Seminrio de Investigao em Arquitectura

Francisco Paixo

LECTURE 5:
GIULIO CARLO ARGAN, ON THE TYPOLOGY OF ARCHITECTURE
https://courtneymichelleclark.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/lecture-5-giulio-carloargan-%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

Seminrio de Investigao em Arquitectura

Francisco Paixo

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.
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.