THE SPIRITUALITY OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE, The Case of Spirit in Architecture oleh: Budi A. Sukada, IAI
Spiritual Architecture is a misleading notion should one thinks that it only represents the so-called ‘religious building’, because any kind of architecture and buildings may possibly be a spiritual one when one realtes such a notion to the word ‘spirit’. Hence, haunted buildings, monuments, tombs as well as archaelogical sites and artefacts may also belong to a spiritual type of architecture when they are considered as embodying the super natural power. However, there is another understanding of what a spirit is, namely, that of an attitude of mind that drives ones into achieving noble results. In such a case, architecture is one example to be mentioned.
Modern architecture was born in Europe around 1750 at the time when the continent had entered new era which is known today as the enlightenment. The first architectural productions were that of the so-called ‘Romantic Classicism’. The notion indicates a strong influence of classical architecture, which was a dominant architecture from the previous period, and a new thought of Romanticism which promotes a freedom of will to re-formalize the absolute rules of Classical architecture following ones preferences. Hence, there was an emerging revival of many classical styles of building in variety of combinations, performing they so-called ‘electic building styles’ under the general term of ‘Neo-classicism’. As it was, this eclectic style embodied some of classical elements such as symmetry and absolute geometry but neglecting all of the architectural orders and necessary hierarchy of classification related to such orders. On the contrary, it tried to find new classification systems under a new bekief that architectural works is ‘a decorated structure’. Hence, new classification would be found either through the examination of the so-called ‘primary form’ or by studying types of construction.
Joseph Paxton- Crystal Palace
Afterwards there was a shift of focus from formal appearance towards the so-called ‘space’, which was perceived as an enclosure that would be created when several buildings were put together in one place, when one or two planes were moved around the inner side of a building or when a component in one building dominated the whole structure. It was indeed a significant progress but one must be reminded that there were elements from the previous stage that had been included within this new thought, namely the primary form and the notion of structure, which was re-interpreted to come into a new conclusion.
Le Corbuzier – Villa Savoye
The recent case of the so-called post -modern architecture was not a different matter either. Being stated as an architecture that the production of which is underlined by the system of sign, it promoted new approaches such as syntax, semantic and symbolic techniques of designing a building to achieve the so -called ‘double coded’ and ‘multi -valence’ or multi meaningful works of architecture. Respectively, building elements were treated as words and their composition as sentences while some forms were declared as symbolical after a through investigation on their ‘deep -structure’. Yet molst of the basic elements yo be employed were actually those that had beem thoroughly investigated in the previous period from different poingt of view. Consider also the fact that some of buildings that represented this kind of architecture were apparently using elements of Classical Architecture on their priginal functions to come up into term with such a new preoccupation. Similarly, the situation may also be applied to such a contemporary pre -occupation of multi -layering, juxtaposition and super -imposition techniques of the so -called ‘deconstruction’ architecture. They are all echoing what had been brought forward by Hegel about two centuries ago.
Hence, are we actually progressing or is it the reverse?