The Seattle Library vs. Parthenon

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Architecture has had a myriad of uses throughout history. This history validates the projects for contemporary designers. The architects must contend with this history whether they agree with it or not since they must address the fundamental demands from people outside the profession. These people derive inspiration from historical architecture and demand that it be represented in contemporary architecture (Le, Corbusier 23). Therefore, history plays an important role in contemporary architecture regardless of the appreciation or significance of history. The relationship between traditional architecture and contemporary architecture has always been fraught with criticism. Nevertheless, it is important to explore the issues arising from this criticism and engage them as patent tools of contemporary design. Architecture is both fine art and civic art. The fine art of architecture pleases those who appreciate it and bestow fame to the designer of a building, while as a civic art it endows architecture with honor at the same time serving the people of society (José 2). Fine art sparks dynamism in the culture of cities while civic culture is largely concerned with building the cities (Mumford 13-17). Architecture as a fine and civic art combined, spurns tradition while at the same time embedding architecture within tradition. In fine art architecture, the architect builds for the present while in civic art; the architect reaches into the past and future. In this light, this essay seeks to explore the impact of historical trajectories of architecture in the contemporary design while evaluating contemporary work through the historical perspective of ancient Greek architecture. To support this argument, the Seattle central library by OMA will be compared with Parthenon.

Many perceive contemporary architecture as futuristic and concerned with doing things differently. However, that is not entirely true since contemporary architects are more concerned with making new designs while using the old designs while incorporating some elements of environmental preservation in the designs. Some contemporary architects argue that there is really nothing new left in architecture to invent; hence an architect can only improve a past design to fit current and future requirements (Le Corbusier 13-16). Modernism has been bringing fashion to architecture. However, modernist designs have remained just that- fashionable but not popular (George and Richard 12-13). The Seattle library design has sparked criticism s well as praise from both architects and the general public. On the other hand the Parthenon is a legendary design that will continue drawing amazement at its simplicity while at the same time antiquity (Neils 10). Contemporary architects design cultural buildings which are as audacious as the Seattle library intending to draw the same amount of attention that ancient cultural buildings such as the Parthenon drew and have continued to draw. Traditional architecture was expected to be condemned to what it is- history, by modernism. This expectation has been belied by the continued vigor of the culture of civic art (Jose 15-21). Visible success is enjoyed by modernism with singular and rare achievements with tremendous novelty as in the case of the Seattle library (Kristeller 13-28). Unfortunately, in comparison with ancient architecture as that of Parthenon, this novelty seems like just a magic act. On the other hand ancient architecture accomplishes its originality incredibly but with more command and conviction than an act of magic (John 7-20).

The Parthenon architecture is mature providing lasting pleasure and beauty, a value sought by people who want to satisfy their human nature of an inclination to lasting happiness. The Seattle library is architecturally incredible in its way, with the same intention of capturing a visitor’s attention and making an everlasting impact in his mind. Technological advancements have led to the development of urban centers with intricate architectural designs, same as in the ancient times when architects used the available technology to deliver marvelous works of art such as the Parthenon in a simplistic but memorable manner (David 23-31). There is an analogy between architecture and urbanism and their linkage to society (William 23). Aesthetics have now been replaced by sensationalism while dismissing beauty (Anthony 7-21). Looking at it critically, we realize that beauty is a traditional value that must always be addressed in any architectural design. The Parthenon and the Seattle library belong to different periods but each of them possesses an intrinsic sense of beauty.

The Seattle library is in an age of technological innovations and represents what could have been built in ancient Greek but was not because of technological hindrances. Contemporary architects are faced with the challenge of using visual strategies that go beyond the superficial beauty of just decorating the building’s surface like in the ancient Greek architecture presented in the Parthenon (Jacques 15-20). Rem Koolhaas has received a lot of praise for his team’s accomplishment in delivering beauty in the design of the Seattle library. The Seattle library is an iconic building that appears to be crouching, while it leaps in the inside with tantalizing colored light. It embraces the avant-garde architectural theory and marries it to the populist (Bernd 15-43). It is surely a modern building with a futuristic aspect that carries away any visitor who appreciates architecture. On the outside it is brutal stylish with diamond-shaped steel and glass. On the inside, it is completely different with asymmetrical steel and painted with alluring baby blue. The library does well in selling its purpose that learning is a cultural hot zone in Seattle. Thus it provides sufficient space for solitary reading, an auditorium for lectures, and forums for active engagement. From the inside it gives the visitor a view of the outside by providing a flattering view of the fourth avenue where Henry Moores’s vertebrae bask across the street in the shadow of Seattle library. Library patrons are also treated to an amazing view of the Sam Francis painting. The painting is incredibly beautiful as it hangs in the Bank of America skyscraper’s lobby.

Prosaic materials are used in the building perhaps confirming Koolhas’ creativity and economy. Minimalist floor grinds are used in all eleven floors with most carpeting done in the metal thread that is easy to mop. A visitor is reminded of skating by the thick layers of concrete in polyurethane color which looks like ice. Pillars are also dressed in beauty with shiny white bases black blasted tops and fire insulation creatively blasted with glitter. The carpet goes upscale on the public plaza with a succinct biology lab effect.

The Parthenon has Doric-style columns that surround the periphery of the entire structure with each entrance having an additional six columns in front of it. Such imposing columns are found in the Seattle library the difference being that those in the library support the weight of the structure from inside the building while those of the Parthenon are outside the building. All the same the columns are vital in bringing out the architectural beauty of both structures. The Parthenon completes its beauty with amazing sculptures on the surface of the building capturing the attention of the visitor from the outside and urging him to venture into the building to sample more alluring arts of architecture (Rykwert and 23). In the same breadth the Seattle library is equally welcoming but with a more advanced sense of beauty that surpasses beauty on the wall but integrates into the lighting, glass, steel and inviting painting on the inside.

