVE against what they ACTUALLY ACHIEVE in the

act of representation

iii. Offering possible solutions to the semantic or stylistic problems within architecture as a whole

(new stylistic approaches, images, sources of inspiration or new directions). Sometimes it imagines a

future architecture where current problems have been solved. (The Utopian solution).


25/33

iv. Providing explanation, context and historical background to critical issues in architecture and

to current problems. It says why things are the way they are.

v. Examining the process and techniques by which designs are created and the influence which

these have architectural form. For instance, in order to translate the form of the institution into an

equivalent architectural form, the design process may exclude complex relationships within the

institution. While this may provide a simple diagrammatic explanation, it fails to accurately represent

the complex reality of things. Here, Theory would indicate that the design process itself is inadequate

for its stated purpose of representation.

5. ISSUES IN THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE

Theory identifies critical problems in architecture. Some examples of these kinds of problems are given

below:

a) When buildings or styles are too similar to each other

For instance, if the buildings of a particular period are too similar to one another or its forms are too

stereotyped and rigidly fixed, the difference between different buildings cannot be expressed or

represented. If all buildings looked the same, there would be a serious semantic (meaning) problem.

One would not be able to tell the meaning, purpose or function of any of them. One would in a sense be

lost, unable to differentiate one place from another.

b) When buildings or styles are too different from each other

For instance, as in the 19th century, where there are too many equally-valid competing styles in

architecture to give a single coherent image of the environment. In this case there are too many

differences between buildings. If everywhere is different from everywhere elsethere are no

similaritiesthen one would again be psychologically lost.

c) The Introduction of new Building Types

The sudden increase in the number of new building types which emerged during the Industrial

Revolution in the early 19th century: railway stations, large factories, mass housing, office buildings,

departmental stores, could not be adequately handled by existing architectural forms. A whole set of

new forms had to be invented to cope with these problemsa whole new architecture called the

Modern Movement was born.


26/33

19th century theory concentrated on this particular issue. What would a new and Modern Architecture

look like? How would its forms be shaped to cope with these new large-scale and complex building

types?

d) Rigid Styles which generate Hostile or Aggressive Environments

Or, in the 20th century, where the rigid and geometric forms of Modern Architecture were regarded as

hostile, abstract and meaningless having nothing to do with human sensitivities. In both these cases, it

was generally understood that there was something fundamentally wrong with the architecture of the

period. The result was a crisis of meaning in the 1970s, a rejection of Modern Architecture and the rise

of the Post-Modern Movement.

e) The loss of Regional Character or Identity in Architecture

Theory can point to the loss of particular regional architectural types when an economically dominant

society imposes its culture on another society. For instance Modern Western architecture has replaced

regional architectures in the Middle East, Africa and Asia because of the dominance of Western

(European/American) economic power. This loss means that a single dominant architecture is imposed

everywhere. There are no other ways of representing things. The special identity of places and cultures

is wiped out in favour of a single global culture. There is a loss of cultural complexity and variety. That is

different ways of expressing things. This is like the loss of regional languages which allow peoples to

identify who they are and express their cultural differences from other societies. Theory can discussthis problem and suggest possible solutions.

6. DIFFERENT THEORETICAL APPROACHES

The general function of Theory of Architecture is to define the relationship between architecture (which

itself is a social institution) and the other institutions in a society. In all cases, however its primary

concern is the state of the architectural languageits capacity to represent those institutions - how that

language expresses or represses the symbolic and organizational character of other institutions. It also

deals with the influence of these other areas on architecture itself. Theory of Architecture in this way isa truly interdisciplinary subject.

For example, theory can analyse the relation between:

a) Architecture and Sociology


27/33

Studies how architecture expresses the changing relationships within society and the emergence of new

social groups. Eg. Urbanization. The rise of an industrial working class or middle class in the 19th century

eg. mass public housing The rise of the post war consumer society. The suburban dream or minority

ghettos. Different architectural or urban building types in different societies. Theory in this case deals

usually with URBAN issues and how the City changes to meet new social and population developments.

