Ariès, Philippe. The Hour of Our Death. New York: Knopf, 1981.
Harris, Mark. Grave Matters: A Journey Through the Modern Funeral Industry to a Natural Way of Burial. New York: Scribner, 2007.
Harrison, Robert Pogue. The Dominion of the Dead. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Heathcote, Edwin. Monument Builders: Modern Architecture and Death. Chichester, West Sussex: Academy Editions, 1999.
Jackson, Kenneth T., and Camilo J. Vergara. Silent Cities: The Evolution of the American Cemetery. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1989.
Jupp, Peter C., and Glennys Howarth. The Changing Face of Death: Historical Accounts of Death and Disposal. New York, N.Y.: St. Martin's Press, 1997.
Mitford, Jessica. The American Way of Death Revisited. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998.
Taylor, Mark C., and Dietrich Christian Lammerts. Grave Matters. London: Reaktion Books, 2002.
Ragon, Michel. The Space of Death: A Study of Funerary Architecture, Decoration, and Urbanism. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1983.
Yalom, Marilyn. The American Resting Place. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co, 2008.
From reading the article, I have decided that "type" is a system of clarification. Just as nature draws from basic fundamental laws, architecture draws from elemental geometric shapes. Because architecture allows form to follow function in many cases (while function is ambiguous in the other arts) it fits more easily into typologies.
ReplyDeleteWhile the typology can be set specifically by the architect (such as the stripped classicism Rossi strove for in his Modena Cemetery) it can also be set by the general users of a site. Rossi believed that type was “encoded” into the city, inscribed by the people who used the city during their daily lives throughout history (310). These typologies strive to improve the connection and acceptance of humans to their environment.
I felt even though this article was so vast, I did feel that it helped me to understand typology a little bit better. From this I can see how ideas evolve and where they come from. In the passage it states that “nothing comes from nothing”. There must be something to reference in order for the idea to grow. The line that summarizes it all is, “Typology was a means of describing the relationship between buildings and the city of which they formed part, and thereby of showing how individual buildings were manifestations of the collective, and historical process of urban development; it was of showing that an ‘architectural event’ was not just four walls and a roof, but something that existed only as part of the general urban phenomenon, considered both spatially, socially, and historically.”
ReplyDeleteThe thing I found most interesting about the article was the final section that dealt with how "type" restored meaning to an architecture that had been stripped of all of its context.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I find this so interesting is that I can see both sides of the argument. I find the stark, rational aesthetic of modernism very appealing, not just because of its elegant reliance on pure structure, but because there's something beautiful in the rejection of adornment and the reliance on pure geometry.
But there is a problem with stripping architecture of its cultural significance. If you remove any and all references from the form of a building, you are left with an empty shell, a building that doesn't say anything, and that only exists to serve a functional purpose. This semantic apocalypse (a term that actually has its roots in neuroscience) does not make for good architecture. Efficient buildings, yes, but building that are ultimately mute.
The one thing that seems to stick out in my mind about this article is the far-extending need of the human race to classify and categorize our world. This practice predates any modern civilization and is even referenced in many historical books (even religious ones).
ReplyDeleteSo my question would be what causes us to have this inherent wanting of a system? Does it allow for easy access to another for interpretation? Granted our minds are arranged via needs, operations and controls within our cranial cavity but to say that the neurons are arranged in such away beyond utter chaotic connections would have severe consequences in a secular world.
Types are interesting, do not misunderstand my intent, but do they allow for the easiest access of information into our thoughts and understandings?
I agree with what Ricky and Adam are getting at, types give buildings thier meaning while establishing thier relationship with thier urban setting. Though I think that trying to classify everything as a type doesnt always help our understanding of a building. I believe that just because a building doesn't have a clear cut type doesn't necessarily strip it of all its meaning.
ReplyDeleteI really like Quatremere's description: "The word 'type' presents less the image of a thing to copy or imitate completely than the idea of an element which ought itself to serve as the rule for the model..."
ReplyDeleteA type at its least is just an extreme simplification of forms, and at is best can be a prototype and sounding board for further design solutions, which is how we should use our typological studies. These types, and examples thereof, are what provide the context and significance for anything we design.
This article helped me to understand the immense categories type can fall under and that it’s not just limited to the functionality of a building. But, what I noticed about this article is that type may have a predefined meaning, but when it comes to the viewer type can be categorized however the viewer perceives a building. Just like the article mentioned, some people do not even necessarily even referrer to type as type, but as a genres.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing this article helped me with, is the thought that our society would be lost without type. Almost all architecture is a type and therefore has become essential to our society. Now that I realized this, I kind of what to design a building that has no type just to see how many people freak out because they can’t determine what the functionality of the building is. Then again I have to ask, is this building even possible to create?
In response to what Samantha ended with. I think it would be interesting to see what people would say about a building with out a type. Or even more interesting I would like to see a response to a building with a type that contradicts its function. For instance a bank inside a building that has the form of a church.
ReplyDeleteI do think type, in architecture, is necessary. It allows us to associate buildings with our needs. In the event of a bank inside a church like building, it might struggle to function.
Architectural types seem to emerge with the new generations and advancements in technology. My question is could we reach a point to where no more types can be created? Will we resort to breaking down into sub-types or disregard types all together and create a new system of classification?
To me everything is connected, as to the statement of “everything must have an antecedent. Nothing in genre comes from nothing and this must apply to all the inventions of man”, from that creativity needs a pre-knowledge of some information. Type is referred as the pre-knowledge, or the source of inspiration as was seen in the begging of the “architecture imitates nature” as the same time been different from nature because have other implications on the play. Also typology is refer later in 1920’s as a political idea, an universal idea of what is good taste or what is not, with a follow of rules or limits. Le Corbusier “type” is served as distilling chaotic disorder of bourgeois individualist into a rational ordered existence.”
ReplyDeleteToday there are many types of typologies that can be applied to the necessities of architecture, for example the sustainability design and the technology. The typology change depending in the necessities of people, the culture and the theories of the time, but there is going to be always something to refers from.