The book of complexity and contradiction in architecture by Robert Venturi focused on the complexity in architecture, but I could not find the rules or procedures to implement such complexity in order to get the meaning of ambiguity through architectural form in architectural design studio.
I interviewed Bob Venturi together with partner Denise Scott Brown. you can see the result of that as a chapter in my book Design in Mind. Venturi’s approach is simultaneously scholarly and playful.he sketches prolifically and talks as he does so. He liked to use the phrase Less is a bore, as a counter to the Miesian Less is More. He often ran an object through more than one meaning. For example a handrail might slope its way down a staircase and at the bottom turn into a dado moulding on a wall.So I think the kind of complexity he is calling for depends upon a detailed knowledge of architecture and its elements through the many historical styles. But it also depends upon being able to play around with these elements. Look at the house he built for his mother to see many examples of this. I’m sure he would not call for rules but for a good architectural education!
Dear Bryan,
I understand that minimising the elements or components of architectural form and focusing on details may increase the possibility of meaning, but simple form achieves simplicity rather than ambiguity. What's about the relationships that govern the elements and components of architectural form please?
Rules usually end up in structured and ordered space, not in complexity. To reach complexity, you don't need to define rules; you need to break them. "Entropy" is a keyword if you like to link to science.
Dear Aryan,
You can make the architectural form complicated by increase numbers of elements associated in building the form for example, but how can you grant the meaning of ambiguity. You mentioned to break the rules but you have not mentioned where and how to apply that rules.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Design
- Architecture