architecture - theoretical perspective

wow, dude. Way to introduce yourself!

I don't know much about architecture, honestly, but in some respects it is very much like music; the mathematics and physics are fundamental in the creation of a work of both arts. You have your factory housing and pop songs, as well as your cathedrals and musical opus (opuses? opi? is opus plural?). In both cases they serve us and inspire us. Music is more obviously a 'purer' art in the sense that a work of music need not serve a practical function, but both satisfy complex and varied needs for us. And both are notoriously subject to the demands of the marketplace.

Might be worth checking out Harry Partch, if you haven't already. His approach as a composer occasionally touched the boundaries of architectural cinstruction.

I did a little research on Harry Partch.  Excellent reference!  What are the implications of noting the musical instrument as being a piece of "architecture"?  (assuming that the word architecture can be used interchangeably with the phrase, "designed/built environment".  It is breathtaking to think of the instrument designer as being an architect, and he is, in fact, nothing less.  I would bet that the instrument designer dedicates himself to the music/architecture bridge.

James Lee wrote: opus (opuses? opi? is opus plural?).

The plural of opus is opa.

I'm thinking of a good reply to the original question, it keeps evading me, so I'll might get back on the subject later.

Pale Fire wrote: Seriously though, I think this issue answers itself, the existence of different kinds of architecture would account for differences. Also, animals from nearly every species deals in the construction of a type of shelter. Similarly, humans create shelters for themselves. Since at least well before the B.C./A.D. switchover, shelters = shelters. At some point (probably greco-roman or egyptian empire times) architecture became more important. The psuedo-Freudian concept you were looking for fails to withstand the test of history.

not necessarily...given that human beings tend to equate "home" with "mom", and certainly most of our initial experience within a structure is as children being raised (no matter where in history one looks). Come to think of it, our first exposure to 'music' is probably listening to mother's sounds from inside, so perhaps some foundation of our concept of musical beauty is created in the shelter of the womb.

Great post, BTW!

I don't think there's a single strand of the arts that doesn't have at least some parallel in all of the others. While this is something I'd like to look into further, the most obvious is in history being baroque/classical/romantic etc. periods where painting, literature, poetry, music, architecture, and evening gardening all followed similar trends and fed off one another.

Can anybody remember the name of the architect turned musician (or is that who James mentioned? there was something on Radio 4 about him a few months back).

Pale Fire wrote: The psuedo-Freudian concept you were looking for fails to withstand the test of history.

My original response to this was to try and relate the pseudo-freudian concept to maslow's hierarchy of needs, but i find myself wrestling with the possibility that they are opposing theories.  With both theories, the human race has to progress to a certain point before it will begin to produce abstractions (practically speaking, a physically nonfunctional design element).  Also, both theories would facilitate the human's whittling need for comfort and convenience.  But it seems (back to the old ass-picking intuition) that, upon higher evolution, a Freudian theory would ultimately result in isolation and regression, whereas a hierarchical theory would support excellence and social evolution.  Perhaps these are simply two different paths to take and each has its place.  Regardless, architecture is, always has been, and always will be a reflection of need and motivation (obviously), but must be driven by a progressive society in order to realize an abstraction.

hopelevre wrote: Kant got so lost in his own systems even he couldnt have provided "a critique of pure reason" on any of his works.....he lost sight of the pragmatic reality in search for some system that is not there....if you have read the books you may understand what im getting at

The first two critques, Pure Reason and Practical Reason, are internally consistent and it's arguable that Western epistemology has not really advanced since, although some aspects of those works have been since discredited. Where Kant came unstuck was with the Critique of Judgement, in which he ties himself into knots trying to establish an objective basis for aesthetic judgements (I'm grossly over simplifying here, but you get the point). However, as that other titan of philosophy Meat Loaf so succinctly pointed out, two out of three ain't bad.