http://www.alistapart.com/articles/indefenseofeyecandy
I thought that this article had interesting bearing on the topics we were discussing today, and was interesting in that it approaches the subject matter from the angle of a graphic designer, not specifically that of an architect - though I think the relevance to us as architects is fairly evident.
(A friend of mine is a web designer, and he links me such articles every now and then, which is how I stumbled across this one)
"We’ve all seen arguments in the design community that dismiss the role of beauty in visual interfaces, insisting that good designers base their choices strictly on matters of branding or basic design principles. Lost in these discussions is an understanding of the powerful role aesthetics play in shaping how we come to know, feel, and respond."
(replace 'visual interfaces' with 'buildings' and the statement is just as pertinent)
Our language constrains visual design to mere styling and separates aesthetics and usability, as if they are distinct considerations. Yet, if we shift the conversation away from graphical elements and instead focus on aesthetics, or “the science of how things are known via the senses,” we learn that this distinction between how something looks and how it works is somewhat artificial.Often when we're forced to clearly state 'what is real' and 'what is non-real', aesthetics quickly fall by the wayside - or, are subservient to the 'reality' of function ('form follows function'). What this article appears to be getting at is that through new cognitive research, form is function; how humans appraise, interact and make decisions is directly related to their emotional response to that object/website/building.
“...emotion is not a luxury: it is an expression of basic mechanisms of life regulation developed in evolution, and is indispensable for survival. It plays a critical role in virtually all aspects of learning, reasoning, and creativity. Somewhat surprisingly, it may play a role in the construction of consciousness.”
Perhaps what is real is not necessarily what is immediately tangible and aesthetics are not so removed from the process of 'real', 'practical' architecture.
2 comments:
Adam, the Australian National Museum may offer some counterpoints to this idea. See the 2 recent articles in the Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25365772-16947,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25303709-16947,00.html
Thanks for the links, both interesting articles.
I think that they don't necessarily engage with the core of what my linked article was discussing - that is, that aesthetics are inherently linked with functionality through such things as spatial-cortex mapping.
The articles linked seem to reflect more on the politicisation on the design process, although quotes such as the following are an interesting counterpoint:
"He concedes many people like the NMA's striking exterior. But he claims the building and car park are too small, the foyer and shop too big, and the interior walls aren't appropriate for the material they're meant to showcase. "I think it's a totally inappropriate design," he says."
I think if you look at the base of this issue, it does not conflict with the idea that aesthetics and functionality can be considered integral to each other; poor design is poor design, irrespective of the intent of the aesthetic logic. The question is rather, as architects, we are producing functional buildings that need to respond to a brief, whilst at the same time being aesthetically (as well as culturally, socially...) pleasing. How can we manipulate the art of aesthetics so that it is synonymous with what we are trying to achieve?
I think that was the core of the discussion in the linked article; aesthetics as a means as well as an end.
Post a Comment