Le Meyer states in his essay: “building all things

Le
Corbusier got well recognized after the publication of his book Towards a New Architecture in French, in
1923 and later translated to English in 1927. Le Corbusier’s ideas on architecture,
the Three Reminders to Architects, and Mass-Production Housing drew blended
criticism from the public. His comparison between the house and the machine was
the most arguable subject among his ideals. A year later, in 1928, Hannes Meyer
took over Walter Gropius’ position and became the new leader of the Bauhaus.
Meyer moreover passed along the ideal that architects needed to incorporate,
embrace, and show awareness to the technologies and methods of construction. Le
Corbusier and Meyer each had their own ideals and concepts weather architecture
should be a practical or rational approach throughout their articles “Aesthetic
of the Engineer” and “Building”.

Both
Le Corbusier and Hannes Meyer believed that architects needed to look through
things from the eyes of an engineer in order to advance as a master of design
and accomplish “Pure Construction”. Compare to other architects at the time,
engineers have a practical approach of design. 
Aesthetics, form and artistic elements are not the focus of engineers,
but a lot of the concepts created by architects would never be possible without
engineers. They always design and calculate around architect’s ideal in order
to achieve the function of their concepts. Meyer believed that the important elements
are not the ones that have been designed for its aesthetics but the ones that
performed a function for a building. Meyer states in his essay: “building all
things in this world are a product of the formula: (function times economy.) all
these things are, therefore, not works of art: all art is composition and,
hence, is unsuited to achieve goals. All life is function and is therefore
unartistic. The idea of the ‘composition of a harbour’ is hilarious! But how is
a town plan designed? Or a plan of a dwelling? Composition or function? Art or
life????? Building is a biological process. Building is not an aesthetic
process. in its design new dwelling becomes not only a ‘machine for living’,
but also a biological apparatus serving the needs of a body and mind.” (Meyer,
117)

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Hannes
Meyer expresses his opinion on the definition of a building, definition of art,
and the difference between these two from the quote above. To expound, Meyer
characterizes architecture as having function, which is the complete opposite
of art. Art does not serve a function, it’s only purpose is to serve aesthetics
and if it does not then it is not art it is something else. Le Corbusier also
esteemed the function of the building. In Le Corbusier’s article he shares the
same view with Meyer on the importance of why architects should approach design
rationally and takes it a step further. Le Corbusier believed that architecture
is not achievable without engineers and architects needed to “take a page out”
from the engineers in order to think rationally and create the functions of a
building that serves to the needs of the body and the mind. Function such as
the overall structure of the building that keeps it remain standing in spite of
the laws of nature and systems inside of it, like heating, cooling, and
lighting are calculated by the engineer of the building, these are the things
that ought to be learned by the architect. As Le Corbusier stated, “People
still believe, here and there, in architects, just as people blindly believe in
doctors. Houses have to stand up! Art, according to Larousse is the application
of knowledge to the realization of a conception. But today it is engineers who
know how, who know how to make things stand up, how to heat, how to ventilate,
how to illuminate. Isn’t that so?” (Le Corbusier, 95)

Le
Corbusier and Hannes Meyer both agree that through practical thinking and
calculations architects can provide the ideal space and form for a particular
function or program. They believed that function and program should be the
driving aspect of design, instead of having aesthetic or the overall form of
the building as the direction of the design. Strategic planning of the
structure, space, and calculations that keep the building stand and function as
a whole are how engineer decide the ideal area for the role and program. The
defined program inside of a building always defines its overall form. It means
that the audiences should be able to understand the function of the building
just from the exterior and interior design. These are the characteristics of
design that will drive the form of the modern society. Meyer expressed his
opinion on function vs. aesthetics, form, and calculations in construction when
he says: “Architecture as ‘an emotional act of the artist’ has no justification.
Architecture as ‘a continuation of the traditions of building’ means being
carried along by the history of architecture. This functional, biological
interpretation of architecture as giving shape to the functions of life,
logically leads to pure construction: this world of constructive forms knows no
native country. It is the expression of an international attitude in
architecture. Internationality is a privilege of the period. Pure construction
is the basis and the characteristics of the new world of forms.” (Meyer, 119)

Unlike
Meyer, Le Corbusier looked up more to how engineers deal with the role of the
program and function in a project, and how they approach forms practically. The
engineer has issues from the laws of nature that they must calculate and combat
in order to do their job correctly. Le Corbusier values this more than the
current role of the architect that is adding aesthetically pleasing elements to
the project. You can see the elevated value of the practical approach in Le
Corbusier’s perspective when he uses characteristics such as “healthy and
virile, active and useful, moral and joyful” in order to describe the engineer.
In contrast, using characteristics such as “disenchanted and idle, boastful or
morose.” in order to describe the architect. Le Corbusier elaborates on his
stance of the engineer creating the unflawed space for the projected function
of the project when he says, “Engineers make architecture, since they use
calculations that issue from the laws of nature, and their works make us feel
HARMONY. So there is an aesthetic of the engineer, because when doing
calculations it is necessary to qualify certain terms of the equation, and what
intervenes is taste. Now when one does calculations, one is in a pure state of
mind and, in that state of mind, taste follows reliable paths.” (Le Corbusier,
95)

According
to the irrational approach, they urge that rational believer is attempting to
create a form in different constructions they are undertaking. However, the
irrationalism thinks that such forms they are introducing are not just forms
but they should come from the works we are doing. For example, the
ferroconcrete building that is being introduced is seen to be causing more
complication to building that paving a solution to the problem or demand from
the customers.

