Size is everything, actually. And, it's precisely what you do with it that counts. Scale and proportion have long been key variables in the pursuit of spatial perfection. While tectonics have traditionally attracted more scrutiny, as detailed attention focuses on the changing form and nature of walls, immaterial spatial subtleties are easily and often overlooked. Most histories of architecture could be said to represent little more than how architects have made walls and put holes in them; relatively little has been written about changing attitudes to space. As Bruno Zevi noted in 1957, we are still waiting for a satisfactory history of architecture to be written; a history that considers spatial responses to evolving cultures. In his opinion, 'historians of architecture have failed to apply a coherent method of studying buildings from a spatial point of view'. From Vitruvius to Banister Fletcher, theoreticians have overlooked its main component; beyond, that is, specific theories of proportion by individuals such as Da Vinci, Corbusier, and Van Der Laan.
展开▼
