589. The Return of Sacred Architecture- Herbert Bangs. Architecture has lost pre-eminence to technology and modern secular science. What has gone wrong? Sacred architecture is based on mathematics, harmony and geometric principles.
The problem lies in materialistic philosophy which counts as legit only what can be weighed and measured. This is reality and the only reality to them. Spiritual reality is dismissed such as the reality proposed by Plato. The denial of spiritual reality means that a building is a utilitarian shelter. Any ornament is superficial, for the utilitarian aspect of a building is the over riding factor. In contrast ancient buildings were designed to give insight into a higher reality.
The author suggests in the very beginning of his book that in the last century this other tradition (spiritual reality) and an advanced scientific revolution will destroy modern concept of architecture.
Bangs discusses several modern movements in architecture. The Bauhaus approach embodied scientific materialism. The head of the school was Le Corbusier. He sought a clean break with Western tradition. Steel, glass, concrete were his materials of choice. No attempt to conceal the structural mass which keeps the building in place. This meant the elimination of everything except utilitarian function. Ornaments were deleted, including molding and the pitched roof. He sought to build such that the structural supports were the expression of the interior and exterior. He used large planes, simple surfaces. Glass sheets allowed one interior section to be visible from another.
Mies van der Rohe’s dictum was- less is more. It appears that these methods although they received rave reviews, left buildings which were dull and interestingly poorly functional. So another architect- Venturi paraphrased Mies with- less is a bore. But Venturi only restored use of architectural forms of the past as quaint pastiche.
Modern architecture had as its goal a desire to use science and technology for the benefit of society but the basis of architecture is amoral since there is no ethical basis. (modern science seems to have the view that all thought and ideas are under its jurisdiction.) Thus modern architecture only pursues novelty, amusement and excitement. Consequently the design of buildings has become much more the personal expression of the architect. Since there is no ethical basis for what is designed, what is designed and built is not based on the spiritual needs of society. To put it another way these designs do not transcend the life of the architect for only he/she understands the design. (Let me put this from the point of view of a Classicist- the designer of the Pantheon created a building which was bold and different, yet any Roman, Greek, or for that matter any citizen/non-citizen of the Empire could enter the Pantheon and understand, feel comfortable and relate.)
The result is that architecture has become monotonous. Form no longer conveys meaning, except perhaps to select few. If only a select few can grasp the meaning, if there is one, then design has also become selfish.
Commercial forces are also at work here too. Build it as cheaply as possible. Delete the ‘frills’. Scientific architecture was created by people who rejected various levels of being. There is only one dimension to human life and that is what can be measured or counted. We speak of housing units, not homes. Some do not even know the difference any more. For those, vocabulary does not hold much value or hope.
Many of the architects who have produced the concept we now have of architecture were once intrigued with fascism or fascists themselves.
Modern architecture does not recognize the roots of humans to the earth, sky, water, stars. The purpose of life in their view is material; nothing lies beyond that. The lead of this was Le Corbusier. His ideal city was fully climate controlled. There may be plenty of windows but ‘fresh air’ is supplied via air conditioning. Bangs is convinced that this has been done intentionally to alienate people from the environment. Only those near a window have a view- all others are even alienated from natural light.
Modern entrances have doorways which are not obvious and any sense of human scale is missing.
Science has become a detached observer of the natural world, cut off and alienated.
Modern architecture prefers repeating grids. Schools (as in my high school) have been subjected to this. Once such buildings were once expected to be beautiful- now they are to be only efficient.
It is interesting that houses designed by these people have been dismal failures. In most cases virtually uninhabitable.
Part of the cause of all this are the architectural schools. Students are taught that a building does not express anything beyond the physical form is presents.
Students now sit at computers and design. In a class setting each design is reviewed for 20 minutes. What is sought is the unfamiliar, the different. Little thought is given to how this design will play out in the real world. This has also caused much conflict between architect and engineer.
Buckminster Fuller is a famous designer. Yet, his geodesic dome is a poor use of space but his interest was in making a structure maximized space with as little material as possible. Bangs also asserts that Fuller who would have said s himself was drawn by his subconscious to the inherent beauty in the dome.
The educational background of the students does not allow them to question or challenge their professors. Laws of proportion, harmony and form are neglected. In the class room there is no discussion of the significance of the mathematics which lies behind the design, no discussion of the esoteric value or spiritual existence.
