Articles From International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 1968, p.
392-397
Architecture Although the word "architect" derives from the Greek
phrase meaning "master builder," in practice
"architecture" has gradually acquired the connotation "art
of building." Today not all architects would admit that it is
an art. Several of them would insist that it is an
application of technology, while others would claim that it
is a science. However, all would agree that the product of
the discipline is real, whether it be a single building, a
group of buildings, a community, or a whole city- even if
the architect is concerned only with the design and
conception.
The fact is that architecture started as a technique of
construction, which was gradually specialized into the
construction of buildings rather than the building of
bridges, roads, and public works, which became the
special domain of the engineer. Architecture began as a
technique and was transformed into an art - sometimes
completely overshadowing the technique. It began as
handicraft and artisanship (the architect was the actual
builder-entrepreneur), then turned to design and
management. Architecture is concerned with individual
houses, large composite building complexes, and even
whole cities, although the latter specialization is also the
province of the town planner.
Through architecture, space is compartmentalized : there
is the usable interior area; the total area, that is, the shell
and the means; and the external space, which is indirectly
changed after the inner area has been defined. The degree
to which these different kinds of space fulfill the expected
requirements qualifies the degree of success of an
architectural work.
Social architecture. Architecture is sometimes called a
social art or social technology. This is valid in terms of the
content and extent of architecture. Moreover, architecture
is social in that it expresses a social trend even if that is
very limited in extent. Architectural style does not
represent the efforts of a single architect or of one class or
even one generation but those of many persons through a
number of generations, who express themselves in a way
that represents all their beliefs and aspirations. For
example, in ancient Greece people built timber roofs over
mud-brick walls; over several centuries this particular
style of construction was adapted to marble. This
architecture did not have an inventor or original designer -
every temple had its own master builder, who contributed
minute details of refinement to an enduring style. This was
a social architecture in expression and form.
Architectural needs. In every period consumers define
1
their architectural needs in terms of quantity, volume,
cost, quality, and content. In every community there is the
demand for shelter; the variable occurs in the quantity and
quality of shelter demanded. In the simplest effort the
consumer's needs and demands coincide, as the consumer
asks first of all for what is indispensable, thus
automatically adjusting his needs to the possible. When
incomes and technology develop, needs increase, while
the previously suppressed demand starts rising; then a
gap between need and demand appears. As a result the
suppressed demand rises even more, and so do the needs,
causing an increase of supply, and thus we have a trend
toward better and higher architectural forms. As
architectural needs and demands become more complex
and expand into open areas, roads and public squares take
on architectural significance. They then receive
corresponding attention, ranging from very elementary
(for example, regulations defining rights of way and
heights) to very detailed (specification of the elevations,
addition of works of art, and so forth).
Architectural creation. The accumulated knowledge of
modern science has changed the nature of architectural
creation and modified its function. Thus, that which was
once a simple, natural act of covering man with shelters
and helping him to survive became more and more
artificial and complicated and required the mobilization of
many skills and resources for its fulfillment. At the same
time, the architectural solution - derived from nature in
the beginning, like a cave or a hut made out of branches -
became unnatural as it moved away from the simplest
forms. Such an evolution had its impact on the process of
creation of architectural styles. One may suppose that the
outstanding builders in every community were given the
most important jobs, the temple or church, the mosque or
the ruler's palace, bridges or fortifications. By trial and
error they learned how to produce the best; public taste
was strongly influenced by the master builders and, in
turn, influenced and shaped the general architectural
evolution. Over a long period of time, under relatively
constant external conditions, this process resulted in the
creation of an architectural style. It usually took several
centuries for a naturally evolving architecture to acquire
its own characteristics, a specific style. The fact that in our
era the distance from the natural architectural creation is
increasing, together with the fact that economic, social,
political, technological, and cultural conditions change so
quickly, explains why we do not have our own
recognizable architectural style. This lack of a distinct style
creates a confusion of ideas about architecture. Today
many architects try, in a completely unjustified and facile
way, to create their own "styles," as if one man or group
of men could overnight replace the action of a whole
society over a long period of years.
