...
Show More
"Architecture is the play of patterns derived from nature and ourselves." (p. 2)
I expected this to explain why buildings nowadays are hideous for seemingly no reason: orange metal protrusions, boxy windows. Is it really cheaper? Or is there some weird aesthetic movement that thinks this is modern architecture? Unfortunately, that is not what this is about. According to Haley, architecture lost its magic way back in 1830. Yes, all those lovely Victorian buildings are the "new" way of seeing.
He never actually describes any Victorian buildings he finds lacking, or what it is that happened in 1830 to make everyone lose their intuition. The closest he comes is this garbled sentiment: "Before 1830 pattern dominated design. After that time, use--including the creation of effect--took over. Pattern is an end in itself. The creation of effect--whether it is 'honesty,' 'reality,' or 'liveliness'--has a motive, to influence the observer." (p. 26)
If you read that about five times, you can start to get a little clarity out of the muddy waters of this man's brain. Essentially, instead of designing something that looked good to them, architects started to try to design buildings that projected their purpose or the values of their designer.
"A building would try to evoke the meaning of domesticity or financial security or religion. There are so many beautifully proportioned Victorian buildings that I will not call them exceptions, but the trend away from harmony of line and shape began in Victorian times. . . . The attitude was to put effect first. Beauty or ugliness was not the issue; posing was the point. After 1830 architecture became self-conscious." (p. 30)
But is this true, or is it just that there were fewer public buildings before? Churches always had different architecture from houses, and very consciously projected their purpose with steeples reaching to the heavens. Of course, he contradicts himself later, when he writes "Gothic cathedrals . . . were not attempting to produce beauty alone. Their purpose, like that of the builders of any temple, was to embody the aspects of universal spirit." (p. 107) So would you say they were concerned with . . . the creation of effect?
Oddly, he says Greek Revival, in particular the Second Bank of the United States in Philadelphia, was an early turn away from pattern toward symbolism. Does this mean ancient Greek architects were also lacking intuition, or does he have a problem just with the revival?
The examples of bad buildings are 20th-century neo-colonials, which I don't think are going to find many defenders. He spends a good amount of time drawing lines on them, though, to try to show that their features have no organized relation to one another. But his attempts to show this are bizarre. He first draws lines on a true colonial, and the lines connect the edges of windows to other windows and doors, forming a pattern of intersecting lines. This is fine. But then he does this on a neo-colonial, and he doesn't even attempt to make them connect anything. I took a ruler and imagined my own lines, and the neo-colonial does have a pattern. It may not be as pleasing of a pattern, but willfully ignoring that pattern does nothing to explain why it's a worse pattern.
Most ridiculously, he thinks you should go ahead and build the building and then decide if your design is shit: "I believe the best time to analyze the regulating lines is after the structure is built." (p. 52)
What are you going to do if your regulating lines don't work? Tear it down???
At least his line theory has a testable thesis, though. The rest of this is just feelings. Hale really wants buildings to "sing," but he never manages to explain what that means. He thinks it has to do with intuition, which has something to do with proportions and nature and also the vesica piscis. But he struggles to define how this is different from intellect. After all, the golden ratio is a clear mathematical concept, and copying patterns from nature doesn't necessarily require creativity. He does mention Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, which taught people to draw by having them look at an object as a pattern of light and shade instead of an idea of the object.
"People had not lost their ability, the had changed what they thought they were looking at. They had stopped looking at buildings as patterns in light and shade and had started seeing them primarily as devices to be used--for effect, comfort, commerce." (p. 157)
But once again, is this true? He provides no evidence of trends in architecture school, or of any other reason this might have happened.
I actually do agree with many of the things he says, and with the examples he gives of good architecture. But he does a terrible job of expressing and supporting his thesis, and his writing is meandering and sloppy. Maybe he's been using too much right brain.
Some more ridiculous statements with no supporting evidence or references:
"The sugar maple has the same proportions as Audrey Hepburn's face." (p. 69)
"Seven was the number of the Virgin. This was her cathedral, and the left portal was her door. Six represented perfection, and it also represented Time. Ratios that expressed certain spiritual qualities were built into the cathedrals." (p. 81)
"I do not think a building needs to speak. I think a building should sing, but no, it should never just speak." (p. 112)
"Wright's buildings do not bully or overwhelm so long as you are open to them. It is true, however, that Wright chose to work with strong clients; weak ones might have struggled." (p. 182) What does this even mean???
1. Light and Shade, Walls and Space: summary of thesis
2. Ordinary Places: buildings in different towns
3. 1830: The Loss of the Old Way of Seeing: Greek Revival started departure from pattern.