The problem is twofold. To these teachers history is a linear process. We can admire the past. Yet, we figure that we have outgrown what these were meant to express. Our buildings are based on a scientific materialism. Part of the beauty of a building is the spiritual insight it possesses.
Imagine a simple diagram with God at the apex and purpose and meaning forming the rest of the triangle. Deny this and buildings designed without this understanding are empty and meaningless.
One architect concluded that we must leave God and find our inspiration in human order. But Bangs insists that human order without any spirituality is ephemeral. Thus he says architecture reflects only the moment, the view of an architect who relates to no one but himself or a select few. Such an architect can not transcend the moment to allow humans to develop a clearer perspective on themselves.
In my view it seems that architectural education is sorely lacking in liberal arts education.
That the universe is nothing but material has had great impact on architecture. Ancient architecture used material to express insight into a higher spirituality. Thus design was meant to appeal to and be comprehensible to all. This ancient view has been abandoned.
The universe is that which can be apprehended by the senses, measured via instruments. What is real is that which has weight, can be measured and occupies space. To Darwin all existence is a vast and impersonal mechanism. Material lies behind all knowledge and reality. There is no place for a supreme being, transcendental purpose of life or life after death. (Looks as though Lucretius has finally triumphed.) Love is subjective, unreal.
The Enlightenment was hostile to and suspicious of religious domination which (religious domination is the antecedent) did not tolerate diverse thought. This attitude when joined to scientific world view denied the truth of any religion.
Western Christian nations have embraced the philosophic materialism, have achieved greatest wealth and power in human history. Along with this religion has been increasingly irrelevant. By and large the intellectual elite are materialistic.
A devotion to pure reason denies intuition, denies a human purpose beyond the physical world around us, denies beauty. All of this has lead to despair, depression. Thus we are not semi-divine. We have no purpose beyond ourselves. Not much to look forward to. The author calls it the “terror of the void.”
Bertram Russell is a famous philosopher. His view of science states the gloom expressed above. Yet he seems to take an arrogant and perverse pleasure in the telling for he is the messenger of the truth. His wording also precludes any further search for the truth. He uses such words as “beyond dispute, nearly certain.” (Cicero would demolish such an assertion.)
Yet the theory of aesthetics must be addressed by materialist philosophy- solution: there is the existence of a peculiar aesthetic sense- there is a mental faculty apparently which responds to beauty via experience of physical or mental pleasure. Some view pleasure as the aesthetic part of the ego. Freud said that art is an escape, a return to childhood misconception. The argument is not very convincing, so the subject is ignored for the most part. The possibility of intuitive insights is not investigated. Material philosophy has all of the answers. It seems to me that this system has resulted in the suppression of divergent ideas. Science only needs science since they have all of the answers. Oddly though this requires a circular argument- somewhat along the lines of fundamental religion. This system of thought has made it difficult to discuss the appropriateness of art. Interestingly art has become subjective.
Architecture used to be a means to use material to give a different way of understanding of the great mystery.
Bangs suggests that evidence for absence of creativity is the use of Classical Greek architecture in the 1840s. Logic, reason, efficiency dominate now, once proportion and intuitive understanding.
(I wonder if this accounts for the decay of American cities).
Post modern architecture to compensate for this mess uses a splash of forms borrowed from past eras.
Yet, change is on the horizon. Reductive science prevails yet this system has been compromised by the discoveries made in 20th century physics.
The Other Tradition used symbols to offer an interpretation of reality. This means that they relied upon the existence of Divinity and a transcendental purpose of life. But this was attacked by the church which opposed any threat to its monopoly and ridiculed by science. Bangs asserts that as science gained power and thwarted divergent thought, an interest in the supernatural has increased.
Carl Jung came up with the idea of subconscious. He did not see science as a threat but as an area which has overstepped its bounds.
The big change came toward the end of the 20th century. The intellectual tools of modern science were used against science. Material science has found itself in the interesting situation that the arguments of material science which cover all aspects of the universe use only thought from material science to explain itself. The same thing which the church did when it was dominant.
New academic disciplines (history and sociology of science) have shown that acceptable scientific truths are grounded in the socioeconomic milieu in which it is placed. This means that social background has impact on conclusions scientists draw.
