IAR 222 Reflections: Point

In this section we focused a lot on the aspect of revolution. When I think of the word revolution I think of the American Revolution, which has a great deal to do with the revolution after all the classical styles. The was to get away from all the ideas that had already been used, and create a new way of looking at things, a lot like the Americans did to create their own nation away from the British. Architecture portrays many things that are going on in the world at that time. His can be explained by the way people dress, for example, in the end of the eighteenth through the early nineteenth century, women wore very full skirts and dresses, so chairs were made armless and the sofa was typically used for only one person. To me, this created the revolution of armless chairs that are still used and popular today.

A house that created a revolution for its time was Monticello, designed by Thomas Jefferson. This house is the definition of beauty and function to me personally. Jefferson combined so many different styles into one house to create a revolution of his own. He took elements similar to Palladio to create his own “temple on a hill”. Jefferson also created a revolution when he designed the University of Virginia. The way we learn is translated through his design. The dome on campus is similar to the brain, while the lawn space is where graduation is still held. The residential areas are located on the perimeter of the courtyard. All the staff and students would stay in close quarters to stimulate learning. Now, many newer college campuses are designed similarly with the courtyards in the center and residential halls surrounding it.

There are many design movements that followed one another in the everlasting revolution such as the English Free Architecture Movement, also known as the Arts and Crafts movement. In this era a de-cluttered interior was the ideal space and to only have what was “appropriate” and actually needed in a space. Designers wanted to remove the excess and come back to the rules. The next movement within the Arts and Crafts period was the Aesthetic Movement. The philosophers of this movement believed that if you surrounded yourself with beautiful things, you would be beautiful. I feel as though this idea is still in use today in interior design. The Aesthetic movement believed that every surface in the space should be decorated, which also correlates with the Victorian period. This brings up the argument of surface versus substance. Is it more important to be around beautiful things, or have the “idea” of being surrounded by beautiful things in the sense that the atmosphere of the space is inviting and decorative? How you perceive yourself in a space was one of the main questions of that time. An example of this would be The Paris Opera building in Paris, France. The interior of the building is a show in itself, leaving you to question is the performance the opera singer? Or is the actual visual of the audience in this romantic space the performance alone? Or maybe even the fact of the people just circulating and using the space is an even bigger show. When you are in a space you act the way you feel you should in that space because of the atmosphere and the people surrounding you.