APPLICATION OF THEORY IN

ARCHITECTURE
ANALOGIES
“Introduction to Architecture”
By
Snyder and Catanese
• Theories about what architecture is are
concerned with identifying key variables—like
space, structure, or social processes—in terms
of which buildings should be seen or
evaluated.
• In advocating particular ways of seeing
architecture, theorists often rely on analogies.
• The following are some recurrent analogies
employed by theorists to explain architecture.
Mathematical Analogy
• Some theorists hold that numbers and geometry
provide an important basis for decision making in
architecture. They have faith that buildings designed in
accordance with pure forms and primary or symbolic
numbers will be in tune with universal order.
• The “golden section” or “golden number” has most
often been cited as an appropriate guide for
architectural design.
• In what ways do harmoniously proportioned
buildings affect our lives? They affect our aesthetic
sensibilities and leave us either impoverished or
enriched. Architecture whose exterior forms and
interior spaces delight our eyes also elevate and enrich
our minds and ennoble our spirits.
Biological Analogy.
• “Building is a biological process…building is not an aesthetic
process.”
• Theories of architecture based upon biological analogies take
two forms. One is quite general and focuses on the
relationships between parts of the building and its setting.
Following the lead of Frank Lloyd Wright, it is typically called
“organic.” The other form of the analogy is more specific.
Called “biomorphic,” it focuses on growth processes and
movement capabilities associated with organisms.
• Biomorphic architecture gained currency in the 1960s, and it
focuses less on relationships between buildings and
environment than on dynamic processes associated with
growth and change within organisms. Biomorphic architecture
has the capacity to grow and change through expansion,
multiplication, division, regeneration, and off-setting.
Romantic Analogy
• The key feature of romantic architecture is that it
is evocative. It elicits or unleashes an emotional
response in the observer. This is accomplished in
two ways—by calling up associations or through
exaggeration. When employing associations,
romantic design will make references to nature
(both in the form of natural settings and in the
form of natural processes, like decay), the past,
exotic places, things that are primitive, or
childhood associations.
Linguistic Analogy
• Linguistic analogies take the view that
buildings are meant to convey information to
observers in any of the following three ways
1. Grammatical Model. Architecture is
sometimes seen as being composed of
elements (words) that are ordered according
to rules (grammar and syntax) that allow
people within a given culture to readily
understand and interpret what the building is
saying.
2. Expressionist Model. Here the building is
seen as a vehicle through which the architect
expresses his or her attitude towards the
building project.
3. Semiotic Model.
• Semiology is the science of signs. A semiotic
interpretation of architecture holds that a building is a
sign that conveys information about what it is and
what it does. Two ways in which this can occur have
been identified by Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown,
and Steven Izenour.
• They point out that some buildings are “ducks” and
others are “decorated sheds.” Ducks are buildings that
take the form of what to expect. In other cases
buildings have signs that explain their meanings. Such
signs are attracted to an otherwise undistinguished
shed and become facades. A steeple is a sign that a
building is a church
Mechanical Analogy.
• Le Corbusier’s assertion that a house is a machine
for living exemplifies the use of mechanical
analogies in architecture. His statement and
other uses of the analogy assume that buildings,
like machines, should express only what they are
and what they do. A modern building “must be
true to itself, logically transparent and virginal of
lies or trivialities, as befits a direct affirmation of
our contemporary would of mechanization and
rapid transit.”
Problem Solving Analogy
• “Architecture is an art which demands more reasoning
than inspiration, and more factual knowledge than
verve.” Sometimes referred to as the rationalist,
logical, systematic, or parametric approach to
architectural design, the problem-solving method
assumes that environmental needs are problems that
can be solved through careful analysis and deliberate
procedures. Designing is viewed not as an intuitive
process only, characterized by inspirations, but as a
step-by-step process dependent upon solid
information. Another feature of problem-solving
methods in design is a deliberate and integrated
procedure. To be considered rational, the procedure
must include at least three stages: analysis, synthesis,
and evaluation.
Adhocist Analogy
• While a traditionalist view of architecture
would hold that the designer’s task is to select
appropriate elements and mold them to
approximate an ideal, the adhocist approach is
to respond to the immediate need using
materials immediately available and without
making reference to an ideal. There is no
external standard against which the design
can be measured; one makes do.
Pattern Language Analogy
• When we recognize that people are biologically
similar, and that within a given culture there are
conventions for behavior and for building, it is
logical to conclude that architectural design
might simply the task of identifying standard
patterns of needs and standard types of places to
satisfy those needs. The typological or pattern
approach assumes that environment-behavior
relationships may be seen in terms of units the
designer adds together to make a building or an
urban setting.
Dramaturgical Analogy
• Human activities are often characterized as theater
(“All the world’s a stage”), and consequently the built
environment may be seen as a stage. People play roles,
and so buildings become stage settings and props that
support the life shows.
• The dramaturgical analogy is employed in two
ways—from the point of view of the actors, and from
the point of view of the playwright. In the first
instance, the architect is concerned with supplying the
user with the props and settings needed to play out a
particular role.
• The other use of the dramaturgical analogy is
from the point of view of the playwright. Here
the architect’s concern is not so much with the
needs of the characters to appear in a particular
way or to be able to drop out of character, as
with directing the action. Architects can cause
people to move in one direction or another by
offering visual cues, for example. This use of the
dramaturgical analogy has the architect acting
almost like a puppeteer. The architect directs
action as much as supports it.