Atmospheres

1.      How does Peter Zumthor talk about the "Magic of the Real" and explain how this compares, in terms of the subtleties, to Michael Benedikt's "Architecture for Reality"?

He describes it as the atmosphere created by a building, for example the intensity and mood portrayed in the picture of a Café at a students’ hostel.  Like Benedikt, Zumthor breaks up his explanation into multiple parts each talking about how the “atmosphere” is created. Benedikt breaks it up more into different types of architecture realities, but they both agree on the fact that it’s the experience that someone takes in that creates the reality of the architecture.  In other words, people see architecture differently due to atmosphere and symbolism.

2.      Material Compatibility, Temperature of a Space and Levels of Intimacy are some conditions that both Peter Zumthor, in “Atmospheres”, and Richard Serra, in “Weight and Measure”, make a point of articulating when consider space. Where in their explanation of these overlapping conditions are they similar and where do they differ?

Zumthor talks about Levels of Intimacy as scale, and how different types of thresholds generate a different type of experience.  This was one of Serra’s issues at the British Museum.  He was having problems with the scale of the colossal columns in the octagonal room.  Zumthor talks about Temperature of a Space being physical because it’s in what we see and touch, while Serra perceived it more as in vastness of a space. As far as Material Compatibility, Zumthor explains how different materials react to one another, and how materials can be two far apart to react or too close where they just kill each other.  This is something Serra had to take into consideration when adding the two rectangles to the museum.

3.      Zumthor looks towards experiential conditions when creating architecture, what are other methods architects use when generating architecture and what is the corresponding building?

In revival architecture I believe the approach is more straightforward rather than putting down a bunch of ideas to try out.  Sure there will be some experiential condition but for the most part the ideas come from the ancient work.  For example the Schauspielhaus Theater by Karl Friedrich Schinkel.

4.      For Zumthor at the end of the day, after figuring use, sound, place, light and the other listed conditions, if the coherence isn’t beautiful the process is started again. Beauty is simultaneously subjective for the individual, as held “in the eye of the beholder”, and universally recognizable. Define your subjective understanding of what beautiful architecture is.

Through the course of my studies here at the College of Architecture I’ve been introduced to different ideas of what beautiful architecture is and not one have I disagreed with.  I strongly agree with what Zumthor says about beauty being held “in the eye of the beholder,” because of that we have such a variety of beautiful architecture in this world.  It’s thing like material compatibility and the sound of space that really do need to be taken into consideration along with a bunch of other things like Zumthor and other architects have mentioned in order to create that aesthetically pleasing building