Client-architect relationship. For hundreds of years the
client-architect relationship was quite simple. When in
2
need of a building, the client turned to the architect, and
together they worked out an agreement for full services -
from advice to design, construction, procurement of
materials and labor, transport, and perhaps even financing
- until the building was completed. In some way this was
similar to a constituency - politician relationship. In
general, the clients selected and guided their architects,
who in turn led the clients within a framework of
technological possibilities. Their relationship was
impersonal. This situation became complicated, confused,
and sometimes irrational, especially in the twentieth
century, when architects were first educated in art schools
and then trained in professional schools of architecture.
Specialization has been advanced to the point where, in
many developed countries, members of architectural
associations are not allowed to act as builders; thus they
are deprived of their most important function and the
ultimate justification of their profession. There is no
question that the architect, in order to practice his
profession properly, now needs the assistance of a great
number of experts, including research specialists in the
physical and social sciences.
The architect. The evolution of architectural creation and
practice had its impact on the architect himself. In the
early days of architectural specialization he was a mason
and a builder, while the best was called a master mason,
an architect. He was an artisan, known for the quality of
his product in the same way as were the best painters,
sculptors, decorators, and saddle, cart, and carriage
makers. During the nineteenth century the process of
change began that is transforming the architect-craftsman
into a white-collar worker or administrator. Today most of
the people actually creating what we commonly call
architecture belong to the traditional class of craftsmen,
while university-trained architects constitute a very small
percentage of the total. The ratio of architects to
population varies greatly from country to country - from
the high percentages found in countries like Denmark and
England, where architects are sufficiently numerous to
deal with interior decoration and furniture, to the very low
percentages of architects found in most of the developing
countries.
Architectural evolution
In early human history local, natural architecture grew
much like a plant (conditioned by the local climate and
easily obtainable raw materials). Where conditions
warranted (reasonable climate, enduring building
materials, and the processes of civilization), the
architectural plant thrived. Local architecture did not
everywhere lead to great styles, but where it did,
architectural efforts of the past continue to influence
present-day traditions.
3
The buildings we have inherited from the Near Eastern
civilizations of antiquity belong predominantly to religion -
especially in Egypt - although there are some examples of
fortifications and palaces. Regular houses, even of the
wealthy families, seem always to have been built of
materials that could not withstand weather and time; thus,
we know only how people built for gods and kings, not
how they built for themselves. Whatever we have inherited
shows architecture as a monumental art and not at all as
an art of everyday life.
In comparison with the previous monumental architecture,
that of the Minoan period was much more human. In both
enclosed and open spaces the builder's interest was not to
impress humanity and serve souls and gods but to serve
man in the best possible way by creating functional human
spaces adjusted to the climate. Mycenaean architecture
was also close to the Near Eastern tradition. We know little
of the architecture of the common man in either of these
periods; it may have been only a simpler expression of the
architecture of palaces and fortresses, or the earlier types
of buildings, constructed in less durable materials, may
have continued. Classical Greek architecture is admired for
its character, but also because of its use of raw materials,
particularly marble. The Greek temple is perhaps the apex
of the pyramid of architectural achievement. Its value also
lies in the fact that it was not a monument isolated from
life, but the real crown of an architecture which started
with humble, timbered, mud-brick and stuccoed houses,
and public buildings just one degree better than the
houses, and progressed to the "agora," or central market
square with its buildings, and finally, to theaters,
stadiums, roads and squares, exedras, monuments, and
temples. More than any other, Greek architecture was
holistic, an architectural conception of the human
community represented by the political unit of the city-
state. The largest political unit of ancient Greece -the city-
state-was so small (the average size being forty miles
square) that a person standing at some height could see
the entire area at once. With the acropolis at its center,
the architectural composition expressed the idea of the
culture.
Roman architecture differed from Greek in both content
and technique. Not only did if; contain greater internal
differences, as between the slums of Rome and the
luxurious villas and palaces; it also took big steps toward
the architecture of large buildings. There were important
public buildings: baths, amphitheaters, roads, bridges, and
aqueducts. Brick construction played an important role, in
addition to stone and marble. There still exist many
examples of well-conceived and well-built Roman cities in
Europe, Africa, and Asia. They do not manifest the
cohesiveness of cities found in Greece, but city-fortresses
paved the way for technological advancements in later
periods.
