Mostofthefeaturesofarchitecturethat havepersistedthroughvariousfluctuationsoftast^wetheirpreservationtothefactthatthey have been~provedbyexperience tobgliecessar^anditwillbefoundthatnoneofthenTprecludestheexerciseofIndividualtaste
Good architecture both provides necessary comfort and safety, and is also artistic and creative. This also seems to be the criteria for good designs of products nowadays.
ÎœÆrÂ
This seems like a keyword for what Wharton considers good architecture.
Thischangeofconditionsbrought_wilhitthepairedstreetandsquare,the large-windowedpalaceswiththeirgreat court-yardsandstately ope^stair-'gÜ¡7¡íidthemarket-^k^withitsl^aadornedwithstatues^ndmarbleseats.Italy,inshort,refarnedinstinctivelytotheRomanidealofciviclife-.,thelifeofAystrertTÁrWÍníírthebath
The ideal or aesthetics of architecture also follow the changes in people's lives.
not,asRuskinwouldhaveusbelieve,becauseirregularitywasthoughtartistic,but because themediævalarchitect,trainedtotheusesofnecessity,knewthathemustdesignopeningsthatshouldaffordnopassage to the besiegers’arrows,
It seems like in this case, beauty rose out of necessity. At first it was built because of its practical value, but it became viewed as a sign of the "artistic," or at least valued enough that the style persisted even when the necessity went away.
thechiefendinbothcasesbeingthesuitableaccommodationoftheinmatesofthehouse.
Building for the sake of living. It seems like this should be focusing more on the daily life of residents than Tuan and Heidegger did. It's less about how architecture changes perspectives and rather about how architecture serves the people living in them.
first, they are drawn toward the light; second, they want to rest and be comfortable.
It's interesting that the tenements provide neither of these forces. Though they might provide some space for rest, the crowdedness and surrounding conditions definitely do not make it comfortable.
the floor, through above and beneath; the wall, through within and around; and the roof, through over and below.
Different parts of a building define different dimensions
we manipulate and demand from our world rather than meet it an attitude of sparing and preserving
What is the line between manipulating and demanding, and sparing and preserving?
The world in which we find ourselves completes us in what we are
The built environment we inhabit shapes our identity.
may even be much nearer to that bridge and to what it makes room for than someone. who uses it daily as an indifferent river crossing.
An important aspect of Heidegger's argument seems to be that men must be conscious of the unity of the fourfold to constitute, which is brought on through the conscious experience of place. So buildings change the way we perceive things, and therefore we can understand space the way we do now. The process of consciously thinking about it seems to hold a lot of significance, so much that he believes one is actually closer to the bridge when one thinks about it, rather than being there physically, but unaware.
in the course of West-ern thought
This also draws parallels with Tuan's argument that in modern society architecture seems to be less associated with one's perception of the world, perhaps precisely because Western thought has led us to disregard the influence that buildings can have.
In short, to think about building and dwelling appears to advance thought on the meaning of "Being."
This seems similar to what Tuan argues about architecture reflecting and instructing our world view. The space in a building can shape how we view our own position and our own existence.
thoughtless exploitation
What does this mean? Are we exploiting nature by excessively building things on it?