Seminário de Investigação em Arquitectura Francisco

Paixão

LECTURE 5:
GIULIO CARLO ARGAN, “ON THE TYPOLOGY OF ARCHITECTURE”

https://courtneymichelleclark.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/lecture-5-giulio-carlo-argan-%E2%80%9Con-
the-typology-of-architecture%E2%80%9D/

This reading discusses the idea of typology in architecture; how it can be defined,
judgments on how to define a certain type, and the role of succession in the definition of
“types”. The idea of an ideal type, as a standard that other works are then measured
against, is considered by Argan to be an abstraction. Typology becomes a function of
historical process or reference as well as influenced by the individual. A type as identified
by Quincy is “something in relation to which different people may conceive works of art
having no obvious resemblance to each other.” This generalization of certain forms is
articulated and associated with a “type,” however to achieve this resemblance requires
time. This comparison and superimposing of forms becomes a method of reduction until
one “root form” can be identified or generalized. To then understand or recognize a form
as being part of a “type” means identifying this long historical process of selection and
articulation of forms appropriate to that certain characterization.

Argan identifies three main categories of architectural typologies: a complete

configuration of buildings, major structural elements, and decorative elements. Complete
configuration or form such as longitudinally planned buildings as supplied by Argan
suggests a connection with such iconic structures as Gothic Cathedrals or the longitudinal
plans of Greek temples. To cover all bases, Argan suggests there are an infinite number
of classes or sub-classes to these “types”. So how does this classification help the future
development of form? Acknowledgement of past types demonstrates a general
progression through history of changing forms and associated function, however issue
arises in how to then translate this information into something useful for the current
‘judgment’ of the architect designing that form.

Type is a regressive phenomenon which arguably creates or bounds the judgments

towards built form today. Without it there would be no classification on proper function
or aesthetic that comes out of the overall form. I could argue that aesthetics is often tied
to configuration of buildings which in turn is associated with certain program or building
type. Could each judgment of what elements to include or use, which to Argan implies a
typology, be simply the continued evolution of a schema of typologies that have formed
through their progressive reactions to each other? Argan suggests new “types” are formed
today through industrial architecture or the advent of religious architecture that
purposefully proposes possible counter-types. Such processes demonstrate the important
role of the evolution of culture as creating new opportunities in this timeline to introduce
new “types.”
 Seminário de Investigação em Arquitectura Francisco
Paixão

Returning to the idea of judgment, who or what determines when a line is drawn
between one architectural type and another that occur in succession? This is an entirely
arbitrary and subjective decision. It does appear to be factual in retrospect when studying
the reduced elements of a certain architectural type, but it is important to remember that
each type that developed in history occurred in response to its current and historical
contexts, just as the advent of new typologies is a response to its previous form; neither
occurs without the other.