They
note that with the possibility of rational thinking to introduce ferroconcrete
material for the construction of apartment building is a mess it’s self because
the materials are not well tested in that the advantages of the materials are
yet to be known and the disadvantages are yet to be avoided. Furthermore, the
articulated that when using ferroconcrete materials, it becomes difficult for
the constructor to round off the corners of the main house as well as the
individual rooms in the house. Irrational approach still believes that the
approach employed by the rationalist is lacking with the ability ferroconcrete
to properly insulate the interior external temperature and also the approach is
characterized by a poor sound property. However the rationalist believes that
to achieve complete insulation and soundproof, there is need to add only
additional insulation against the exterior.

Irrationals
also believe that when constructing ferroconcrete apartments, as proposed by
the rationalist, will be impossible because most of the concrete wall is thin
and supported by only four strong pillars of concrete. In case of putting halls
in the concrete, it can result in the collapse of the entire building,
“Materials obtained from the market, 1926”. Furthermore, the irrationalism
believes that the construction of ferroconcrete apartments is a tiresome work
with requiring a lot of consultations. And yet building brick houses it is very
easy and does not need any assistance from any consultants. Construction of
such base plans for the ferroconcrete construction with requires the assistance
of a specialist in ferroconcrete construction.

Le
Corbusier’s “Towards a New Architecture” and Meyer’s essay “Building”, both
discuss and have similar opinions on how should architects approach design.
Through the analysis and comparison of their views on how the
designer/architect and inventor/engineer should deal with function, program,
human necessities, aesthetic, and form through calculations, structure, and
logistics we can see how they want to change the role of the designer. These
show how the two believed how architects should strive to achieve the forms of
the new world, pure construction and what the engineer does that the architect
doesn’t do but should, at the very least, consider when designing and striving
for form in design.

Le
Corbusier got well recognized after the publication of his book Towards a New Architecture in French, in
1923 and later translated to English in 1927. Le Corbusier’s ideas on architecture,
the Three Reminders to Architects, and Mass-Production Housing drew blended
criticism from the public. His comparison between the house and the machine was
the most arguable subject among his ideals. A year later, in 1928, Hannes Meyer
took over Walter Gropius’ position and became the new leader of the Bauhaus.
Meyer moreover passed along the ideal that architects needed to incorporate,
embrace, and show awareness to the technologies and methods of construction. Le
Corbusier and Meyer each had their own ideals and concepts weather architecture
should be a practical or rational approach throughout their articles “Aesthetic
of the Engineer” and “Building”.

Both
Le Corbusier and Hannes Meyer believed that architects needed to look through
things from the eyes of an engineer in order to advance as a master of design
and accomplish “Pure Construction”. Compare to other architects at the time,
engineers have a practical approach of design. 
Aesthetics, form and artistic elements are not the focus of engineers,
but a lot of the concepts created by architects would never be possible without
engineers. They always design and calculate around architect’s ideal in order
to achieve the function of their concepts. Meyer believed that the important elements
are not the ones that have been designed for its aesthetics but the ones that
performed a function for a building. Meyer states in his essay: “building all
things in this world are a product of the formula: (function times economy.) all
these things are, therefore, not works of art: all art is composition and,
hence, is unsuited to achieve goals. All life is function and is therefore
unartistic. The idea of the ‘composition of a harbour’ is hilarious! But how is
a town plan designed? Or a plan of a dwelling? Composition or function? Art or
life????? Building is a biological process. Building is not an aesthetic
process. in its design new dwelling becomes not only a ‘machine for living’,
but also a biological apparatus serving the needs of a body and mind.” (Meyer,
117)

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Hannes
Meyer expresses his opinion on the definition of a building, definition of art,
and the difference between these two from the quote above. To expound, Meyer
characterizes architecture as having function, which is the complete opposite
of art. Art does not serve a function, it’s only purpose is to serve aesthetics
and if it does not then it is not art it is something else. Le Corbusier also
esteemed the function of the building. In Le Corbusier’s article he shares the
same view with Meyer on the importance of why architects should approach design
rationally and takes it a step further. Le Corbusier believed that architecture
is not achievable without engineers and architects needed to “take a page out”
from the engineers in order to think rationally and create the functions of a
building that serves to the needs of the body and the mind. Function such as
the overall structure of the building that keeps it remain standing in spite of
the laws of nature and systems inside of it, like heating, cooling, and
lighting are calculated by the engineer of the building, these are the things
that ought to be learned by the architect. As Le Corbusier stated, “People
still believe, here and there, in architects, just as people blindly believe in
doctors. Houses have to stand up! Art, according to Larousse is the application
of knowledge to the realization of a conception. But today it is engineers who
know how, who know how to make things stand up, how to heat, how to ventilate,
how to illuminate. Isn’t that so?” (Le Corbusier, 95)

