First of all, I could have read this text before my architecture study. There is no special requirement for read. This book should have been recommending for those who thinks study architecture.

The architect works with mass with form and mass as the sculptor does

But in my opinion, it was new and a sort of philosophical way to look at architecture. But if we consider the book written in 1959, it might have worthy. Buildings were no longer monuments that mark a person existence in Earth. All buildings had life and function and we can experience them through our senses (it is not ARCH121, it is ARCH201). While I ve been reading this, I was focused on the functional and engineering part of architecture that I totally forgot the more philosophical and social duty attached to a building like a house a hospital or a museum. All of these buildings have different colours, textures, sounds, light. But still my opinion stays steel. Still, I’m thinking the same as before because more than the philosophical way of thinking architecture, it was in past. But the book is in 1959, so it was in past too. I don’t know what to write sorry.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s