Discussion: Le Corbusier
This is a tiered assignment. After reading the excerpt provided through the course website, completing the worksheet and sending it to the graduate assistant, continue with this discussion. iYour participation is requested according to this schedule. Note: responses should not exceed 125 words.
First response: What do you think is Le Corbusier’s most important criteria for evaluating buildings? What evidence can you provide from the text to support your idea?
Follow-up comment: Engage with a few of your peers. Whose ideas can you support and expand upon with more information? Whose ideas do you want to challenge, and based on what evidence? In developing your responses consider:
- What comments could you make or questions could you raise that would deepen or move the conversation forward?
- What among these posts was particularly helpful or interesting to you and why
- What ideas require more clarification? Pose questions that will help to clarify any points that are not clear.
- What new questions arose and what questions remain?
Summary/takeaway: After reviewing the whole of the discussion, offer a summary statement of the views expressed, and draw the discussion to a conclusion. In developing your responses consider:
- What is the general consensus of the group, and is it founded on good evidence?
- What provocative, outlier notions were suggested that help focused the group’s understanding by challenging other ideas?
- What insights did you gain from reflecting on this work through the eyes of yourcolleagues?
I think that Le Corbusier’s most important criteria for evaluating buildings is whether the design is functional. This is not to say that aesthetic isn’t important, but it’s not the most important aspect of a building. He wrote “The lesson of the airplane is not primarily in the forms it has created, and above all we must learn to see in an airplane not a bird or a dragon-fly, but a machine for flying.” He’s saying that the purpose of the airplane as a machine for flying is of greater importance than the form of the airplane. Applying this idea to buildings, I believe that Le Corbusier would value the purpose of a building and the fulfillment of that purpose through the design the most.
I agree that Le Corbusier valued the overall functionality more than the aesthetic without disregarding aesthetic fully. He was a minimalist in the sense that he wanted his designs to use common geometric shapes to combine into a clean building, using materials driven toward efficiency. He is driven toward the goal of finding new ways to find the most efficient use of the materials at his disposal.
The idea of design being functional is a good point, and I believe it is better to say that he wants designs to be purposeful. The overall purpose a building serves should be a large goal and if that purpose is fulfilled, it is a successful design. In architecture, buildings have purposes and need to carry out the needs and functions of that purpose, without that, the design in meaningless.
In conclusion the most important criteria Le Corbusier had when evaluating a building was whether the building was functional. This means that all the details and ordainments had to have a purpose too. The quote that was used in the first comment is very strong evidence. It shows that he wanted the form and detail to have a purpose and be functional.
In addition to his clear value for functionality is an implicit idea that new conditions pose a new “problem” that requires a new “solution:” so, whereas a house built 200 years ago may have functioned well for a family in 1820, it is impossible for Le Corbusier to imagine that it could still function for contemporary families.
To Le Corbusier it was essential that in evaluating buildings you strip away any “dead” or pre-conceived perceptions of the building and see it through a perspective that fully and clearly understands the purpose or reason it was created. It is important for the question or problem that was asked or proposed in the building’s creation is stated clearly so we can see the solution. It thus helps us to see or evaluate whether the solution was successful or not. The solution being the completely design and production of the building.
I like how you phrased this, however I would add that he focuses on the most efficient way to reach that goal as well. He focused not only on an effective solution, but also one that was efficient and used the materials to their full potential.
You’re observation is very interesting especially since it is not something I thought of. The preciseness and clearness is a quality Le Corbusier exemplified. He said that there is a need, a thought, and a resolution, and this idea is very important. He wanted design and architecture to be a clear production to solve a problem.
When you say that Le Corbusier “strips away” dead or pre-conceived notions about structures i feel this is a great description of his architecture. Le Corbusier’s work was very straight forward and to the point. It was strictly functional and different from original precedents.
In conclusion Le Corbusier thought that when evaluating a building it should be clear what the purpose of the building is. One should be able to clearly see what the problem was and what the solution was. And as the second comment says it wasn’t just about the form solution it was also about material solution too, by using the most efficient amount of materials.
It would be useful to surmise what he is talking about, literally, with this “stripping away.” What aspects or elements of architecture are “dead” to him?
I think Le Corbusier believes that buildings should reflect what’s going on in society and industry at that time. In the excerpt he uses parallels between the mass production of industry, and the efficiency of industry as examples. In the first section, Le Corbusier says that industry is mass producing and the house should mimic that. He says that not only is it efficient, but it’s beautiful. Le Corbusier goes on to say that innovation and efficiency is also important to a building. He says that for years the client has been demanding better, and engineers constantly improve bridges and barges, while, “architects have been asleep.” I think this means that he thinks it’s time for architects to radically innovate buildings, similar to engineers.
