Ronald Brunskill defined it accurately in saying: “A building designed by an amateur without any training in design; the individual will have been guided by a series of conventions built up in his locality, paying little attention to what may be fashionable. The function of the building would be the dominant factor, aesthetic considerations, though present to some small degree, being quite minimal. Local materials would be used as a matter of course, other materials being chosen and imported quite exceptionally” Much can be said about architecture built without architects. But is it really architecture? First off all, I believe yes we can in fact call it architecture. I consider architecture to have existed long before Man and beasts walked the earth. Primitive architecture possibly existed coarsely modelled by the forces of nature and creation, polished by wind and water into elegant structures, from the mountains to the caves to the many variations of terrain and rocks. It is the architecture of the earth. Particularly caves have a soft spot to us humans; it is our very first shelter and our very first home. Before architecture became an expert’s art, there were many buildings built by people, now called vernacular architecture, they were made of the surrounding natural materials that worked with nature rather than against it. Which ultimately seems like what we are doing today, building something extraordinary, and a truly outstanding sight to see, but to have this we must ward off the massive heat this sight that conjures up and the amount of cooling it would need and so on… Vernacular architecture is most known to be built for the people and by the people. Examples could be found in poor countries where their economic condition doesn’t allow elaboration or the capability of having architects build their buildings. But just because these buildings were not built by architects does not mean that it isn’t architecture. If you talk to...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document