But the biggest blow came from theoretical physics in a new vision of nature of matter and structure of the cosmos. The Theory of Special Relativity by A. Einstein asserts that “concepts of time and space cannot be derived from direct perception of the senses.” Classical physics said that sensorial experience was consistent with the world which was being explored.
The General Theory of Relativity followed a fews years later. In this it was clear that atoms are not spheres, but solar system like and sometimes waves and sometimes particles. This has come to be called Quantum Physics. The behavior of atoms can be described mathematically but not visually. Matter and energy are interchangeable. An objective description of nature is no longer possible. The nature of reality is not reachable via conventional scientific investigation.
Thus Darwin’s theory is now under attack. His views do not answer all of the questions. There must be some element of purpose to the shaping of evolution of species.
The reductive approach (classical physics) has proven inadequate for biology, medicine, society and psychology.
There is a growing desire to use a holistic approach. This will give broader view of the universe and introduce divergent views which will lead to better understanding of the cosmos.
New Physics is converging with the Other Tradition. This I hope will give refreshing argument to the value of Liberal Arts.
In New Physics the universe is beginning to resemble a great thought, not a machine. This reminds me of Aristotle’s unmoved mover.
Architecture needs to present a mystical vision. Material must be used in such a way to transcend the world around us in order to have a more comprehensive and complete view of ourselves. The difficulty lies in the fact that this vision can be grasped by the mind but words limit transmission to others. I am reminded of the trances which Socrates used to experience, sometimes for 18 hours.
Symbol and shelter need to be reunited. This will help us to return to the source of all this, to understand ourselves better, to grow in awareness of the “totality of our being.”
Jung helped to make connections concerning this. He concluded that the conscious mind is the one which pays the bills and washes the laundry. But he also came to the conclusion that there is the personal unconscious and the collective unconscious mind. He based this on his studies of individual people and various cultures. The common views held by diverse cultures harken back to a collective experience of humanity. He cited instinct as proof. Instinct begs the question- whence came this?
Jung did not take the next step- the conscious mind needs to be trained to tap or allow the collective unconscious mind to do it work. We sort give up conscious control and delve into collective unconscious mind. He cites a fascinating self analysis by Mozart.
“Intuition and insight can not be accounted for by logic and analytical thought alone. The key to artistic creativity is thus the practice of intuition and thought which we access at the source and then express in a material form the truth we thereby perceive.”
We need to learn to take what we know and let that connect with that part of our mind which has collective knowledge.
He discusses the archetype of metaphysical reality which must be taped in order to build what truly suits human needs. This sounds very much to me like Plato’s theory of ideal forms.
The following are essential features a building needs to take into account: the cave. It is the archetypical image of shelter. It opens to the earth which is the mother of all. Our first home as humans. It may represent the womb. This is the main reason that glass houses have been dismal failures. The clearing which presents a view of sky and light. The garden which connects us with the fruit of the earth and the divine creator. It is interesting that the Bible describes the Divinity as a gardner.
Modern architecture is hostile to gardens. But I must add that the Romans were masters at cultivation of gardens. In fact gardens and house design were one. The professional gardener and architect worked together to design structures.
The last is water. Its movement and sounds evoke the very essence of life.
Corollary to these are the four elements: earth, air, water and fire. These need to be set in balance in order for the whole to be appreciated.
He makes the point that there needs to be a hierarchy. This means that air ducts which may be very important serve say heating needs but do not meet the human need for insight to the meaning of life.
The material used to build must be selected with care and used appropriately. Each material has a connection to our psyche. The material used must have meaning to the overall feeling that the building wishes to project.
Rhythmical use of arithmetic and geometry in a building allows us to transcend the structure and take delight in its ideal form.
The pleasing play of golden ratios, the spiral of sunflower and its interplay with the Fibonacci numbers, the mystery of numbers allows us to see deeper into our own human intellect and enjoy more fully the world around on different levels of perception.
Mathematics and geometry help to show common bonds between music, nature and body design. When we employ geometry, mathematics, arithmetic, the cave, clearing, water, garden in architecture, the relation between apparently divergent aspects of nature become more clear and the mystery of life more awesome and pleasurable.
A symbol is a synthesis, a representation of some aspect of thought on life that embodies a complex of associations in such a way that awareness is concentrated upon the particular force or function it represents.
No comments:
Post a Comment