4
At the end of the Roman Empire and with the spread of
Christianity, there were two distinct movements toward
new architectural forms: one followed a path from Italy to
the European mainland; the other moved eastward, back
to Greece, Constantinople, and the Middle East.
The first new form -Romanesque architecture-was at the
beginning a major stylistic attempt to express the new
religion. The Gothic style followed and became the typical
architectural expression of the long medieval period with
its small, walled city, where the only hope was in God, up
in the sky. The architecture of the vertical and the arch
reached up, as high as possible, away from the secular
world. It is not strange that such architecture was more
successful in churches and cathedrals than in houses and
public buildings.
It was in southern Europe with its bright light and colors
that man returned to an architecture much more human in
content and expression. The Renaissance started first in
Italy and then spread to the rest of Europe. Although in
spirit it represented a return to humanism and to ancient
Greece, its direct roots came from the Italian countryside,
where the peasants' houses were the prototypes of the
more luxurious houses of the great landlords. When these
rich men became urban dwellers -merchants or bankers-
they built their cities and palaces, created their piazzas
and monuments, public buildings, churches, and
fortifications in a new and consistent form of architectural
expression. There was continuity from the humble
peasant's house to Michelangelo's Piazza del Campidoglio
in Rome and to the Piazza della Signoria in Florence. As in
other great periods, sculpture and painting were blended
with architecture.
The Renaissance declined, and baroque style, with its
sculpture and monuments, arose - an architecture of
intellectual creation rather than a natural art having roots
deep in the life of the people. The styles that followed,
rococo and then neoclassicism and neoromanticism,
widened this gap, emphasized by the art nouveau of the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
At the southeastern end of Europe, in the eastern
Mediterranean and Middle East, local architectural
expressions blended with the technology of the Romans,
especially in major brick constructions, and with Greek
tradition. Byzantine architecture thus combined East and
West and predominated for long centuries, longer perhaps
than any other style we know of, until its decline in the
late nineteenth century. Although this style produced great
cities, palaces, and works of art, it will be remembered
mainly for its churches - from the largest, like Saint
Sophia in Constantinople and the monasteries of Mount
Athos, to the smallest, most humble one-room churches
spread over many countries in the Balkans, Greece, and
5
the Middle East.
Special mention should be made of the Muslim-Arabic
style, which, born in the Middle East, followed the road to
eastern Europe; then through northern Africa and the
southern coast of the Mediterranean, it entered Europe via
Spain, where it produced some of the best monuments of
domestic and landscape architecture.
Architectural evolution, even when studied with European
emphasis, is not as simple as it may look from such a
division of styles by groups and periods, because styles
have seldom been confined to one place, country, or era.
In general, architecture has common origins and roots.
The basic elements are people, whose needs are more
alike than different, and building materials -mud, bricks,
stone, and timber- which behave everywhere in very much
the same way. Thus, architectural expressions in early
human history were similar to one another; we can speak
of a universal origin of all architectural styles, based on
the needs and creative potential of man. Then local, semi-
isolated cultures tended to develop their own architectural
expressions as local or national styles. Some styles
remained of importance only in certain areas, while others,
especially those with more universal characteristics
(generally the simplest ones) spread over wider areas,
together with the civilizations and cultures to which they
belonged. For example, the ancient Greek, Roman,
Muslim, and Iberian styles spread to Central and South
America, and the hybrid styles of northwestern Europe
were brought to North America, Africa, and Asia by the
Anglo-Saxons, the French, and the Dutch. As stylistic
influences diffused, they became diluted, merged into one
another, and tended toward a cosmopolitan mixture.
The present and future of architecture
Today we live in an era of confusion, especially with regard
to the human settlements that have become mere heaps
of architectural and public works. Our villages are
abandoned, and our cities gradually turn into a nightmare,
where all sorts of forces, people, machines, buildings, and
projects of all kinds struggle for survival and control.
