The books this week were difficult to compare to each other due to their difference in focus/content. However, Lynch’s book, The Image of the Environment, caught my interest because of its introduction to a new perspective on architecture. “Moving elements in a city, and in particular the people and their activities, are as important as the stationary physical parts.” (Lynch 2) Lynch talks about how architecture is not solely defined by the buildings and stand-still structures that we design, it also includes us and how we fit into it. This sparked many connections in my mind and caused me to mentally evolve my idea of what architecture is.
This idea that us, transportation, and the many other moving parts of a city have an impact on architecture is not revolutionary in today’s world. But, if we dive deeper into what Lynch was talking about we can begin to understand that it opens the door for many other things to become a factor in what architecture actually is. Lynch begins by making a point to talk about the visual quality of cities and how it is important to produce a good “environmental image” at all times. (Lynch 4) Mentally, I compared this to a lot of Carlo Scarpa’s visions for the Venetian region of Italy. Scarpa designed his buildings in a way that there was a uniqueness about every perspective that someone had when moving through his buildings. In order to do this he needed to plan and predict what people would be doing in his buildings; where they would move, where they would stop, where they would look. Everything was deliberate, and I think that is what Lynch was trying to say about how cities should be designed, just on a much larger scale.
Going further into the reading Lynch discusses his other key points and gives specific examples of locations where the designs of places are flawed due to the feeling or image that they give off when you are there. Something that particularly interested me was his repeated use of those words: “feeling” and “image.” I couldn’t help but connect it back to something Prof. Nikolov taught us in ARCH143. Cinema is the future and companion of architecture. The insane perspectives that film gives us creates a whole new definition for architecture.
We read an article titled “The Explosion of Space: Architecture and the Filmic Imaginary” by Anthony Vidler. In it Vidler discusses the relationship between the two arts: architecture and cinema, and how they are very interconnected. Vidler states: “That the influence of these new forms of spatial representation on architecture might be as disturbing as those observed by Le Corbusier and Mallet-Stevens is at least possible to hazard, as buildings and their spatial sequences are designed more as illustrations of implied movement, or worse, as literal fabrications of the computer’s-eye view.” (Vidler 56) Essentially, he is trying to say that film is an intimidating new factor for architecture due to its ability to maneuver around spaces in a non-human way and give inhuman perspectives.
Grasping the idea that architecture must be considered from all angles and perspectives helps us better our understanding of what architecture is as a whole. Progressive minds such as Lynch, Scarpa, and Vidler, were able to see this long before it was common knowledge, and begin to shape our modern cities around that idea.
- Lynch, Kevin A. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1960.
- Vidler, Anthony. The Explosion of Space: Architecture and the Filmic Imaginary. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993.