Is Architecture Autonomous

Kenneth Frampton, in Reflections on the Autonomy of Architecture, presents an appealing perspective on the autonomy of architecture, which most would agree is an oxymoron. The moment which changed the profession of architecture is the construction of Santa Maria del Fiore, where Brunelleschi elevated the responsibility and involvement of the architect by lowering the importance of the master-craftsman. This framed the next transformation in architectures history which occurred together with the secularization of Europe where two schisms arose, one which valued religion and one which valued economy. "The Renaissance represented exactly the point at which exclusively economic and productive values began to usurp the place of the spirit…" (18). Now in the modern world the public realm has become ambiguous due to the increase in privatization. "it is obviously difficult to sustain the legitimacy of architecture in a society that is constantly being overwhelmed by the innovations of techno science, by demographic change, and by the ever-scaling cycles of production and consumption that constant modernization serve to sustain" (19). What is clearly being presented is the constantly changing modern world which architecture is incapable of keeping up to because the architects are hesitant of representing anything modern architecture, the question then becomes, what is important in architecture, thereby appealing to art and science as their route of inspiration. Frampton suggests the autonomy of architecture is determined by: typology (institution), topography (context), and tectonics (mode of construction) (22), which is expanded upon. However what is more interesting are the ideas that follow regarding private, public and semipublic spaces, that the privatization of society has created an architecture which lacks in public space. These notions are discussed by Herman Hertzberg in his book Lesson for Student of Architecture, when he states the lack public places and its negative impacts, that architecture must encourage public community rather than restrict all activity to exist behind closed doors, literally. Hence the creation of "the space for public appearance" as Hannah Arendt stated is Modern Architecture's Persona, covering a lack of identity or interest in the users but rather becoming simple images for consumerism. Gottfried Semper's outline of the components of a generic hut further Frampton's ideas of the autonomy of architecture as: earthwork (topography), construction (tectonic) and hearth (type). These archaic notions of architecture reject those of futurism which embrace technology as the autonomy of architecture; therefore it seems that the schism between these two groups has not yet ended. Architecture therefore is not autonomous but instead completely dependent upon the religious, political, commercial, technological and social changes which exist around it, often the physical form of architecture stands as a record of these changes or disputes. Frampton, Kenneth. Reflections on the Autonomy of Architecture: A Critique of Contemporary Production. http://www.geocities.ws/mitchellmosesstudio/frampton.pdf