Reading 36 – Frampton

That Frampton suggests leaving behind avant-gardism in favour of tectonic qualities shifts architecture from the middling position between art and science more towards the scientific end. Frampton’s emphasis on material quality and the structural unit reveals a clear bias towards rational design thinking for the purpose of problem solving without moving beyond expectation. It leaves out the opportunity for discovery, and becomes a direct representation of mass. In Frampton’s world, the building is the most solidly defining element in nature. He describes the tectonic as a permanent marker within the landscape, which references back to his discussion on critical regionalism. Where Spuybroek is open to flows and populations with a diffused boundary, Frampton is situated with a permanent relationship to site, clearly defining boundaries. Frampton’s argument for the tectonic is solely focused on refining the qualities of the architecture to such a level that they achieve ideal purity. These two opposite ends of the spectrum are whole in their theoretical support for architectural typologies, but I question to what extent is that architecture which falls in between acceptable? Both are admissible and finely tuned logistical approaches, but what sort of relationship would they have if one building of type (a) was placed beside a building of type (b)?

Advertisements

About jasonsedar

My final year of architecture school at the University of Calgary!
This entry was posted in Theories. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s