Architecture itself, in the original meaning of the word, is
losing its importance, as the value and identity of the
single building decrease with the passing of time. City
inhabitants do not have the opportunity to see buildings as
wholes; they know them only from the inside. Public
spaces have completely lost their architectural importance.
Moreover, the bulldozer tears down buildings that retain
historic and aesthetic value -even relatively new buildings-
whenever changes in the texture of the city demand.
In this world of change, architecture finds itself in very
rapid evolution. In addition to cosmopolitanism and the
decline of significant styles, other phenomena have had a
great impact upon architecture. Technological innovations
6
that permitted the construction of buildings of more than
the previous limit of five or six floors were made about a
century ago and spread rapidly after the invention of the
elevator in 1854. In the past hundred years,
industrialization and urbanization have given rise to social
movements that demanded better housing for the
exploding population, especially for workers in
overcongested areas. Architecture has not only conquered
the third dimension - height; it has also changed its
content as attention has turned from the construction of
monuments to the provision of services and facilities for
people. A rational architecture, fostered by the great
revolutionaries of our era, Gropius, Le Corbusier, Mies van
der Rohe, and others, has begun to emerge. Architecture
entered the second quarter of our century with new forces
and has started the third one with enough momentum for
the completion of this revolution.
In the meantime, the situation is not simple, and public
opinion is still caught between academic and modern,
between old and new. Many architects have turned toward
a new eclecticism and are searching for a compromise, an
easy way out, personal expression, and so on. This is far
removed from the real needs of humanity, for
architecture, if it is to be true to its great traditions, must
cease to be merely the practice of an art form and once
again become a technique that serves all the people, in
the best possible way.
In this tremendous effort, during this great era of change,
concepts are confused. People mix the notion of new with
that of progress and invent solutions, even when the
traditional ones serve us best, or they tend to defend a
local style rather than an international architecture, not
because it might have greater values -very often it has-
but just for the sake of tradition, which, if it does not serve
the people any longer, should be abandoned.
However, today's greatest problem is a quantitative one.
The great masses of people on earth live under unbearable
conditions. We must face the real issues. The world
population, and especially the urban one, is increasing at a
rate not matched by architectural creation. At the same
time, the full recognition that we need facilities for all has
increased the dimensions of the problem. We must find
the way in which architecture can catch up with changing
economic and social phenomena.
Architects and all those concerned with architecture and
city planning fear that a revolution may easily turn into a
new academism or lose its momentum and thus stagnate.
In many ways the answer lies in a return to the concepts
of the past, although the materials, human and
technological, are different.
The architect must find a way to bring together the
knowledge and experience of the engineering industries,
7
government, and the arts and blend them with local and
international demands. In order to succeed in his new role,
the architect can no longer concern himself with single
buildings but rather must deal with entire settlements. He
must build a habitat, which is a rational entity and should
correspond to human dimensions. The architect must
resume his traditional role as master builder, coordinator
of all aspects of architectural creation, not limiting himself
to the designing.
There must be the kind of architectural synthesis that will
correspond to the magnitude of expanding human
settlements. The architect must participate in industry,
government, and centers of research and education where
new notions about ways of living, the art of living,
construction, and the needs of production are being
developed. In this way architectural creation will be
influenced at a level with which the architect is not yet
acquainted but one with which he must familiarize himself
if he is to achieve his purposes. In order to utilize
knowledge contributed by the physical and social sciences,
he must gain a much broader education than he has at
present. An attempt to realize this aim is being made
through the study of "ekistics," or the science of human
settlements, which proposes to synthesize the economic,
social, political, and administrative sciences, technology,
and aesthetics into one coherent whole. The new type of
human habitat can no longer be cast in the mold of the
static city of the past but must be fashioned after the
dynamic settlements of the present, which are spreading
in all directions around pre-existing cities. Such a
dynamically changing frame is bound to come into conflict
with static architecture. That is why we need to build our
new cities by using a basic cell that will be static but that
can be repeated, thus allowing for growth. Such a cell
would represent the "human community," whose
dimensions would correspond both to actual human needs
and to the dimensions of the city of the past. Its area
should not exceed 2,000 yards square, and its population
should be limited to 50,000 people. Within such
communities, architecture and architectural space could
retain their values without being impaired by the
intrusions introduced into our urban life by fast-moving
machines.