You nailed how Le Corbusier thought that an extremely efficient design can and most often is beautiful especially when today people’s urges for have a custom or special creation is so high.
I agree with what you said about industry being efficient and beautiful in the eyes of Le Corbusier. Showing that because these things are efficient they are inherently beautiful, and not beautiful because there are aesthetics added onto the structure.
Le Corbusier uses those examples of these new technologies to show a new time of production and what is now capable for society. And with these new technologies comes new needs, thus design needs to accommodate for that. All these new technologies and abilities allow designs and buildings to be produced in a new manner and fulfill needs that may have not been able to be fulfilled in the past. To seek the opportunities and discover new ways to build has become the architects role.
i really enjoy the phrase “radically innovate” you use in the last sentence, because i think that Le Corbusier would agree with you- that innovation was a large factor into what went into his designs.
I would agree that Le Corbusier’s architecture reflects what is going on in the world. We can see his reflection of this idea when he designed the Dom-ino House in 1914, as a new proposed house for the post WWI society.
If you were going to write a definition of beauty by Le Corbusier’s standards, what would it be? How would it differ from definitions of beauty that we saw in the Renaissance or 18th c.?
I would agree with the idea that Le Corbusier believed that Architecture should reflect the spirit of its epoch and take advantage of the intellectual progress of that epoch. That is the reason why he called Architecture to create “mass production houses “and called the people to accept to live in those “mass production houses” because for Le Corbusier new technologies that came with the industrial revolution allow the construction of such houses mass and there was no reason why Architects should not do so since it’s the demandes of the time. Therefore, we may say that for Le Corbusier beauty is to live with his epoch.
Corbusier compares architecture and airplanes by means of how they respond to the conditions in which they are set. He then talks about how the problem of the airplane is expressed through war and that the solution will be found from that issue. This is seen when he says “The lesson of the airplane lies in the logic which governed the enunciation of the problem and which led to its successful realization. When a problem is properly stated, in our epoch, it inevitably finds it solution.” Then he states that the problem of the house is not yet known and therefore the solution is not yet attainable. Corbusier would then prefer a house that responds more clearly to its problem, whatever that may be.
Le Corbusier’s most important criteria for evaluating buildings is the functionality of the building itself. This includes the flow of interior spaces, not just efficiency of materials for the structure. The mention of airplanes is an example of what efficient design should look like. They do their job exactly how they should, and have a sleek, clean appearance, not much extra design just for looks. So, that is what Le Corbusier wants to see in architecture. The same efficiency and clean aesthetic that follows the appearance of modern engineering, which was starting to get too far ahead of architecture in their time.
One could also think that the parralel drawn with the airplane points to a design that answers a design problem that is completely out of the box and so deserves a design that follows suit.
Le Corbusier’s idea is based off of the idea of being functional over added aesthetics. He believes that the best way to solve the issue of designing a house is to state the problem clearly and then fulfill it to its basic needs.
Does he actually address arrangement of plan elements (“flow of spaces”) and “efficiency” of materials directly? Or are there other concerns here?
I believe that Le Corbusier’s main idea revolves around the Idea that architecture should take advantage of the era in which it exists and that architects must not only use technologies and methods (like the use of materials and technologies developed at the time) that are created in the epoch but that they should also be creating different advancements in their ideas and methods. Ideas like making mass-production houses reflect this specifically in the industrial age because it uses efficiency and expediency as priorities for their construction and design.
Le Corbusier was fixated on purpose and functionality when it came to architecture. His primary criteria for evaluating residential buildings was how well they “solved” the “question” of what a house should be. While ensuring buildings fit the “industrial spirit” of the age was important to him, that was just a single part of the “question”.
He writes, “The lesson of the airplane lies in the logic… of the problem and which led to its successful realization. When a problem is properly stated, in our epoch, it inevitably finds it solution. The problem of the house has not yet been stated. Engineers have been busy with barges, with bridges, with Atlantic liners, with mines, with railways. Architects have been asleep.”
DISCUSSION SUMMARY
After reading the discussion, the general consensus is Le Corbusier emphasizes that functionality in a building is the most important. The airplane is seen as beautiful because of its function. One thing I noticed was in Teddy’s response where he said, “not only is it efficient, but it’s beautiful.” We can learn that there is an importance in function not only past designs, but in the future as well.
