Let’s start with the law of attraction. It’s claimed that architects make buildings to attract variety of audiences for different purposes. What kind of message the architect wants to convey to the audience works as magnitude, whatever it is harmony, simplicity, innovation or high-tech, it tends to attract those who want the same features. As human beings, especially, architectures towards those who have little knowledge about it, to feel something attractive are rather intuitive. Whoever to say “Ah, I love this, it’s so fascinating.” People feel attractive is to have good feelings about something; these good feelings can be happy, surprise, satisfaction and relax etc. That’s why we have many kinds of buildings to attract different people.
Is it a time for imitation? There are different inspirations driving architects to build something somewhere on the earth. Even we know from documentations that thoughts, sketches and plans behind are different, but sometimes we still feel there are two are similar to some extent. The recent examples I found that the similarity between Bird Nest and Munich Olympic Stadium; Water Cube and Allianz Arena. There are about 30 years and 2 years difference each, but when you get close to look and feel these two. Don’t you have the doubt---Imitation? There are different voices, “I need it is natural.” “I’d rather you create something artificial for me.” How can we judge whether natural or artificial is beautiful. Architects can be the same appearances as something nature, decorations like flowers, fruits which are artificial to make the house to have so-called natural atmosphere. Buildings have showed up are constructed by people, but you will still feel they are naturally existed. Parks, to a degree, natural and artificial elements co-exist. Just go back to our law of attraction, and it’s just want to be attractive.
1. Kurt W. Forster. “Why Are Some Buildings More Interesting Than Others?” Harvard Design Magazine,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document