Houses and buildings must be seen in a way that allows
them to be, simultaneously, individual units serving
separate families or functions and also connected elements
of a group that has its own internal cohesion. This may
mean that a group of houses will have an internal street or
square for pedestrians only, so that even if cars approach
every single house, there will still be a part of the whole
community that brings the residents together, around a
common playground, a common garden or nursery, etc.
The same principle suggests that buildings be arranged
around a common courtyard or around a series of
courtyards where there is no access for automobiles. This
8
would provide a continuum of human space from room to
house to courtyard, paths, gardens, and squares, a
continuum big enough for the creation of real architectural
space, where architecture is not limited to walls and
elevations but to the broadest possible conception of space
for man.
Thus, the roots of the new architecture are to be found in
the entire range of architecture that preceded the
nineteenth century. Such an architecture is going to be
urban in character and human in content and will utilize a
standardized technology. In this way architecture will
become more consistent in expression and tend toward a
new ecumenical form. The ecumenical qualities of
architecture in the past were rooted in common responses
to natural conditions; now they are reinforced by the
participation of architects in what is gradually coming to
be a world society.
The direction of the road toward such solutions is
discernible, but the road itself is not yet open. A hard and
long effort will be required of all those concerned, an effort
to define the subject and a return to the proper concern of
architecture: construction. Our only hope is to become
good masons, so that we can expect some master masons
(architects) to rise from among us. And we must try to
abandon the subjective for the sake of the objective
approach. If we achieve these aims, it is possible that in a
few generations humanity may pass from the completely
rational-utilitarian architecture- on which it must now
concentrate - to a new humanistic, monumental
architecture and thus a new architectural style.
References
[Directly related are the entries CITY; PLANNING, SOCIAL, article on
REGIONAL AND URBAN PLANNING; STYLE. See also the articles listed
under ART.]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BEHNE, ADOLF (1926) 1964 Der moderne Zweckbau: 1923. Berlin:
Ulstein.
BOYD, ANDREW C. M. 1962 Chinese Architecture and Town Planning:
1500 B.C.-A.D. 1911. Univ. of Chicago Press.
BHANNER, ROBERT 1961 Gothic Architecture. New York: Braziller.
BRIGGS, MARTIN S. 1925 A Short History of the Building Crafts. Oxford:
Clarendon.
BRIGGS, MARTIN S. 1927 The Architect in History. Oxford: Clarendon.
BRIGGS, MARTIN S. 1947 Architecture. Oxford Univ. Press.
CRESSWELL, KEPPEL A. C. 1958 Short Account of Early Muslim
Architecture. Baltimore: Penguin.
DISSELHOFF, HANS D.; and LINNE, SIGVALD (1960) 1962 The Art of
Ancient America: Civilizations of Central and South America. New York:
Crown. - First published in German.
DOXIADIS, CONSTANTINOS A. 1963 Architecture in Transition. London:
Hutchinson; New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
FRANKL, PAUL 1960 The Gothic: Literary Sources and Interpretations
Through Eight Centuries. Princeton Univ. Press.
FUTAGAWA, YUKIO 1963 The Roots of Japanese Architecture: A
Photographic Quest. New York: Harper.
GIEDION, SIGFRIED (1941) 1962 Space, Time and Architecture: The
Growth of a New Tradition. 4th ed., enl. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ.
Press.
GIEDION, SIGFRIED (1956) 1958 Architecture, You and Me: The Diary of
9
a Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. First published
as Architektur und Gemeinschaft: Tagebuch einer Entwicklung.
GIEDION, SIGFRIED 1964 The Eternal Present: A Contribution on
Constancy and Change. Volume 2: The Beginnings of Architecture. New
York: Pantheon.
GROPIUS, WALTER 1955 Scope of Total Architecture. New York: Harper.
HAMLIN, TALBOT F. (1940)1953 Architecture Through the Ages. Rev. ed.
New York: Putnam.
HILBERSEIMER, LUDWIG 1956 Mies Van der Rohe. Chicago: Theobald.
