This is another in my series of posts inspired by 1000 Awesome Things, the Webby Award winning blog written by Neil Pasricha. The series is my meditation on the awesome reasons why I was and continue to be attracted to the art of architecture.
Most people recognize symmetry when they see it, whether the pattern is apparent in nature or in a building designed by architects. We instinctively relate to bilateral symmetry, which is evident across the vertical axis of our own bodies. That implicit axis—referred to as the sagittal plane—represents our upright stance and is fundamentally built into our physiology. It is the orientation of Earth’s gravity and helps us understand our relationship to three-dimensional space. Humans are attracted to bilateral symmetry (also referred to as axial or reflection symmetry) because it is familiar. Other commonly understood types of symmetry include rotational symmetry (meaning the geometry looks the same even if rotated) and translational symmetry (repetition and alternation along a straight line, such as in an architectural frieze).
Architects have long relied on symmetry as an organizational strategy when designing buildings, particularly the shape and arrangement of the spaces they contain, and the composition and articulation of the surfaces that define those spaces. Symmetry is useful because humans naturally respond to recognizable patterns, whereas we find excessive randomness confusing and stressful. We have a natural affinity for symmetrical patterns because they effectively reduce the amount of information our brains must process and interpret. The use of symmetry is pervasive in the design of buildings, manifest in their plans, forms, and details.
Symmetry isn’t necessarily simplistic, though many architects who eschew the notion and application of symmetry on aesthetic grounds will argue it is. Symmetry is a simple concept, but its application can be extraordinarily sophisticated if it exists within a hierarchy of multiple, linked scales, and is complex rather than monotonous. There are many noteworthy buildings we do not immediately characterize as “symmetrical,” but they are in fact comprised of coherent sets of connected fields or parts featuring localized symmetries. For example, they may consist of rhythmic and interrelated groupings of elements, each of which contain minor variation within them at different scales. Such complexity accommodates imperfections and roughness. Rather than “perfect” symmetry, these complex systems of patterns more importantly convey visual and relational coherence. By contrast, achieving such coherence using minimalist design principles requires a greater reliance upon the visual contrast between and quality of the finish materials employed, or the patterning associated with changing light conditions, than is always attainable.
Asymmetry may suggest the opposite of symmetry, but if thoughtfully composed, asymmetrical designs feature strong centers and localized symmetries that are balanced with complementary weighting across axes that may not be evident straight away. Asymmetry evokes dynamism and movement, whereas a more rigid symmetry suggests formality and structure.
The successful application of symmetry in architecture primarily has to do with the harmonious relationship of parts to the whole. It is about balance in design. We find symmetry satisfying because we ourselves are symmetrical and programmed to relate to the symmetries we find in our surroundings. Architecture that employs symmetries of various types at many scales more fully harnesses the AWESOME power of our minds to comprehend and interpret our environment.
Next Architecture is Awesome: #22 The Symbolism of Shelter
No comments:
Post a Comment