Why and how history affects architectures? Is it necessary to learn from the past in order to understand architectures in the present? Does history really assist architects to create new architectural movements? These questions have been in my mind and I keep asking myself whether history is important or not. From classes since the beginning of term, I have learnt continuously and starting to understand why architectures and history links together as one. People always ask questions on whether what is best for them, or argue on what is right and what is wrong, and I think this is the key and core on how architectures grow over centuries.
My intention and objective for this report is to show my perception on how I see and understand different movements of architecture. From my point of view, the movements are like trend of fashion, come and go. When one reaches it peaks, there will always be a substitute, or new development to replace the existed. In addition, no matter how awesome or perfect the new design is, there will be a group of people who reject it, dislike and deny, which somewhat reflect the imperfect of life. Fortunately, it creates questions, arguments on whether what is “best” for one and all, and there won’t be. These issues will allow the design to grow, and develop for the sake of all satisfactions as we seek for new things to happen and invent. Things change for a reason, it might due the changes in people perceptions and how they see things, or the new innovations that invented, or the renovation of what’s that already existed, but with the objection to make it better in a way. Why we need new designs for automobile? Why transportations have to be various, if one already works well? Why don’t we just stick to things that already existed and live happily without the hard effort on trying to invent or renovate things? The explanation would be that we, human, know that we are capable of something greater and our satisfactions are infinite. We will always need and want new things in life as it is challenging. Imagine what if Thomas Edison did not invent light bulbs, how much tougher life in the present would be. New innovations make life simpler and interesting, people will always curious of what will be the next “new thing,” The factor refers well to architectural movements. What if Early Renaissance is the only movement existed for architecture? What if postmodern doesn’t exist, and architecture only compose of simple geometric form? The variation and design will be very restricted and there won’t be any unique looking buildings in the present. The movements generate ideas for new generation architects, so that they will have more choices and ideas to work with. They help to open people mind on how things do not need to be simple, as life is not. Nothing is perfect; people have different views and perspectives on how they see things. In addition, there will always be a new movement, with new set of rules as long as people keep asking questions, and they will. I tend not to think of the report as a history paper, but a self-reflection on how I see and understand the development of each particular movement, and how they link and vary from each other.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น