Also looks at how architecture reflects the complexity and plurality of society in the late 20th century

its division into numerous special interest groups. Can a single architectural style really express this

plurality of interests? Post Modern architecture as a response to increasing diversity of lifestyle and

social groupings by introducing multiple styles. Other examples of this kind of theory include the study

of how architecture represents gender issues, minority groups, the disabled, etc. etc. and ultimately

how it reinforces the roles and stereotypes which prevail in a society.

b) Architecture and Technology

Studies the influence and use of new technologies on the shape of architecture. In historical terms the

use of iron and concrete in the development of the Modern Movement in architecture. Examines the

possibilities for new architectural expression based on developing technologies. Eg. Archigram in the

1960s theorized the possibility of fluid or mobile cities. New communication or computer technologies

virtual realities - suggest the possibility of distibuted spaces rather than specific locations for buildings.

c) Architecture and Politics, Wealth, Power or Class

Analyses how the social division of society is reflected in the architecture of a periodthe type of

buildings and the type of symbolic images and forms used to reflect power within a society. Eg. The

architecture of monarchies, dictatorships or democracies will be different. In what way do the

relationships of power within a society affect the architecture? Eg. The shape of Baroque architecture

and the use of the dominant axis, or the presence of Modern Corporate power in the design of office

buildings. Or, analyses the theocratic architecture of India or South East Asia in terms of the strict

organization of society and architecture laid down by rulers. Looks at revolutionary architecture as a

break with tradition and authority. Eg. Boulle and Ledoux during the French revolutionary period.

Studies the relation of Modern architecture to democratic

d) Architecture and Art

Studies the sometimes very close relationship and influences between the art of a period and its

architecture. Eg. The invention of perspective and new drawing techniques by Renaissance artists and

the work of Neoclassical and Romantic painters decidely influenced the design of buildings during those

periods. Note also the direct relationship between Cubist painting and the development of the early

Modern Movement. So too, Modern graphic art and the movies suggest new, imaginative forms which


28/33

architects can use in the design of their buildings. Modern art, which deals with environmental design

(Installation Art) produces ideas which become influential with current architectural thought.

e) Architecture and Philosophy

Philosophical ideas about meaning, order, ethics, the ideal, rationalism, the methods of critical thought,

deconstructivism, logic, consistency, the idea of beauty, harmony, aesthetics, theories of mind,

representation and perception, and so on all have their parallels in the Theory of Architecture. Usually

these relate to how to organize buildings according to some non-functional but controlling idea such as

symmetry, hierarchy or multiple axes and how to integrate the different parts of a building into a

coherent and understandable or meaningful whole. Theory can also take a moral or ideological position

where it demands that architecture express the shape or form of a better societya more just or moral

society. (Eg. Arts and Crafts movement). Also, the philosophical concept of functionalism or

instrumentalism has been translated into architectural terms by the expression of the internal dynamics

(spaces) of the building. Some of these ideas where incorporated into the forms and organization of the

Modern Movement in architecture. A more recent and complex philosophical analysis of architecture is

that of Deconstructivism. In this, Theory is used to compare the complexity of the programme or the

institution with the inevitably simplified version represented in the building. In Deconstructivist terms,

the order of the building pretends to represent the institution but in fact merely substitutes a set of

preconceived and simplistic forms. While the building seems to have an order, it is not in fact the order

of the institution which it is supposed to represent. In Deconstructivist terms, the building must express

the complexities and contradictions, accidental arrangements and organizational collisions which are the

real nature of all institutions. What architecture usually does is to reflect only a pure or ideal version of

the institution not the messy reality. The issue of how architectural form is actually perceived by

humans can also be found in philosophical ideas and this can be taken into account in the manipulation

of built form.

f) Architecture and History

This looks at the uses of history in the pursuit of architectural form. Eg. The idea of historicism where

there is a deliberate use of traditional forms in modern buildings to provide continuity with the past and

increased meaning in the form of new buildings. This is either by the direct use of forms from past

architectures or as eclecticism where forms from different past and present styles are mixed together.

And, the counter-argument which rejects the use of past forms as superficial and decadent. Theory

looks at the function of history in architectural design and how previous forms are re-combined to

produce the new. Theory also looks at the idea that each architecture is a pure product of the social and

economic processes of its own time quite separate from previous architectures. This radical idea

formed the basis of the early Modern Movement which completely rejected traditional forms. Today,

however, with Post-Modern architecture traditional forms can be freely combined within a modern


29/33

building in order to give it an instant memory a set of ready made associations and a richness of

image.