4. The Principles of Pattern: regulating lines, golden ratio
5. Spirit: vesica piscis
6. Context: zoning rules fail to create a sense of place
7. The Life and Death of Modernism
8. Paradigms: using non-verbal right brain
9. Reason: FLW, not sure how this is reason
I expected this to explain why buildings nowadays are hideous for seemingly no reason: orange metal protrusions, boxy windows. Is it really cheaper? Or is there some weird aesthetic movement that thinks this is modern architecture? Unfortunately, that is not what this is about. According to Haley, architecture lost its magic way back in 1830. Yes, all those lovely Victorian buildings are the "new" way of seeing.
He never actually describes any Victorian buildings he finds lacking, or what it is that happened in 1830 to make everyone lose their intuition. The closest he comes is this garbled sentiment: "Before 1830 pattern dominated design. After that time, use--including the creation of effect--took over. Pattern is an end in itself. The creation of effect--whether it is 'honesty,' 'reality,' or 'liveliness'--has a motive, to influence the observer." (p. 26)
If you read that about five times, you can start to get a little clarity out of the muddy waters of this man's brain. Essentially, instead of designing something that looked good to them, architects started to try to design buildings that projected their purpose or the values of their designer.
"A building would try to evoke the meaning of domesticity or financial security or religion. There are so many beautifully proportioned Victorian buildings that I will not call them exceptions, but the trend away from harmony of line and shape began in Victorian times. . . . The attitude was to put effect first. Beauty or ugliness was not the issue; posing was the point. After 1830 architecture became self-conscious." (p. 30)
But is this true, or is it just that there were fewer public buildings before? Churches always had different architecture from houses, and very consciously projected their purpose with steeples reaching to the heavens. Of course, he contradicts himself later, when he writes "Gothic cathedrals . . . were not attempting to produce beauty alone. Their purpose, like that of the builders of any temple, was to embody the aspects of universal spirit." (p. 107) So would you say they were concerned with . . . the creation of effect?
Oddly, he says Greek Revival, in particular the Second Bank of the United States in Philadelphia, was an early turn away from pattern toward symbolism. Does this mean ancient Greek architects were also lacking intuition, or does he have a problem just with the revival?
The examples of bad buildings are 20th-century neo-colonials, which I don't think are going to find many defenders. He spends a good amount of time drawing lines on them, though, to try to show that their features have no organized relation to one another. But his attempts to show this are bizarre. He first draws lines on a true colonial, and the lines connect the edges of windows to other windows and doors, forming a pattern of intersecting lines. This is fine. But then he does this on a neo-colonial, and he doesn't even attempt to make them connect anything. I took a ruler and imagined my own lines, and the neo-colonial does have a pattern. It may not be as pleasing of a pattern, but willfully ignoring that pattern does nothing to explain why it's a worse pattern.
Most ridiculously, he thinks you should go ahead and build the building and then decide if your design is shit: "I believe the best time to analyze the regulating lines is after the structure is built." (p. 52)
What are you going to do if your regulating lines don't work? Tear it down???
At least his line theory has a testable thesis, though. The rest of this is just feelings. Hale really wants buildings to "sing," but he never manages to explain what that means. He thinks it has to do with intuition, which has something to do with proportions and nature and also the vesica piscis. But he struggles to define how this is different from intellect. After all, the golden ratio is a clear mathematical concept, and copying patterns from nature doesn't necessarily require creativity. He does mention Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, which taught people to draw by having them look at an object as a pattern of light and shade instead of an idea of the object.
"People had not lost their ability, the had changed what they thought they were looking at. They had stopped looking at buildings as patterns in light and shade and had started seeing them primarily as devices to be used--for effect, comfort, commerce." (p. 157)
But once again, is this true? He provides no evidence of trends in architecture school, or of any other reason this might have happened.
I actually do agree with many of the things he says, and with the examples he gives of good architecture. But he does a terrible job of expressing and supporting his thesis, and his writing is meandering and sloppy. Maybe he's been using too much right brain.
Some more ridiculous statements with no supporting evidence or references:
"The sugar maple has the same proportions as Audrey Hepburn's face." (p. 69)
"Seven was the number of the Virgin. This was her cathedral, and the left portal was her door. Six represented perfection, and it also represented Time. Ratios that expressed certain spiritual qualities were built into the cathedrals." (p. 81)
"I do not think a building needs to speak. I think a building should sing, but no, it should never just speak." (p. 112)
"Wright's buildings do not bully or overwhelm so long as you are open to them. It is true, however, that Wright chose to work with strong clients; weak ones might have struggled." (p. 182) What does this even mean???
1. Light and Shade, Walls and Space: summary of thesis
2. Ordinary Places: buildings in different towns
3. 1830: The Loss of the Old Way of Seeing: Greek Revival started departure from pattern.
4. The Principles of Pattern: regulating lines, golden ratio
5. Spirit: vesica piscis
6. Context: zoning rules fail to create a sense of place
7. The Life and Death of Modernism
8. Paradigms: using non-verbal right brain
9. Reason: FLW, not sure how this is reason
