H. and Rowan R. “Architecture and Building” in: Understanding Architecture: An Introduction to Architecture and Architectural History. London and New York: Routledge, 2005, pp. 9-32.
In this text, there is an important something about women architects which is mentioned. Their studies in the field of architecture hasn’t been accepted throughtout history mostly. Yet, they have continued to practise architecture. To my way of thinking , this is an essential point, because since the past women have stayed in the background and they haven’t been encouraged about working or creating something. However, some women started to be successful about architecture although they are not unrecognised. In my opinion, they should be encouraged more in the field of architecture.
Besides, I realised a very interesting thing in the text. It mentions that buildings have intrinsic and extrinsic meanings. First meaning has visible shape whereas the other one has tradition and social use. It says that we can recognise which rooms are the most socially significant by the size of windows in a place. I understood that the extrinsic meaning includes interior of the building functions. The example which is given about Georgian terrace was very interesting to me.
I really liked a part in this text about our view while we are looking at buildings. I definitely agree that idea which is about interpretations of people about buildings. Because while the time is elapsing, perspectives of people also change. Past experiences leads to bias. That’s why people can’t look at building objectively. So, people should consider the period when a building was constructed, as past conditions were different. They should think about the opinions of the past period and interpret accordingly.
In the beginning of the text, there is a very questionable thing. In 2002, when some architects won a prize, this situation was discussed whether it should more properly be seen as architecture or as engineering. In my opinion, it is more arguable. A building’s success can belong to an architect or engineers. If it is just an architect’s success, what is the criterion of an engineer’s succes? Are the engineers always in the shadow of architects? I wonder it. On the other hand, an architect is like a maestro. He or she is responsible for a mistake or success because he or she controls engineers. So, this point is stil debatable.
Leyla YILDIZ