g) Architecture and Science

The various branches of science, from physics to biology to cognitive studies to systems theory and

artificial intelligence (AI), cybernetics and computer engineering offer examples and analogies to

processes operating within architecture. These are of essentially two kinds: those such as AI and

computer engineering which deal with the design process. For instance, identifying or mapping

networks of relationships and hierarchies within the institution to be represented as a building. The

theory is that these scientific techniques allow the architect to be more accurate in the design of the

organization. Sciences such as physics, biology or general systems theory provide examples of

architectures as systems or organisms in terms of system-environments, behaviour, cybernetic

feedback, field theory (space-time perception) and others. These suggest examples of how social

institutions like architecture might operate. These are necessarily abstract examples and attempt to get

a different or outside perspective of how the discipline functions without getting involved in the

languages, history or practices of architecture.

i) Architecture and Human perception

Theory and practice both suggest that HOW human beings perceive buildings will affect how buildings

are designed. People get their experience of things through their five senses: sight, touch, taste, smell &

hearing. There are also psychological factors in how people perceive space and formissues of

familiarity, distance, colour and the shape or spatial; definition of space (narrow, enclosing, open vistas,

concentric or linear, axiality, etc.). Each of these factorssense and psychologycan be used to analyse

the success or even just the character of built space. Theory looks at buildings in terms of how it they

are supposed to be seen or experienced and how it is ACTUALLY experienced. Theory compares what we

know about human perception and the experience of shape, colour and texture (decoration) of

particular buildings. Theory can also discuss architecture in terms of perceptual territory, psychological

security, defensible space, the relation between social groups and their identification with particular

urban areas. That is how people perceive their social space and how new buildings reinforce or destroy

that identification. (Eg. Living in tower blocks surrounded by open space rather than low level housing

and high densities. A factor in this kind of analysis is to match crime, social delinquency, psychological or

social alienation and community breakdown to the shape of architectural and urban space).

j) Architecture and the Future

One of Theorys tasks is to suggest alternative architectures. There are three possible ways of doing this.

The first is to produce architectures of the future which are designed to suit new or developing


30/33

technological or social conditions. Some of these ideas can then be incorporated into present day

architecture to solve current problems or provoke a change in direction and a recognition of developing

trends that are not being expressed in architecture. The second is that these completely imaginary

architectures are used to shock or disrupt the normal processes of architectural thinking. These attempt

to break architecture out of a cultural trap where it produces inexpressive or cliched buildings or shapes

the form of architecture purely in terms of functional or instrumental goals. In such a case, an imaginary

(or Utopian) architecture might propose an architecture stripped of all references to history and to the

conventional forms of architecture. To produce a truly radical architecture by inventing or discovering

forms which had no precedent in history. The third is to produce pure works of the imagination

graphics which are in a sense artworks. They are there to provoke wonder or pleasure in the vieweran

experience in itself. In this case the architectural forms are merely the content or subject matter of a

work of art. These however can be provocative and influential, in some cases producing changes in

architecture itself.

k) Architecture and the City

Theory of architecture deals in many cases with urban design theories. It is in the complexity of the City

that architecture finds its truest expression. That is, in the collision of many different buildings both

from the past and the present and from the many functions which the City includes. There is a direct

parallel between the theory of architecture and that of urban design. In both cases the issue is to

represent in built form and in spatial enclosure the organization of a social institution. The City is the

most complex social institution in history. It has to be given physical form inspired by or determined by

the nature or character of the many sometimes conflicting institutions which co-exist within it. Theory of

architecture as such analyses architectural interventions in the Cityhow they either reinforce or

change its identity. The architectural basic elements of this urban analysis can be the network of streets,

routes and paths, squares, focal points, neighbourhoods, domains, symbolic centres, boundaries, public

monuments, vistas, enclosures, the presence of nature (parks, water), the continuity of street fronts, the

significance of street corners and so on. These elements are matched against the functional zoning of

the city into business, industry, housing, entertainment, government areas and in general into the

complex mix of functions which make up the city itself and its transport infrastructure. The other factor

is that the City is the product of continuous development through many historical periods and that this

constrains the present and future development of the City. The City is layers of memory slowly

transforming through timea geological - sedimentary (deep) structure as society after society writes

out its own character in physical form. Theory looks at new types of city structures which incorporate

new urban technologiessuperhighways, trains airports and the changing relation of the countryside to

the City.

l) Architecture and Ecology


31/33

Ecology deals with the relationship between an organism and its environment. That is, how well the

organism responds (adapts) to changing conditions in that environment. The behaviour of the organism.

