![BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (HONOURS) IN ARCHITECTURE
THEORIES OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM (ARC61303/ARC2224)
SYNOPSIS: REACTION PAPER (AUGUST 2016) [10 MARKS]
NAME: Kimberley Ee Sze Ann ID: 0315319
LECTURER: Nicholas Ng TUTORIAL TIME: 4-6
SYNOPSIS NO: 2 READER TITLE: Semiology and Architecture
AUTHOR: Charles Jencks
It is my opinion that the primary purpose of Jenks work was to emphasise the importance of
âmeaningâ in architecture. Though Jencks mentions that âone simply cannot speak of meaning as if it
were one thingâ and that the concept of meaning is âmultivalentâ and thus subjective on a person-to-
person basis, âmeaningâ was nonetheless an important term in academia in the years leading up to
the publication of Meaning in Architecture and may have had influence on the author. In the Oxford
English Dictionary (1999), meaning was defined simply as âWhat is meant by a word, text, concept, or
actionâ. For linguist-philosopher Ogden and literary critic Richards (1923), who both feature in Jencks
work âmeaningâ is a logical and pragmatic object of inquiry that is involved in the complex relationship
between words and objects. For art historian Panofsky (1955), who published Meaning in the Visual
Arts and also features in Jencks works âmeaningâ is related to vision, helping process interpretations
of cultural form.
Using these assertions, Jencks also critiques Modernism and its practitioners while staunchly
defending Post-Modernism by pointing out falseness of previous avant-garde ideas who collectively
participated in âconscious denial of connotationsâ and âthe glib reduction of their work,â and âinsisting
on the intractability of the new and confusing.â Jencks further calls out Modernism when in his article
he denounces modernist Hannes Meyerâs claim of âMy poem means nothing; it just is. My painting is
meaninglessâ and claims that even though there is denial of meaning, meaning is created anyway. He
holds firm to the belief that âthe minute a new form is invented it will acquire, inevitably, a meaningâ.
Jencks wrote âthe most fundamental idea of semiology and meaning in architectureâ is that the
environment and even language, is always subject to change thus likening architecture (the
environment) to semiology (language). I too agree that architecture can be likened in this way because
language which semiology studies is a form of communication and expression and the same can be
said for architecture thus making it a language of forms. However, there are important differences in
semiology and architecture namely that while language always remains as a base for communication,
architecture covers not only communication and expression but so much more (Rosemarie , 1971).](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/synopsis2-kimberleyee-161212055223/85/Synopsis-2-Semiology-and-Architecture-1-320.jpg)
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Synopsis 2: Semiology and Architecture
Similar to Synopsis 2: Semiology and Architecture (20)
More from kimberleyee95
More from kimberleyee95 (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Synopsis 2: Semiology and Architecture
- 1. BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (HONOURS) IN ARCHITECTURE THEORIES OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM (ARC61303/ARC2224) SYNOPSIS: REACTION PAPER (AUGUST 2016) [10 MARKS] NAME: Kimberley Ee Sze Ann ID: 0315319 LECTURER: Nicholas Ng TUTORIAL TIME: 4-6 SYNOPSIS NO: 2 READER TITLE: Semiology and Architecture AUTHOR: Charles Jencks It is my opinion that the primary purpose of Jenks work was to emphasise the importance of âmeaningâ in architecture. Though Jencks mentions that âone simply cannot speak of meaning as if it were one thingâ and that the concept of meaning is âmultivalentâ and thus subjective on a person-to- person basis, âmeaningâ was nonetheless an important term in academia in the years leading up to the publication of Meaning in Architecture and may have had influence on the author. In the Oxford English Dictionary (1999), meaning was defined simply as âWhat is meant by a word, text, concept, or actionâ. For linguist-philosopher Ogden and literary critic Richards (1923), who both feature in Jencks work âmeaningâ is a logical and pragmatic object of inquiry that is involved in the complex relationship between words and objects. For art historian Panofsky (1955), who published Meaning in the Visual Arts and also features in Jencks works âmeaningâ is related to vision, helping process interpretations of cultural form. Using these assertions, Jencks also critiques Modernism and its practitioners while staunchly defending Post-Modernism by pointing out falseness of previous avant-garde ideas who collectively participated in âconscious denial of connotationsâ and âthe glib reduction of their work,â and âinsisting on the intractability of the new and confusing.â Jencks further calls out Modernism when in his article he denounces modernist Hannes Meyerâs claim of âMy poem means nothing; it just is. My painting is meaninglessâ and claims that even though there is denial of meaning, meaning is created anyway. He holds firm to the belief that âthe minute a new form is invented it will acquire, inevitably, a meaningâ. Jencks wrote âthe most fundamental idea of semiology and meaning in architectureâ is that the environment and even language, is always subject to change thus likening architecture (the environment) to semiology (language). I too agree that architecture can be likened in this way because language which semiology studies is a form of communication and expression and the same can be said for architecture thus making it a language of forms. However, there are important differences in semiology and architecture namely that while language always remains as a base for communication, architecture covers not only communication and expression but so much more (Rosemarie , 1971).
- 2. REFERENCES Coventry, L., & Nixon, M. (1999). Oxford English Dictionary. New York: University Press. Ogden, C. K., Richards, I. A., Malinowski, B., Crookshank, F. G., & Postgate, J. (1923). The meaning of meaning. London: Trubner & Co. Panofsky, E. (1955). Meaning in the Visual Arts. R. B. (1971). Reviewed Work: Meaning in Architecture by Charles Jencks, George Baird. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 30(2), 178. WORD COUNT 375 Key points (2.5) Appropriateness of Terminologies (2.5) Clarity in Opinions and Reactions (2.5) Logical Progression (2.5) DATE: TOTAL MARK & GRADE ASSSESSED BY:
- 3. SYNOPSIS DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT RUBRIC Grades Marks Key points (2.5) Appropriateness of Terminologies (2.5) Clarity in Opinions and Reactions (2.5) Logical Progression (2.5) A 1.8 - 2.5 Evidence of outstanding understanding of Key points through clear explanation Appropriate use of Terminologies In discussing the Issues/ Concepts/Theories Outstanding Clarity in opinions and reactions - Supported with strong Logical explanation Outstanding Articulation of logical expressions ending with well- developed paragraphs B 1.5 - 1.79 Evidence of understanding of Key points through reasonable explanation Reasonable use of Terminologies In discussing the Issues/ Concepts/Theories with Minor unfamiliarity Reasonable clarity in opinions and reactions - Supported with Logical explanation Reasonable Articulation of logical expressions ending with well- developed paragraphs C 1.25 - 1.49 Evidence of Some Understanding of Key points through acceptable explanation Acceptable use of Terminologies In discussing the Issues/ Concepts/Theories with Noticeable unfamiliarity Acceptable Clarity in opinions and reactions - Supported with satisfactory explanation Acceptable Articulation of logical expressions ending with some ambiguous statements D 1 - 1.24 Evidence of Some Understanding of Key points through not quite acceptable explanation Evidence of Terminologies however poorly communicated in discussing The Issues/ Concepts/Theories With Weak Clarity in opinions and reactions - Supported with Lengthy explanation Poor Articulation of logical expressions ending with noticeable ambiguous statements F 0 - 0.99 Insufficient Evidence of Understanding of Key points through weak explanation Insufficient Evidence of Terminologies in discussing the Issues/ Concepts/Theories With Improper opinions and reactions. Not Matching the Issues/ Concepts/ Theories - Inadequate Reasons Unable to Articulate / illogical expressions. Poorly written synopsis.