CARTESIANISM: OBJECTIVE DOMESTICITY
Intellectual revolution and theoretical objectivity in contemporary architecture.
“Historical & Comparative”
The
French philosopher Rene Descartes contributed to the doctrine and principle of
historical objectivity compounding to the theoretical foundation of “Cartesianism”
through his treatise “Discourse of Method”. It began to emphasize the
historicity in light of conceptual objectivity. The relationship of mind and
corporeal sensuality is subjected to objective rationalism of forces that
shapes the production (object). The objective historicism brings about
substansialism of matter by dividing the existence into mind, matter &
nature.
Along
with Descartes, Montesquieu through his treatise “Spirit of Laws” discarded the
theological interpretation of existence and paved the way for scientific
history of human culture. In spite of the intimate connection between nature
and culture, the reason determines the nature of responses.
The
“Discourse of Method & Spirit of Laws” began to revive the renaissance
significance of anthropocentric space along with the essential qualities of
critical spirit, objectivity & secularization of thought that has pervaded
into the contemporary thought pattern of objectivity for architectural paradigm.
Houses have always remained as theoretical
excursions medium to set new cannons for contemporary practice in Architecture.
The re-invention of house, “Machine for Living” became metaphoric object of
modern life.
The minimum form and maximum function sets
new alignment to the aesthetic of house form. The rationality & vitality of
program remained constant victim for seeking new language of Architecture per
se. Architecture of houses always dealt with duality of transfer of form Vs
regard/disregard for the program. The harder the contrast the more it sets the
challenge to the contemporary living.
House as a simple appliance was operative
metaphor sets new experiment in methodical cartesianism of architectural
thought in attempting to locate the aesthetic (space) of houses. The houses has
always remained as product of systematic theoretical & rational research
into formal field of architecture
Such research into nature of objects leads to
the resultant forms that determined all the modern method of production and construction.
The formal handling of volumes nevertheless convincingly demonstrates the
aesthetic presence in architecture of houses while locating the parallel drawn
from reading of “Discourse of Method”
CONSIDERATION OF SCIENCE: RAUM PLAN
(VOLUMETRIC PLAN)
“It renders the power of judging aright and
distinguishing the object of truth from error which brings good sense of reason
& by nature it’s equal in all men.”
The outragious rejection of ornamentation and
the draw of the parallel with crime is a clear indication of aesthetics that is
principly objectified and resulted from scientific investigation of form. Adolf
Loos work sets away from formlistic tendencies of form to plan in space. The
sequencing of spaces was the determinant factor of organizing house program.
PRINCIPLE RULES OF METHOD: “BAUHAUS
SCHOOL OF THOUGHT”
“The indiscriminate juxtaposition of values of time where
perfection of work composed of collective is poised against the object
perceived by cohesive method of assemblance.”
The Bauhaus attempted to contribute to the
development - appropriate to the time of housing, form the simplest appliances
to the finished dwelling & they must relate to each other rationally.
The school destined to achieve the systematic
theoretical and practical research into formal, technical and economical field
- to derive the form of an object from its natural function & limitation.
RULES OF MORALS “NEW
CONSCIOUNESS OF THE AGE”
“The provisory code of morals composed of maxims and
actions based on probable when power to determine object of truth is low.”
The metaphor of universality of art form over
individuality.The rigorous rejection of all representational reference,
including the cubist and purist.Nature was too material, too individual,
universal art allowed only for abstract composition, as equilibrium of position
and weight of colour.
The De Stijl were concerned with the
calculated of unequal masses in an anti-cubist system which exploded the closed
contours of volumetric body. The de-composition of cube led to the
de-composition of program as universal & flexible, anti-dogmatic.
The contemporary practice that exists
throughout the world is unified & inclusive, not fragmentary and
contradictory like so much of the production of the first generation of modern
architects.
The minimum form & reduction of program, construction
confirms the ideal of anti- individual & architecture that precariously
trapped between art & Kitsch of fifties.
REASONING OF SELF AND METAPHYSICS “MACHINES FOR LIVING IN”
“The objects that are perceived awake had no more truth
in them than illussion as dreams. The self is a substance whose whole essence
or nature coexists in thinking.”
The modern life, the world of activity has
created own objects: pen, typewriter, furniture, ocean liner, likewise house
needs to be re-invented from clutches of pilasters, crowns etc.The house is a
machine for living in, it acquires clean air, full sunlight, and beauty in
harmonious proportions.
The Architecture of time passionately demonstrated
the nature of contemporary architecture of houses through industrial principle
of construction (Dom- Ino), and exaggerated sequencing of program.
“The Mathematics of the the structural grid and
a similar proportioning system with relationship to a higher (mathematical)
order were some of the paradagmatic shifts from the precedence.They consisted
the spaces with fixed forms and harmonic interrelationships composed of
horizontal layers of free space defined by the floor and roof slabs. The rooms varied
in shape and were asymmetrically arranged at each level. The plan insists on dormant
centrality, while asserts within the self imposed square. I.e.Spiraling quality
of asymmetry
ORDER OF PHYSICAL QUESTION & CHAIN OF TRUTH “INTERNATIALISM” SYNTACTIC
MODEL
“One who unable to dertermine the object from nature of
material or unable to represent equally well on single surface with all
different facets of obejcts tend to select one facet in effect of light and
rest in shades.”
Whiteness allows stark contrast of light
& shadow, solid & void, it heighten the purity of visual form.
Engaging quotational elements, layered
façade, conceptual homage to the design program of whites, but slowly mutating
the cubist & purist syntax by influence of pop.
It refers to the syntactic model of
interrelation without external referance. It has dialectic relation between
writing (transformation) and reading (implicit and explicit relation).
It represents a radical confession of faith in an autonomous
architecture, which entirely frees itself from criteria of habitability.
The contemporary practice that exists
throughout the world is unified & inclusive, not fragmentary and
contradictory like so much of the production of the first generation of modern
architects.
The minimum form & reduction of program, construction
confirms the Mies ideal of anti- individual & architecture that
precariously trapped between art & Kitsch of fifties.
INVESTIGATION OF NATURE: “OBJECT OF
NATURE”
“The truth to object of nature seems apparent on sphere
of resosn when departed from obejct of speculative science who endeavoured to
regulate the actions of thought”
ARCHITECTURE OF DOMESTICATED NATURE
Nature is defined as direct component of living;
House is viewed as a retreat, isolated fragments of light that illustrates the
whole of nature. Architecture of domesticated nature through concrete walls offers
unexpected architectural challenge. The decisive factor now become topography,
wind direction, position of the sun & expectation as regards spatial
program
Architecture must be “a counterpoint to
nature, a dialogue with nature, Architecture can pay tribute to nature is by
confrontation, by creating new equilibrium.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: WORK CITED
1.
Descartes, Rene. “The Principle of Philosophy”. Part 2. The Philosophic Works of
Descartes.
2. Lefebvre, Henry. “Introduction
to Modernity” London: Verso, 1995.
3.
Scruton, Roger. “The Aesthetics of Architecture”. London: Methuen, 1979.