As is true for many comments here, take care with making assumptions about what “function” means in Corbusier’s writing. How does he illustrate this concept specifically?
Summary: While reading several response, I have come across the favored statement of Le Corbusier’s focus on the purpose and function of a building. Saying this, my fellow classmates have determined this through allegories to the example Le Corbusier used in which he talked about seeing an airplane as a flying machine which fills its purpose, not an imitation of a bird flying. I would say that a provocative statement was mentioned was about how Le Corbusier would consider function and purpose as beauty itself in aspects of a building. This gave my classmates a challenging idea by trying to compare what is truly beautiful about buildings according to different philosophers/architects from previous times, like Palladio for example. I gained several insights thanks to my classmates, but the one that stood out the most was Rachel Norgen’s understanding and comparison over Le Corbusier’s understanding of what is the priority in a building.
Yet that “priority” can’t be left alone, nor can the idea of function be separated from form, in the way Le C. talks about it.
It is clear that Le Corbusier’s theory of function over form has been very influential, as well as his belief that buildings should be highly efficient. One great point that was made was that the work of Le Corbusier really was a reflection of the time period. The arrival of new technology and the assembly line brought about the conception of the idea of mass producing buildings that were continuously being perfected. What many have noticed is that Le Corbusier’s writing was a wake up call to architects.
I don’t think he privileges function over form-reconsdier what you mean to say here. Form is VERY important to Le C.
In what way do you think this is a “wake-up call?” It’s a new voice, to be sure, but how specifically do you think mass production affects house design as a result?
The consensus of the group is focused towards how buildings should follow the function and should solve a problem that society needs using materials that are more modern in their approach. There was a few points made that said Le Corbusier was thinking outside the box on talking about buildings that should be designed to answer a problem and follow a function and in reality, we see this way of thinking in designing buildings with ancient constructions. Such as Pyramids, greek/ roman temples, and other historical buildings. From reading through these and reflecting on everyone’s responses, I noticed how Le Corbusier wasn’t exactly reinventing that idea brought bringing back to focus in Architectural Designs.
I hope everyone considers that “function” idea carefully. I am writing this in the living room of a house built 7 years after Corb wrote his book, but based in traditions that go back a long, long time. It serves me and my family well. But Corb would say it is unfunctional. How do you square that?
After reviewing the discussion, I believe there are some accurate, general statements that reflect Le Corbusier’s thinking when it comes to aesthetic and functionality of a building. First, everybody seems to agree that Le Corbusier was a minimalist who believed the functionality of a building came first and foremost. Second, everybody agrees that Le Corbusier analyzed architecture in the same way we would analyze an airplane. The airplane, according to Le Corbusier, was beautiful in its mechanics and functionality as a thing that flies. He believed we should examine architecture in a similar fashion. Finally, everybody seems to agree that Le Corbusier found beauty that came “inherently” through the minimalistic, clean, rationalistic designs he made.
Has the word “minimalist” come up before? That wouldn’t be an unreasonable assumption to make, looking at his theory. But after you look at his actual designs, how do they illustrate “minimalism” (not to mention rationalism)?
And again, I don’t think it’s accurate to put function very high above form. Remember, he was a painter, first and foremost.
Summary: Overall from what I read in the excerpt and what I have gotten to conclude based on my peers views is that Le Corbusier’s main criteria for a building is that it needs to be functional and the functionality of the building makes it beautiful. As the times changed engineers brought new projects on to the table but architects looked on to the typical of the past and Le Cobusier believed that things needed to change in the realm of architecture. Buildings need to be up to date and be able to be mass produced according to Le Cobusier.
But HOW does the functionality lead to “beauty”? That’s the question that remains.
“If we eliminate from our hearts and minds all dead concepts in regard to the house, and look at the question from a critical and objective point of view, we shall arrive at the “House-machine,” the mass-production house, healthy (and morally so too) and beautiful in the same way that working tools and instruments which accompany our existence are beautiful.” I think this part of the reading points out something important to the thoughts of Le Cobusier. After analyzing the reading a bit more and seeing the video in which he was interviewed I think what Le Cobusier found beautiful about functionality as part of building is that people would not work for the building but rather the building would work for the people just like how tools work for us to make our lives easier and better. Le Cobusier believed that elements of a building needed a purpose such as how he didn’t just simply build a roof on one building he used it as a playground.