Le
Corbusier and Hannes Meyer both agree that through practical thinking and
calculations architects can provide the ideal space and form for a particular
function or program. They believed that function and program should be the
driving aspect of design, instead of having aesthetic or the overall form of
the building as the direction of the design. Strategic planning of the
structure, space, and calculations that keep the building stand and function as
a whole are how engineer decide the ideal area for the role and program. The
defined program inside of a building always defines its overall form. It means
that the audiences should be able to understand the function of the building
just from the exterior and interior design. These are the characteristics of
design that will drive the form of the modern society. Meyer expressed his
opinion on function vs. aesthetics, form, and calculations in construction when
he says: “Architecture as ‘an emotional act of the artist’ has no justification.
Architecture as ‘a continuation of the traditions of building’ means being
carried along by the history of architecture. This functional, biological
interpretation of architecture as giving shape to the functions of life,
logically leads to pure construction: this world of constructive forms knows no
native country. It is the expression of an international attitude in
architecture. Internationality is a privilege of the period. Pure construction
is the basis and the characteristics of the new world of forms.” (Meyer, 119)

Unlike
Meyer, Le Corbusier looked up more to how engineers deal with the role of the
program and function in a project, and how they approach forms practically. The
engineer has issues from the laws of nature that they must calculate and combat
in order to do their job correctly. Le Corbusier values this more than the
current role of the architect that is adding aesthetically pleasing elements to
the project. You can see the elevated value of the practical approach in Le
Corbusier’s perspective when he uses characteristics such as “healthy and
virile, active and useful, moral and joyful” in order to describe the engineer.
In contrast, using characteristics such as “disenchanted and idle, boastful or
morose.” in order to describe the architect. Le Corbusier elaborates on his
stance of the engineer creating the unflawed space for the projected function
of the project when he says, “Engineers make architecture, since they use
calculations that issue from the laws of nature, and their works make us feel
HARMONY. So there is an aesthetic of the engineer, because when doing
calculations it is necessary to qualify certain terms of the equation, and what
intervenes is taste. Now when one does calculations, one is in a pure state of
mind and, in that state of mind, taste follows reliable paths.” (Le Corbusier,
95)

According
to the irrational approach, they urge that rational believer is attempting to
create a form in different constructions they are undertaking. However, the
irrationalism thinks that such forms they are introducing are not just forms
but they should come from the works we are doing. For example, the
ferroconcrete building that is being introduced is seen to be causing more
complication to building that paving a solution to the problem or demand from
the customers.

They
note that with the possibility of rational thinking to introduce ferroconcrete
material for the construction of apartment building is a mess it’s self because
the materials are not well tested in that the advantages of the materials are
yet to be known and the disadvantages are yet to be avoided. Furthermore, the
articulated that when using ferroconcrete materials, it becomes difficult for
the constructor to round off the corners of the main house as well as the
individual rooms in the house. Irrational approach still believes that the
approach employed by the rationalist is lacking with the ability ferroconcrete
to properly insulate the interior external temperature and also the approach is
characterized by a poor sound property. However the rationalist believes that
to achieve complete insulation and soundproof, there is need to add only
additional insulation against the exterior.

Irrationals
also believe that when constructing ferroconcrete apartments, as proposed by
the rationalist, will be impossible because most of the concrete wall is thin
and supported by only four strong pillars of concrete. In case of putting halls
in the concrete, it can result in the collapse of the entire building,
“Materials obtained from the market, 1926”. Furthermore, the irrationalism
believes that the construction of ferroconcrete apartments is a tiresome work
with requiring a lot of consultations. And yet building brick houses it is very
easy and does not need any assistance from any consultants. Construction of
such base plans for the ferroconcrete construction with requires the assistance
of a specialist in ferroconcrete construction.

Le
Corbusier’s “Towards a New Architecture” and Meyer’s essay “Building”, both
discuss and have similar opinions on how should architects approach design.
Through the analysis and comparison of their views on how the
designer/architect and inventor/engineer should deal with function, program,
human necessities, aesthetic, and form through calculations, structure, and
logistics we can see how they want to change the role of the designer. These
show how the two believed how architects should strive to achieve the forms of
the new world, pure construction and what the engineer does that the architect
doesn’t do but should, at the very least, consider when designing and striving
for form in design.

x

Hi!
I'm Elaine!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out