2024-09-14_bpp50oza7ne

### Political_architecture_and_relation_betw#35 (*0.691258252*) > They become adaptive and accustomed to thenewly created environment. This ultimately gives people what can be called a false sense of control. What is also undeniable is that surrounding is always changeable, and an architecture can continuously alter peoples‟ perspectives, making them question the ones who have placed them and what their motives were in the first place. 14 IJLRET Design as a political act–Politics in the form and space As previously stated, architectural form, with itsvisual and relational properties,is able to express political authority of the ruling body. Scalemay draw attention to the building„s significance by emphasizing its height, length, width and depth. Built forms presented as large or tall, vertical in height or horizontally massive compared to human proportions and its surroundings, with significant visibility and dramatic sculptural effect can symbolize the authority. There are five most often mentioned reasons for this need: - Emphasis of dominancy and control - Evocation of feelings of impressiveness in order to be remembered International Journal of Latest Research in Humanities and Social Science (IJLRHSS) www.ijlrhss.com || PP. 84-90 Assertion of identity in the world Visual prestige and dignity of the patron Projection of influence in society 15 For example, in Roman Empire, the atmosphere and the buildings directly coincided and were crucial to how the public would respond to their speeches and messages. Their giant concrete statements were designed to intimidate and overwhelm, but with community gatherings in mind. The overwhelming greatness of these buildings, their colossal size and complex design, enforced the nation‟s ideologies.Furthermore, Catherine the Great„s Palace in Russia, designed by Bartolomeo Rastrelli in 1752 for the wife of Emperor Peter I, is an example which projects a play of façade elements and picturesque decoration, signifying the ruling power of the Russian monarchy. The façade elements are arranged in hierarchical organization at the roof, body and base section.Another clear, most recent sample can be Dubai - a city almost non-existent during the ‟80s. Through Dubai the strategy of the ruling body via architecture in order to entertain, gain support for the government‟s campaigns and encourage unity of a new-built city can be seen. Immense architectural achievements are created in an attempt to gain the loyalty of the masses, leaving the consumption of the energy used to create these monuments as a secondary issue. Architects and politics of today and starchitects culture ### Architecture Demonstrates Power#127 (*0.682486653*) > Part 2: What Architecture Can Tell Us About Power If architecture demonstrates power, then that power should be evident from the architecture. If the impact of power upon buildings is visible, one should be able to discern information about that power. Monumental architecture in particular conveys the nature of the power that created it. The cosmology represented in the architecture demonstrates the type of power that created it. A pattern exists wherein axial buildings and cities are created by authoritarian powers concentrated in a single ruling figure, which can be contrasted to a non-axial pattern in more egalitarian societies. Furthermore, this correspondence between building orientation and power scheme results directly from differing ideals about the nature of the world and of power. Axiality in Buildings Axiality in a building occurs when it is clearly oriented in one direction, emphasizing opposite walls that are far from one another, and provoking those who use the building to walk longitudinally within it. This means that the people who enter are directed to the opposite end of the building where something significant occurs. Archetypal examples of axial buildings include Egyptian temples, Roman basilicas, and the Christian basilicas that evolved from the Roman. David DeLong introduced me to the concept of axiality in a lecture on September 11, 2002. "The Egyptian temples are based on one straight path leading ‘in’ towards a final but unreachable goal". One enters the temple of Horus at Edfu between two massive pylons with a niche at the top corresponding exactly to the path of the sun. Walking through a series of doorways aligned along an axis parallel to the solar path, one proceeds through a courtyard into a series of halls. As one approaches the inner sanctum of the temple, a place where only priests were allowed to go, the columns in the halls take up more space, closing in and creating varying degrees of darkness. The walls around the halls start out at only half the height of the columns and later let light in only through small clerestory openings. ### architecture-power-and-national-identity#65 (*0.682407141*) > Government buildings are, I would argue, an attempt to build governments and to support specific regimes. More than mere homes for government leaders, they serve as symbols of the state. We can, therefore, learn much about a political regime by observing closely what it builds. Moreover, the close examination of government buildings can reveal a great deal about what Clifford Geertz has termed the "cultural balance of power" within a pluralist society. Much recent writing on architecture and urban design rightly stresses that all buildings are products of social and cultural conditions. This book carries that argument a step further by exploring the complicated questions about power and identity embedded in the design of national parliament buildings and the districts that surround them in various capital cities around the world. It is based upon a simple premise: grand symbolic state buildings need to be understood in terms of the political and cultural contexts that helped to bring them into being. The postcolonial parliamentary complex provides an excellent vehicle for exploring these issues, since it is an act of design in which expressions of power and identity seem explicit and inevitable, both for the government client and for the designer. In his essay "How Buildings Mean", the philosopher Nelson Goodman argues that we must consider the question of how a particular work of architecture conveys meaning before we are able to address the issue of what the building may mean. In so doing, Goodman aims to identify the categories of meaning that the built environment may convey as well as to elucidate the mechanisms by which these meanings are transmitted. This sort of analysis is crucial for understanding the nature of the relationship between the design of a parliamentary complex and its political history. As Goodman notes, "A building may mean in ways unrelated to being an architectural work—may become through association a symbol for sanctuary, or for a reign of terror, or for graft". Such symbolism need not be so architecturally arbitrary, however. Buildings may also mean in ways very much tied to choices made by architects and urban designers.