HITCHCOCK, HENRY R. (1958) 1963 Architecture: Nineteenth and
Twentieth Centuries. 2d ed. Baltimore: Penguin.
HUDNUT, JOSEPH 1949 Architecture and the Spirit of Man. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.
[JEANNERET-GRIS, CHARLES E.] (1923) 1959 Towards a New
Architecture, by Le Corbusier [pseud.]. New York: Praeger. First
published in French.
[JEANNERET-GRIS, CHARLES E.] 1929 Une maison-un palais: "A la
recherche d'une unite architectural," by Le Corbusier [pseud.]. Paris:
Cres.
[JEANNERET-GRIS, CHARLES E.] 1935 La ville radieuse: Elements d'une
doctrine d'urbanisme pour I'equipe-ment de la civilisation machiniste, by
Le Corbusier [pseud.]. Paris: Editions de l'Architecture d'Aujourd'-hui.
KIMBALL, SIDNEY F. 1928 American Architecture. Indianapolis : Bobbs-
Merrill.
KUBLER, GEORGE; and SORIA, MARTIN 1959 Art and Architecture in
Spain and Portugal and Their American Dominions: 1500 to 1800.
Baltimore: Penguin.
LOWRY, BATES 1962 Renaissance Architecture. New York: Braziller.
LYNES, RUSSELL 1963 The Domesticated Americans. New York: Harper.
MACDONALD, WILLIAM L. 1962 Early Christian and Byzantine
Architecture. New York: Braziller.
MILLON, HENRY A. 1961 Baroque and Rococo Architecture. New York:
Braziller.
MORRISON, HUGH S. 1952 Early American Architecture: From the First
Colonial Settlements to the National Period. New York: Oxford Univ.
Press.
MUMFORD, LEWIS (1924) 1955 Sticks and Stones: A Study of American
Architecture and Civilization. 2d ed., rev. New York: Dover.
MUMFORD, LEWIS 1961 The City in History: Its Origins, Its
Transformations, and Its Prospects. New York: Harcourt.
PAINE, ROBERT T.; and SOPER, ALEXANDER (1955) 1960 The Art and
Architecture of Japan. Baltimore: Penguin.
PLATZ, GUSTAV A. (1927)1930 Die Baukunst der neue-sten Zeit. 2d ed.
Berlin: Propylaen.
PLOMMER, HUGH 1956 Ancient and Classical Architecture. London:
Longmans
RIDER, BERTHA C. (1916) 1964 Ancient Greek Houses: Their History and
Development From the Neolithic Period to the Hellenistic Age. Chicago:
Argonaut. First published as The Greek House: Its History. . . .
ROWLAND, BENJAMIN (1953) 1959 The Art and Architecture of India:
Buddhist, Hindu, Jain. 2d ed. Baltimore: Penguin.
SAALMAN, HOWARD 1962 Medieval Architecture: European Architecture,
600-1200. New York: Braziller.
SADLER, ARTHUR L. (1941) 1963 A Short History of Japanese
Architecture. Rutland, Vt.: Tuttle. SCRANTON, ROBERT L. 1962 Greek
Architecture. New York: Braziller.
SCULLY, VINCENT J. 1961 Modern Architecture: The Architecture of
Democracy. New York: Braziller. SMITH, GEORGE E. V. K. 1961 The New
Architecture of Europe: An Illustrated Guidebook and Appraisal.
Cleveland: World.
Wasmuths Lexikon der Baukunst. 5 vols. 1929-1937 Berlin: Wasmuth.
WITTKOWER, RUDOLPH (1949) 1962 Architectural Principles in the Age
of Humanism. 3d ed., rev. London: Tiranti.
WRIGHT, FRANK LLOYD (1941) 1959 Frank Lloyd Wright on Architecture:
Selected Writings, 1894-1940. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.
WU, NELSON I. 1963 Chinese and Indian Architecture: The City of Man,
the Mountain of God, and the Realm of the Immortals. New York:
Braziller.
WYCHERLEY, RICHARD E. (1949) 1962 How the Greeks Built Cities. 2d
ed. London: Macmillan.
10