Its ability to respond to heat, cold, light, its use of energy in order to survive. Or, in the worst case its

tendency to destroy its environment and thus destroy itself. In architectural terms, these factors are

expressed in the form and materials a building uses and its ability to conserve and use energy generated

by the natural environment or its own internal processes. An ecologically sensible building will be

designed on the basis that it can deal with the local climate (sunlight or cold) without the need for

expensive importation of energy (electricity), eg. in the form of air conditioning. The form of a building is

dictated by many factors (programme, site, technology, finance, etc.), ecology is another factor which

constrains (controls) the final shape of a building. For instance the design of a building can be influenced

by the need for shading from sunlight, thermal insulation of its walls, the use of natural ventilation

techniques, natural air circulation, orientation, solar panels, re-cycling of its water, low technology

construction techniques, use of traditional or low energy building methods and materials in certain

regions, the use of internal courtyards, compact layouts or response to the existing topology and

landscape features. Theory of architecture analyses current building technology and design to see how

efficiently new buildings are designed to optimize energy resources and minimize waste.

7. THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE AS COMMUNICATION

Architecturelike any other languagerepresents experience with a combination of particular forms.

In other words, architecture communicates experience. The elements of any communication systems

can be described as signs. That is, something which stands for (represents) something else. The study

of these sign systems, what they mean in combination with each other and the rules by which they can

be combined (the grammar or syntax) is called Semiotics. Architecture can be analysed in semiological

terms as a system of signs (architectural forms) which are drawn from a familiar and generally-

understood vocabulary (Style) and combined to mean something in particular circumstances. Any

system of communication involves three levels of activity. Semiotics defines these as:

a) SYNTACTICS: the rules which govern the acceptable combination of signs (the syntax or grammar).

In architectural terms this would be the stylistic rules or conventions which govern the combination of a

group of architectural forms. Forms cannot be combined at random. If they are, the result is

meaningless. Syntactic rules are derived from the most recurrent or regular practices of the past. They

are familiar and they become the standard practice, the norm which guides all future acts ofcommunication.

b) SEMANTICS: the meaning of the signs. What they are supposed to suggest, or the associations they

produce in the observers mind. Meaning refers to how familiar or probable a particular combinations

of signs are. If the form of an object such as a building is totally unfamiliarit is meaningless. Semantics


32/33

deals with the difference between the POSSIBLE as against the PROBABLE (the familiar or

understandable). Spoken language is very similar. There are an infinite number of possible sounds or

words. However, only a few of these will have any semantic use. The others will be meaningless and

thus useless. There are an infinite number of possible architectural forms that can be imagined and

built. However, there are only a few of these which can have any meaning or significance in

architecture.

c) PRAGMATICS: all communication has an intention, a goal or a function. Each act of

communication (such as design of a single building) is a report or a message about an event. In

architecture the building is a meaningful report IN BUILT FORM about the relations between the

different parts of an institution. (the event). In order to carry out the task of communication it is

necessary that the message be clearly understood. This is the pragmatics of communication. It defines

the communicational PURPOSE of the messagethe likelihood of its being understood and acted upon

in a particular context or the circumstances. In different circumstances (context) the same message (the

same building design ) will mean something completely different. Pragmatics governs the selection (of

signs) and combination of those signs in each particular case. Pragmatics compares the intended

message/meaning with the actual message/meaning.

Communication involves both codes and messages. In architectural terms, a code is a stylea set of

TYPICAL ways of doing things, while the building is a messagean ACTUAL way of doing things. The

code - which limits the possible arrangement of the elements of a message is not a separate thing from

the message. It is the name for the most typical or probable features present in the many messages

(buildings) which are created in the system of communication (architecture). A code or an architecturalstyle is a VIRTUAL entity (thing)a statistical concept scanned out of the similarities between the many

elements of the real world. Remember: a style is a similarity of form between a large number of

buildings. So too a code is a similarity of form between a large number of messages.

8. CONCLUSION

Theory of architecture is the tool by which architects check or compare the goals of architecture with its

actual achievements. It is the critical function which regulates the practice of architecture and attempts

to bring it back into line with its function of accurately representing social experience.

In many cases Theory of Architecture is presented as a WRITTEN COMMENTARY (a text) on the physical

or visual reality of architectureits buildings. However, it can also be presented in the form of a VISUAL

COMMENTARYdrawings, which propose alternative or imaginary architectures, or new directions for


33/33

existing architectures. In both cases Theory can be defined as the regulatory function of architecture, or

perhaps in a moral sense - its conscience.

introduction to disertatie

Documents