Intentions in architecture by Christian Norberg Schulz

Intentions in architecture by Christian Norberg Schulz

• 1.
  INTENTIONS IN ARCHITECTURE CHRISTIANNORBERG-SHULZ
• 2.
  • A REACTIONAGAINST MODERNISM • PERCEPTION OF FORMS IN ARCHITECTURE-CULTURAL BASIS • MEANING OF FORMS IN ARCHITECTURE IS THE RESULT OF CULTURAL INTENTIONS • ARCHITECTS SHOULD HAVE TO WORK WITH IN THE NETWORK OF THOSE INTENTIONS
• 3.
  • REVISION OFAESTHETIC DIMENSION IN ARCHITECTURE ? Paris opera,france Villa savoye,france
• 4.
  • HOW TOMAKE ARCHITECTURE A SENSITIVE MEDIUM ? • BUILDING FORM SHOULD BE ACCORDING TO FUNCTION BUT MAINTAINING A VISUAL ORDER. HOW ? • FORMAL DIFFERENTIATION FOR FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES ? • DIFFERENTIATION SHOULD BE SYMBOLISING ?
• 5.
  • DEFINITION OFOUR BUILDING TASKS AND THE MEANS OF THEIR SOLUTION ? • WHAT PURPOSE ARCHITECTURE AS A HUMAN PRODUCT ? • HOW DOES ARCHITECTURE INFLUENCE US ? • WHY HAS A BUILDING FROM A PARTICULAR PERIOD HAS A PARTICULAR FORM ?
• 6.
  • RELATION BETWEENTASK AND SOLUTION • AM EMBEDDED METHOD OF RELATIONS • SOLUTION OF CONCRETE PROBLEMS • FACALITATION IN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS
• 7.
  • ADAPTATION INARCHITECTURE • CONSERAVATION OF STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLES OF TRADITIONS RATHER THAN ITS MOTIVES • PRIMARY AND SECONDARY WHOLES – FUNCTION AND VISUALS • SYMBOL SYSTEM ADAPTION
• 8.
  • TRADITION INMODERN ASPECTS • A MODERN MOVEMENT CAN BE A TRUE TRADITION • HOSTORICAL CONTINUITY DOESN’T MEAN TO BE BORROWED • HUMAN VALUES ARE CONQUERED IN NEW WAYS
• 9.
  • MODERN FORMSARE EXPERIMENTS • FIGHT AGAINST BORROWED MOTIVES • NEVER BEEN ORDERD • NOT A FORMAL LANGUAGE • MODERN FORMS