The Seattle library and the Parthenon represent distinct time periods. In the Parthenon, the line between art and architecture is very fine thus making it difficult to separate the two. Actually, the construction of the Parthenon was presided over by a sculptor. On the other hand the Seattle library may be considered as the work of modernist architecture which serves and represents the technological society (Paul 10-17). However, much sculpting and architecture may seem different, they are alike in the sense that they represent what the artists think is important to society (Buivydas 15-17). Therefore, they strive to capture the attention of the people by designing buildings that the people will appreciate as being beautiful. To that end, both the Seattle library and the Parthenon are very different but ultimately they are representations of what the people of a particular age and geographical location perceive as beauty.

Traditional architects had conventions of how buildings were to be designed. Perhaps this explains why all ancient Greek buildings follow a similar style. They have sculptures and paintings as decorations but only because the people in ancient Greece appreciated art. Therefore, architects of that time followed the people’s will and produced designs that excited them (Milanesi 24). However, with advent of technology and globalization people’s description of beauty has been modified greatly and the architects like everybody else have been obliged to follow suit. This may explain the different styles of architecture for different periods (John et al 12-23). The Seattle library represents modernism which aims at producing never seen before designs. This has been the approach that many architects are taking today in a bid to amass popularity (Rondanini 21). The further from tradition a building is the greater the architect of the building becomes. While this may be seen as a modernist approach today, perhaps that was the same case for the architects of the Parthenon then. The people of Greece may have seen the Parthenon as futuristic work of architecture (Burkett 34-43). Sadly, that was not the case not because the Parthenon is not iconic but because later generations and technologies had other perceptions of future.

The Seattle library is one of the many modern buildings. Like all designs in architecture the building seeks to capture the attention of the visitor and evoke a positive reaction from the visitor. The building design presents a well-planned and laid architectural project, at least the architect’s team believes so. When the design is put into action and a building comes into being, the people have their chance to savor its beauty. The people appreciate the beauty of a building by comparing it to other buildings thus every architect must always have a traditional sense of architecture in his work (Fiske 15-17). It is therefore, misleading to refer to a building as modern; the word contemporary sounds more accurate while referring to today’s architecture since the only thing that is modern buildings today are the aesthetics but not the architecture as a whole (Melzer and Zinman 12-15).

Contemporary architecture presents its designs in a creative manner that is not too eccentric to offend people. The style it adopts must be comfortable and conform to the expectations of the general public (Michael 5-17). Therefore, the Seattle building goes beyond just doing that but also completes the picture for its surrounding by complementing its surrounding. Its creativity is demonstrated by the crouching tiger appearance from the outside and the leaping tiger on the inside. This perception alone invites one to enter and sample its beauty. However, its appearance seems to be confusing since its posture would have been suited better for an amusement park rather than in the urban setting. Critics have argued that too much concern should not be paid to how a building appears; it is how a building behaves that is important. Seattle library needs to connect the inside and the outside. In that sense, for the library to connect, the library functions must be placed at the street level to ensure that it contributes to an attractive streetscape. It is disappointing that an architect who is considered an avant-garde theorist produced a predictable building, an architect of his caliber should have produced a more dramatic and alluring design that will remain etched in the mind of people and the generations to come. It is a far cry from expectations and its legacy might not last as that of the Parthenon.

Works Cited

Anthony, Drake. Buildings and society: Essays on the social development of built environment. London, 1980.

Bernd, Endmond. Architectural theory Renaissance to the present. Taschen, 2003.

Burkett, Walter. Greek religion. Harvard university press, 1985.

Buivydas, Rimantas. Construction at the Old Town Measures of the typological Model. Vilnius: AB Spauda, 1998.

David, Summers. Michelangelo and the Language of Art. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981.

Fiske, Kimball. American Architecture. Indianapolis and New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1928.

George, Hersey and Richard, Freedman. Possible Palladian Villas, plus a few Instructively Impossible Ones. London: Mass, 1991.

Jacques, Ellul. The Technological Society. London: Jonathan Cape, 1965.

John, Hamiliton. The seven lamps of architecture. Dover publications, 1989.

John, Blatteau and Sandra, Tatman. The Study of Architectural Design. New York: W.W. Norton, 2008.

José, Ortega. The Dehumanization of Art, in the Dehumanization of Art and Other Writings on Art and Culture. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956.

Le, Corbusier, Jeaneret. Towards a new architecture. Dover publications, 1985.

Melzer, Johan and Zinman, Michael. Symposium on Science, Reason, and Modern Democracy. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1999.

Mumford, Lewis. The Culture of Cities. Harcourt: Brace and Company, 1938.

Michael, Kraves. Architecture theory since 1968. Cambridge, MIT press, 1998.

Neils, Jenifer. The Parthenon: From antiquity to the present. Cambridge university press, 2005.

Paul, Jin. The sociology of architecture: constructing identities. Liverpool university press, 2010.

Kristeller, Paul. The Modern System of the Arts. New York: Harper and Row, Harper Torch Books, 1965.

Rondanini, Neil. “Architecture and social change.” Heresies II, Vol.3, New York: Neresies Collective Inc, 1981.

Rykwert, Joseph and Tavener, John. On the Art of Building in Ten Books. London: Mass, 1988.

Milanesi, Gaetano. Le opera. Florence: Sansoni, 1973.

William, Mitchell. E-topia: Urban life, Jim, – but not as we know it. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1999.

Click Here To Order Now!

The Seattle Library vs. Parthenon

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)