Frankl

Frankl: Principles of Architectural History

Architectural is not a familiar field of my study but it is interesting to read Frankl’s ideas. “Buildings may last mechanically and chemically longer than pictures, but their life span as living works of art is often much shorter.” This reminds me of a lot of occasions where I have conversations with people about art and design. Majority of people believe that the two are totally different disciplines. I personally believe that the two share more similarity than difference. People tend to emphasize the essential functionality of design which categorizes design as artistically non-expressive. Then I raise the case of architecture, which is also functional. Most people agree that architecture is a form of art while other designs are not. And I cannot understand. Is it because the act of commission? But numerous artists receive commissioned projects as well, meaning they start an artwork knowing it is for a particular client and a defined purpose if not completely specific.

I am not advocating that every single design is a unique piece of artwork, but I am simply addressing that design derives from art. Even computer-generated illustration artists need to have strong foundation of basic drawing skills (at least the good ones). Ideas for design come from life just as art does. I think the vastest difference between art and design is the distribution. Not all, but many products of design are created to be manufactured and widely distributed. On the other hand, artwork is absolute unique. The case of printmaking is somewhere in between. I don’t know. With today’s technology I feel like there is a growing bitterness against the field of design, but I do believe the art and design should stilled be considered closely related.

Back to the reading, Frankl moved onto the connection between architecture and people. “People are part of architecture,” he said. “A building dies as soon as the life within it has vanished, even if we know the customs of the people who once belonged to it.” It is an interesting approach of linking human’s activities with architecture. I partially agree, but believe that architecture has its own life circle. When the function or purpose of the structure has changed, for example a church created for devotional prayers built eighty years ago now becoming a tourist spot, I look at it as a new life begins. I understand that the structure no longer serves the same purpose as its creator intended, but it is certainly not the end. I believe that all things have their life circle. Even though a lot of them are invented and created by human beings, once they are incorporated in our life and utilized in a certain environment, they begin their own life. Walking into an abandoned building, one will find the space is now filled with dust and corners of walls are covered by spider webs. It is like the structure has made friends with nature after people move out. I know it is a less rational understanding of architecture, but in this restless contemporary world, I feel like I need to pay more attention to our living environment, the things that we create and the subsequences that we cause. This way we will become more humble and more humane.