ABSTRACT
The Classic definitions of architecture state that it is ‘the mother of the arts’. Today architecture is more likely to be described, not as an art, but in technical terms, or as an expression of a given society's values. In general architecture often refers to a built form which can include structures that are modest and ephemeral as well as monumental buildings; often the distinction between architecture as a high art and architecture as a reflection of simple vernacular traditions seems irrelevant to the appreciation and experience of built form. A broad definition of architecture - one that calls for a balance between artistic and technical factors as well as between folk and high-art traditions - is not new. The Roman architect and theorist Vitruvius (active 46-30 BCE) wrote that architecture needed to possess three qualities Firmitas-Utilitas-Venustas, usually rendered in English as commodity, firmness, and delight: good planning, sound construction, and a sense for beauty (Morgan 1960). Vitruvius required all three elements to be present
C. Kristensen Department of Architecture and Design, Aalborg University, Denmark
P.H. Kirkegaard Department of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University, Denmark
for a building to be "architecture." But each of these characteristics has links to the cultural norms and technological processes of a given society. All buildings, from tents to churches, can tell us about the societies that created them - what they valued, how they marshaled construction teams, what technology they could call on, and what abstract values they espoused through the buildings they commissioned. Neither function nor art is sufficient to explain what architecture is; a building is more than the sum of its parts. With reference to tectonic theories architectural quality arises both from a clear structural identity, which shows the overall constructional logic of a building, and from well-articulated details which reflect the transfer of loads through the joints (Frampton 1995). However, architectural quality is also related to the use of material and architectural detailing which play a significant role to our immediate experience of architecture. One can touch the materials and analyze the detailing - thus details give valuable information about the architectural scheme as a whole. Detailing facilitates its own architectural reading and influences how we perceive and experience architecture. Often the detail is defined as ‘a small part of a whole’. However, this interpretation does not seem to be true when speaking of architecture. In the essay The Tell-the-Tale-Detail the American architect, Marco Frascari argues that this definition produces a contradiction in architecture, since a column is both a whole as well as a detail. Frascari advocates that, ‘Details can be material joints as in the case of the capital, which constitutes a connection between the column and the architrave, or formal joints as in the case of the portal, which constitutes the connection between an internal and external space. They are indirect and direct expressions of the structure and the use of buildings’ (Frascari 1984). Architecture does not require explanation, it must be perceived, one have to experience it to understand it. All the senses should preferably be used: Sense of touch - visual - smell – taste - a sense of belonging. .Although one might expect refined detailing in all works of architecture, this seems not to be the case. Sometimes the budget, time or other constraints prevent opportunities for refinements. The newer architecture seems unfortunately to have a lack of refinement of the whole concept, which entails the absence of perceptual stimulation, loss of materiality / tactility, lack of durability, I,e. a lack of quality and attention to detail, perhaps even a shortage of building technical knowledge. The present paper will consider these issues and will outline and discuss detailing in contemporary architecture with respect to architectural quality.
