The document summarizes three reaction papers by a student on architectural theory readings. The first discusses Le Corbusier's view that revolution has improved society through new tools and industrialization but also reduced humans, arguing that architecture and revolution both aid evolution. The second covers Robert Venturi's preference for complexity and contradiction in architecture over simplicity. The third summarizes Juhani Pallasmaa's perspective that architecture should evoke feelings through memories and experiences rather than just visual elements.

1. BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (HONOURS) IN ARCHITECTURE
THEORIES OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM (ARC
61303)
SYNOPSIS: REACTION PAPER (APRIL 2019)
Name: WONG CHEE FON ID No.: 0327220
Lecturer: DR FILZANI ILLIA Tutorial Time: 10AM–12PM
Reader/Text Title: TOWARDS A NEW ARCHITECTURE,
‘ARCHITECTURE OR REVOLUTION’
Synopsis No: 1b
Author: Le Corbusier
Word Count: 516 Mark Grade
Assessed by: Date : 29 / 5 / 2019 Page No. : 1
From the extract, ‘Architecture or Revolution’ by Le Corbusier in 1922, he claims that society this century
acknowledges changes, consciously or unconsciously, and is now in new need. It’s in human nature that when
unfavorable situations arise we take shelter. However, among the different social classes, some fail to acquire
dwellings. Hence, the question of what is the root of the social unrest: architecture or revolution? (pg. 269)
The writer highlights in the last fifty years, society has experienced a ‘revolution’ of industrialization
towards modernization in which society opposing the past. Evidently, in the early civilization men had a body of
tools dealt with the contribution of man’s hands (pg. 271). The effort of collective manpower made the dream to
be realized. However, these new tools have evolved and replaced opportunities as modernity arises. Progress
seems to be hateful and praiseworthy simultaneously (pg. 271), bewilder and confused reckoned by the writer.
Then comes the Industrial Revolution where the correlation between men and machine exist making each part of
their lifestyle strictly regimented and assigned. Ordered to produce with a collective spirit rather than thinking
independently, there’s no lively integration in the daily life of men’s routine in the factory - men’s mind
demoralized to the servitude and archaism of society. Destroyed and brainwashed in every family, man’s mind is
driven towards desires which leads to large demands in which our social organization is not prepared for.
Evidently as mentioned by Le Corbusier, industries created its tools, business remodified, construction
finds its own means, architecture confronted with new laws which further justifies these new industry tools
contributes to human welfare while also reducing human toil if these new conditions are set in the past: then we
have a revolution (pg. 283-284). While architecture is confronted with new laws, old “styles” would not clothe with
the innovation of construction: as the focus is towards capital benefits while also providing shelter for society.
The revolutionized conception (pg. 268) of what architecture is to provide functional support and emphasizing the
importance of new proposed programs to accommodate the lifestyles of men. Thus, a new fact against the past
through an improved morale industry has provoked a healthy and moral organism.
In conclusion, looking at the points discussed by Le Corbusier on revolution, some may look to be
against it, but I feel that it’s more on how society adapts to the available problem and solve it. Revolution has
made us more focused and productive as stated by the author, a “new world” - logically and clearly of
straightforward results that are useful and usable that can solve problems directly and evolve from there. I do
agree revolution has disrupted the lifestyle and evoke the hunger of desire in men but however, it is also evident
that through revolution, we are where we are today well equipped with advanced technology and machines that
gave us limitless exploration and possibilities. Architecture is a constant evolution, and revolution only aids it and
not degrade it. The negatives that come after can be solved through modern technologies, it’s only a matter of
time.

