This was originally written Friday 5 April, 2019 as part of my Bachelor of Design (Architecture)

The role of the architect has been long debated and altered throughout history, predominantly in the 20th Century. While there is no doubt that architecture features a connection with dwellings, the opinions of the “official” definition for ‘dwelling’ is constantly changed to suit any particular need by the architect. Whether a part of science, construction, or art; the reality of an architects’ purpose is somewhat of a grey area. Should current and future architects treat these seemingly isolated components as just that; isolated? Or is it important for the future development of design innovation to finally admit that these four aspects belong together? In Le Corbusier’s 1923 book, Toward an Architecture, he explains how, while separated by thought, it is essential to understand their function together to shape the architect.

Le Corbusier examines the differences between the creative and the pragmatic influences on architectural design. While accepting the possibility each component has only an individual impact on architecture, he mainly addresses how a composition of these influences’ nurture in the success of an architect. By recognising these differences and idealising their structure as a whole, Le Corbusier fundamentally believes, “[that] to formulate the work clearly and animate it with unity, [is] to give it a basic attitude or character: pure creation of the mind.”

Concerning the creative aspect behind Le Corbusier’s theory of creative/pragmatic unity, his fundamental notion is that of intention. The presence of art in architecture reflects the redundant relationship between practical and descriptive relationships. Creativity allows for the communication of architecture to, in Le Corbusier’s words, “go beyond” the material. Le Corbusier contends that “emotion comes from a unity of intention… sacrificed and stripped away… to leave only those concise and violent things, sounding clear and tragic.” On page 238, he adds that, “all beautiful artistic forms are drawn from nature.” These two beliefs that Le Corbusier had regarding creative allure relate to the need of sculpture, which he believes follows “a plastic system that activates our senses directly and powerfully.”

Utilising the architectural example f the Parthenon in Greece, Le Corbusier argues that “calculations seem to us satisfying and harmonious… the results of experiment and calculation, seem to us like ‘organized’ phenomena.” He continues to relate the laws of physics with architecture, similarly likening of the axis, which he believes closely relates to art, describing it akin to the distinguishing features of a beautiful face. By comparing these features of order to the Parthenon, Le Corbusier explains, “the implacability of the mechanical; these forms give rise to categorical sensations.” This is his first comparison between the two levels of pragmatics described within the chapter, continuing from there to discuss the link “to structural investigations” and the pas belief of architects mastering his construction.

Le Corbusier presents a motivating and distinctive argument for the development of modern architecture, which draws upon several concepts to illustrate his point; the essence of architecture is the applied knowledge of art, science, and construction to create a compelling user experience. As previously mentioned, he solely uses the example of the Parthenon to dictate the role of the architect. While this may illustrate pragmatic approaches to architectural design, Le Corbusier has not factored in a significant amount of artistic decisions, despite his argument relating all three components. This leaves the impression that creativity may only be a small factor in the overall role of the architect. Something Le Corbusier has failed to mention is that often the visual arts (or creative elements) are a collaboration between material, alignments, and work in multi-disciplinary teams. Artistic design needs to be considered an equal third to science and construction, placing Le Corbusier’s writing at a disadvantage in comparison to the many other works published around the modern movement to define the role of the architect.

Alternatively, in congruous with Le Corbusier’s beliefs, there is a strong collection of works that follow the rejection of isolated concepts to define the role of the architect. Essentially, his work between creative and pragmatic elements inspired an entire ‘modern’ age of architecture. It gave architects a purpose and helped separate them from engineers and builders, with Le Corbusier himself declaring, “construction, which is not architecture… one acknowledges the plastic artist [the architect]; the engineer steps aside and the sculptor works.” The use of different talents in an architectural project requires the organisation of the architects’ design. He helps the builder or the engineer in an embodiment of an organisational genius, showing how we cna define the role of the architect as someone responsible for harnissing the forces of society to build a city. Another suggestion on the demands of the modern architect is the integration of perfect workmanship and detail, a process in which decisions can be made through organised creativity - the skills to design viable and appealing environments.

Ultimately, Le Corbusier’s book illustrates the importance development has on design innovation and the assertion that creative and pragmatic components belong together. While it is still necessary to view these components into a single composition. Just as a building represents its differing materiality through its harmonious structure, the architect can be defined through their harmonious use of various elements.