1. 1. How does Peter Zumthor talk about the "Magic of the Real" and explain how this compares, in terms of the subtleties, to Michael Benedikt's "Architecture for Reality"?
Peter talks about “Magic of the Real” as an atmosphere, its density, its intensity and mood, which he hopes to achieve as an architect. Like Michael Benedikt, Peter believes in order to reach such realness, presence and significance are essential components. Materiality is another commonality between their enlightenment on realness in architecture.
2. 2. Material Compatibility, Temperature of a Space and Levels of Intimacy are some conditions that both Peter Zumthor, in “Atmospheres”, and Richard Serra, in “Weight and Measure”, make a point of articulating when consider space. Where in their explanation of these overlapping conditions are they similar and where do they differ?
Both argue that compatibility of materials is an important quality; how materials react with each other creates certain reactions and material composition provide certain moods and feelings, thus affecting the experience. In addition, they argue every building or space has a certain temperature, again, weighing in on the experience. With Levels of Intimacy, Peter describes the relationship between spaces such as door in relation to oneself, while Richard Serra describes sizes, volumes and shapes as something of their own.
3. 3. Zumthor looks towards experiential conditions when creating architecture, what are other methods architects use when generating architecture and what is the corresponding building?
Aside from experiential conditions, influence is another condition seen is a lot of architecture even today. Many architects have been greatly influenced by ancient architecture such as Greek, Egyptian, Roman and others, and it is apparent in their work. The condition of functionality would be another method in generating architecture. Even though is it not as personal as the previous, designing and creating something for a purpose satisfies the basic art of architecture.
4. 4. For Zumthor at the end of the day, after figuring use, sound, place, light and the other listed conditions, if the coherence isn’t beautiful the process is started again. Beauty is simultaneously subjective for the individual, as held “in the eye of the beholder”, and universally recognizable. Define your subjective understanding of what beautiful architecture is.
I recognize the universal standard of beauty, especially in architecture, but like Zumthor I think it ultimately depends on the individual creating or experiencing it. As far as being the creator of beautiful architecture, I consider the entire process along with the physical conditions of the building. Aside from the obvious components that create a beautiful and aesthetically pleasing building, I consider the purpose of the building and all the work that goes into achieving a great building to be just as important as the physical aspects; it is part of the overall appeal. I can create an ordinary structure, one that would not meet the standard of "beautiful architecture", but if it was designed and made for a positive purpose and created with hard work and dedication, I would consider it beautiful architecture. Cheesy I know, but that's my definition of beautiful architecture. As a viewer, I tend to judge on that universal standard, but inevitably the moods and feelings created by the conditions set by the architecture create either a positive or negative experience, thus making architecture beautiful or not.