2. Based on ‘Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture’ by Robert Venturi, he expressed about his liking
towards the complexity and contradiction in architecture based on the richness and ambiguity of modern
experience including those existing in form of art. He elaborated the concept of richness in contrast with clarity in
which space and its elements become readable and workable in several ways (pg 16) and presented a gentle
manifesto “More is not less” (pg 16) declaring that complexity and contradiction are elements that should be
embraced and utilized in a technological era, rather than rejecting and altering it.
Robert Venturi pointed out that the conventional modern architects and their reluctant treatment of
complexity. He brought up the famous statement “Less is More” by Mies Van Der Rohe whereby removal of
complexity as expressive functions and expressed that this type of simplicity does not always work, because it
often results in oversimplification and retorts with the statement, “less is a bore” (pg 17). Although oversimplified
architecture can induce selective decisions and create a functional and visually imposing building, it a bland
program of living where the architecture is unable to receive a different reaction of people when they are
experiencing the space.
The author then discusses the complexity in architecture as “Both-And” scenario that encourages
hierarchy within it leading to contrasts, layers, and levels of meanings, though contradicting when analyzed side
by side, they must be addressed together and not excluding each other for the sake of simplicity. Advocation of
clarity and purity by the separation and exclusion of the elements of complexity may disengage people from
architecture. Additionally, he appreciates the double meanings of architecture elements, which derive one
meaning from their original context, and the new meaning from its contemporary function (pg 23). The given
example would be where palazzos reused as be public spaces. Venturi discussed that variety in cityscape forms
a simultaneous perception of the experience of varying levels for the observer that makes the experience rich
and meaningful through stimulation of feelings and emotions.-“The obligation towards a different whole”
In conclusion, understanding Venturi’s intention of complexity and contradiction in architecture made me
realize that indeed, just like the architects in the modern era, restricting ourselves from designing out of the box
and going beyond “simplicity” to solve the complexity that comes with it, only consequence into monotonous and
function driven architecture that is rather predictable and repetitive, I believe architecture should be a constant
consideration and exploration of not just being complex in expressing form but rather also contradict with the
formal functions to produce meaningful and unique buildings. Thus, intangible elements can be expressed
through its form, while function plays a role in driving the soul of the ‘complex’ architecture, these characteristics
can be part of a richer image of a city.
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (HONOURS) IN ARCHITECTURE
THEORIES OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM (ARC
61303)
SYNOPSIS: REACTION PAPER (APRIL 2019)
Name: WONG CHEE FON ID No.: 0327220
Lecturer: DR FILZANI ILLIA Tutorial Time: 10AM–12PM
Reader/Text Title: COMPLEXITY AND CONTRADICTION IN
ARCHITECTURE
Synopsis No: 2b
Author: ROBERT VENTURI
Word Count: 466 Mark Grade
Assessed by: Date : 29 / 5 / 2019 Page No. : 2

3. Based on “The Geometry of Feeling”, by Juhani Pallasmaa, he emphasizes that architecture has just
become a mere toy off combining various visual elements of form and space, evidently demonstrated by the
Bauhaus ideology. He reckons that modern architecture with attempts of the revival of historical themes and
experimentative forms fails to evoke feelings that it should and explains that architects should create forms to
provide insightful experience while controlling the feelings and emotions in the space within.
Pallasmaa highlighted how “The artistic dimension of a work does not lie in the actual physical thing; it
only exists in the consciousness of a person experiencing it” (pg 449) under the subtopic, “Architecture of
Imagery”, Juhani justifies how space affects the human feeling; rather the physical embodiment of spatial poetics
in the space.. The mentality of pursuing forms that are diverse and visually captivating should be placed second
and realize that the simplest forms do hold the power to evoke the imagination of those experiencing. To justify
the statement, the richness of art does not lie on its form but instead the vitality of its imagery and influence on
shaping human behavior as stated by the author, form only affects through what it represents (pg 449) where
space molded influences the impact of perception within.
”A work of art is a reality only when it's experienced, and experiencing a work of art means recreating its
dimension of feeling” (pg 450), the author acknowledges architecture as a form of physicality that evokes the
sense of building character through memories. Works of art are introspective in nature, subject to the
phenomenology of architecture: an examination of own sensory and perceptual experience of the individual in
the architecture space; a perception formed by early childhood memories, intimate and personal to each
individual. Unless, the building is functional and succeeds in intriguing the memories that lie in our subconscious
and link to our various senses, the architecture will be nothing more than meaningless ornamentation.
Experiencing loneliness and silence is the primary feeling of architecture, as Pallasmaa, describes “a
private dialogue between the work and the person experiencing it” (pg 452). Indulgence within art mutes all
interaction aside from the spiritual connection between the soul and the work.
In conclusion, the author’s aim is to remind us of the importance of experience within architecture. I felt
the importance of shaping experience and intriguing emotions and I agree that “Architecture cannot be merely a
play with form”(pg 453) as giving the ability to create holds strong responsibility as an architect to shape the best
experience within the building that leaves strong emotional and personal memories for the users. Making the
architecture unique as its own can tell an impactful story through its journey within the space, after all,
architecture is an art of shaping spaces, not creating beautiful sculptures.
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (HONOURS) IN ARCHITECTURE
THEORIES OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM (ARC
61303)
SYNOPSIS: REACTION PAPER (APRIL 2019)
Name: WONG CHEE FON ID No.: 0327220
Lecturer: DR FILZANI ILLIA Tutorial Time: 10AM–12PM
Reader/Text Title: THE GEOMETRY OF FEELING Synopsis No: 3b
Author: JUHANI PALLASMAA
Word Count: 472 Mark Grade
Assessed by: Date : 29 / 5 / 2019 Page No. : 3