The Schwartzer article I read first. He lays out Schmarsow's ideas on architecture based on a grand historical narrative of the spatial consciousness, and although Schwartzer commends Schmarsow for deviating from the current views on architecture (like Riegl's), he says Schmarsow misses the mark by failing to recognize the variety of human spatial consciousness which are in a complex set of cultural ideas. Ultimately, the scientific method of discovery, which seems to be a theme so far in our reading, fails Schmarsow.
The Schmarsow was better to understand after reading the Schwartzer. You really get a sense of where he is coming from, using scientific/psychological methods to convince the audience that architecture should not be just the distant cousin from the fine arts but up front and center when it comes to the art world. He talks about the history of space and the human sense of space which has defined architecture over the eons. Again, this emphasis on using science and theory to derive truths about art, and in Schmarsow's case architecture. Very Enlightenment/Modern use of thinking.
The Frankl was a departure from the other two articles and more like a history lesson than anything else. I feel I know the "purpose", as he refers to, of why and how architecture has grown and developed from the Middle Ages up to his current time. Still interesting though, in that he doesn't use science but historical references of Christianity's influence through the Catholic and Protestant buildings during four respective periods to illustrate how architecture has changed and functioned in day to day society.
No comments:
Post a Comment