Baroque-ing the Rules

Architecture, like almost everything in the world, has a beginning and an end, but what defines the end of each architectural era or phrase? We have seen many times in architectural history that in order to start a new era, someone must have the guts to break the rule. And by breaking that rule, that person must also have enough companion or followers in order for the public or the majority of the people to accept him and start mind wars with the existing era. In order to have that many people believing him, the person must have enough reasoning to mess with people's logic. Baroque architects accomplished to win that war. They challenged the Renaissance's perfect symmetry and proportion and bend it to their appreciation. An element that the Baroque was very proud to present was the form of an oval. Just by extending two sides of the circle, the Baroque architects challenged hundreds of years of theory, but because of their logical and creative reasoning, they seem to persuade many people to believe them. Shortening their reasoning for using the oval would be that ovals create an axi line which leads to something else. It was like magic at that time, at least for me if I was in that period. People realized that by being perfect, or proportional and symmetrical, was not everything, but breaking the rules might create a whole new perspective in form. And it all comes back to perspective and point of view.

One can say Baroque is like Post Modernism or the other way around, but for me, Baroque architects seem  to be respecting the rules more than Post Modernist. Baroque architects bends the rules while Post Modernism architects does everything opposite of the rules. Baroque architects seem to be experimenting on what would happen if they distort the form, while Modernism architects breaks the form entirely.

Perspective into Physical

Now that we've come back to the Renaissance period, or rebirth, or post modernism of the ancient people, we've come to see "out of the box" architects challenge the rules set up by the majority. Similar to post modernism, which challenges the "Less is more" and "Honest" theories of the Modernist, the Renaissance architects had their debate. Since the architecture at that era were mainly based on the drawing of the proportion of the human body, Da Vinci's Vitruvian man, the arguments were mostly about symmetry and proportion. So if Classicism was the pass, why would someone start a new era repeating something that already happened? I'd say they are trying to point out some things that Classicism architects never arrived at, or in other words, giving a new perspective or point of view towards architecture. Many architects arrive at their building from diagrams and drawings, but these diagrams are things that are subjective to the person who made it. Say, why did Da Vinci only drew circle and squares with the Vitruvian man? Why cant we add a triangle, or a hexagon to the Vitruvian man? If we position the guy in another way, we we'd get new shapes. I believe this is why architecture can move on and on and on with just one main concept, but looking at it in different ways. For example, hundreds of years after the Vitruvian man was drawn, Le Corbusier drew a modular man in a different diagram showing a new aspect of the proportion of a man and used it in many of his buildings. By doing that, he is not proving Da Vinci wrong, but he is saying that he is not wrong as well. Even though diagram may seem to be arrived as facts, but the detail can be emphasized differently. That is why we see so many rebirths in the history of architecture.

Using History

"Why study history?" is a worldwide asked question. Many say that history is the past that we do not need to cover since it is just events that already happened written in a book. But, to be capable of understanding this, we must first explore the true definition of history. History, according to the dictionary, means “the knowledge, study, or record of past events” and “pattern of events determining the future” (dictionary.com)
We use history, not only to understand our past, but also to DETERMINE the future. For example, if we look at the overall picture of history through a timeline, it can be seen that history repeats itself over time. What is the difference between post-modernism and renaissance? One may say that it is totally different in which the Renaissance is ornamented and Post-modernism plays with simple forms or whatsoever, but if we look conceptually, both of it is mimicking, or playing with a concept established in an earlier date. Renaissance is using Classicism, while Post-modernism is playing with Modernism. We may be centuries away from when Burnellisky started his manifesto, but we are now creating manifestos similar to the ones that were established hundreds of years ago. Going further, what is the difference between Modernism and Classicism. In ancient Rome, there were not much technology. Human beings were the greatest invention at that time. Humans could create pyramids, cathedrals, or whatever they could think of at that time. Again, Humans were the greatest invention. Therefore, why not create architectural forms abstracted from the human form if they were the strongest at that time? That was the Roman's thoughts, which I would say, is pretty much similar to Modernism. After centuries past, humans created factories, robots, and machinery. Nowadays, what we think is the strongest invention is not humans anymore, but robots. They are stronger, can carry more, and can produce more. Why not crate architectural forms abstracted from machines?

Nothing starts absolutely from zero. New forms may be created, but the conceptual thinking has already happened years ago only in a different format. By knowing history, we can use this concept to apply it to what we face in today's society