It has been considered for many years what architecture is and is not. Certainly it has a history that we can say simultaneously with the history of mankind. Even the human relations have not fully developed; it is possible that our ancestors have assembled their own specific designs by bringing together three of the five stones, leaves and branches. Let’s face it, architecture is one of our oldest efforts, and if we look at it, what we do now is almost the same …
How does it “same”?
How does it mean “same”?
Various ways have been used to provide a logical explanation for this issue for years. For example, to find the formula of architecture. They have thought about it many years.. And they have created a formula at first while considering all explanations occured from Ancient Era..
Architecture = Function + (Structure + Construction) + Artistic Value
Function … for who? For whom? For what? For where? The initial unknown function of each architectural design problem is another function.
‘’Structure+Construction’’ design standing ‘’artistic value’’excited unknowns about desing. The formula has unknowns that almost every problem that can be found in the project construction process is worthwhile. But the sign that connects these unknowns creates trouble. The linking with the collection sign makes it seem as if someone isn’t. In addition on maths, “0” is a neutral element, giving the freedom to be unknown to 0. The same critical view was encountered, which revised the formula:
Architectural = Function x (Structure + Construction) x Artistic Value
Unknown are added so that they cannot be zero. The three components were indispensable, and it was emphasized that they should work as a whole. The formula is now more convincing.
This situation has caused different opinions between the thinkers until today. To take a look at someone who looks a little deeply into this work; One of the founding names of German philosophy, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) interprets architecture as a sub-title of art. Even so; distinguishes art aesthetically and mechanically.
He sees architecture as a sub-title of aesthetics. In fact, we think that Kant’s architecture has put his imagination into use. Because Kant always wanted to reach the limits of his imagination, he ignored the non-rational and wished to bring the elements of imagination to the concrete. It is normal for the architecture to be positioned somewhere in this context. Another philosopher who thinks like this approach is Hegel (1770-1831) who is also a German. If we look at Hegel Aesthetics we see that he divides art into three stages; symbolic art, the abstract (classical) art and the (romantic) art. He sees architecture as the most distinctive example of iconic art and gives the example of Egyptian Pyramids. In fact, according to Hegel, architecture is the mother of all arts.
It is possible to duplicate similar examples and comments. This subject, which has been overwhelmed by many people in different disciplines, shows that the right of the formula is unbeatable. Architecture has always been included in the classifications of art. However, architecture has always included art, art has included in its definition. Even in some universities of architecture; The fact that it is a part of the faculties of art and design is the most recent proof of this. Of course, there are those who argue that architecture has nothing to do with art. But this thought; it seems to be the product of the concern about art making for art. In the middle of the formula … We come to these judgments by accepting that the understanding of art in architecture must be in harmony with the other comrades whom the equation shares. As a result, when we put a structure into the architecture equation; If the artistic value component is zero, then it becomes a huge zero in the building architecture formula.
Note: The mathematical meaning of zero, without any value in itself, is worthless.