What do you think?
Rate this book
Classic foundations purpose and tradition in architecture
Professor Carroll William Westfall delves into the classical principles of Western architecture, exploring features such as ornamentation, decoration, and innovation.
Audio CD
First published January 1, 2012
5 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 16, 2022
It’s an interesting series of lectures, but within the context of other architectural theories, especially with concerns regarding the traditionally western-centric views of architectural history, it’s a bit surface level.
I was surprised with the actual lack of history regarding the topic, considering that’s how this series bills itself. It’s mostly cursory and doesn’t really attempt to discus the architects or the buildings which helped shape how traditional architecture was formed and why their innovations were important. A lot of these speeches focus on America for some reason, whereas I’d expect that proportionally, the vast majority would’ve been spent on Europe.
Equally surprising was the bias inherent within his speeches for traditional architecture, but without the same critical analysis done on the subject that’s given to other theories such as modernism. While I’m not a big advocate for modernism, it came about from some exceptionally valid concerns. He seems to cherry pick the ‘best’ of traditional and the ‘worst’ of other theories/styles and often without giving proper contextual thought as to why these styles evolved or why they were chosen over traditional styles beyond what I’d expect from an undergraduate’s level of theoretical understanding, which was disappointing.
Having said this, it was an interesting series of lectures, with many valid concerns, especially around the rise of globalism and the seemingly poor education regarding traditional western architecture.
I liked the time spent discussing the cultural institutions which helped form traditional architecture and the importance of civic architecture to create cities and buildings that helped people be their best, in theory. However, many of his points are somewhat nonsense in reality if you’ve ever had to do this stuff or if you’ve studied any town planning or done economic analysis for urban areas. But this doesn’t make it invalid, and I largely agree with what he says here.
The distinction between a civic-focused architect and ‘modern’ architect was interesting but I felt could’ve been more fleshed-out; there’s something there but, as said above, he neglects to consider other cultural contexts and even those from related professions such as urban planners, which might’ve made this more impactful.
Overall, it was okay, and probably good if you’ve never read any architectural theory but want to better understand the importance of some of the key characteristics of traditional buildings and their (historical) symbolism.
I was surprised with the actual lack of history regarding the topic, considering that’s how this series bills itself. It’s mostly cursory and doesn’t really attempt to discus the architects or the buildings which helped shape how traditional architecture was formed and why their innovations were important. A lot of these speeches focus on America for some reason, whereas I’d expect that proportionally, the vast majority would’ve been spent on Europe.
Equally surprising was the bias inherent within his speeches for traditional architecture, but without the same critical analysis done on the subject that’s given to other theories such as modernism. While I’m not a big advocate for modernism, it came about from some exceptionally valid concerns. He seems to cherry pick the ‘best’ of traditional and the ‘worst’ of other theories/styles and often without giving proper contextual thought as to why these styles evolved or why they were chosen over traditional styles beyond what I’d expect from an undergraduate’s level of theoretical understanding, which was disappointing.
Having said this, it was an interesting series of lectures, with many valid concerns, especially around the rise of globalism and the seemingly poor education regarding traditional western architecture.
I liked the time spent discussing the cultural institutions which helped form traditional architecture and the importance of civic architecture to create cities and buildings that helped people be their best, in theory. However, many of his points are somewhat nonsense in reality if you’ve ever had to do this stuff or if you’ve studied any town planning or done economic analysis for urban areas. But this doesn’t make it invalid, and I largely agree with what he says here.
The distinction between a civic-focused architect and ‘modern’ architect was interesting but I felt could’ve been more fleshed-out; there’s something there but, as said above, he neglects to consider other cultural contexts and even those from related professions such as urban planners, which might’ve made this more impactful.
Overall, it was okay, and probably good if you’ve never read any architectural theory but want to better understand the importance of some of the key characteristics of traditional buildings and their (historical) symbolism.
Displaying 1 of 1 review