The lecture by Francesca Hughes “What’s not to love?”, it’s been discussed seven “sins” of architecture which organise our hate of architecture, but they don’t. Chauvinism; It’s about templates in architecture. Appropriation; Human body and architecture similarities. “When architect has given birth, he becomes mother of building” by Francesco di Giorgio Mcliabechiano. Also it’s mentioned human body and landscape. “ Vitruvius says that navel is the middle of the figure of a man… Circle remain rounds.” Fetishisation; It’s about modern architecture and glossy renders that architectue designing by technology and material. Repression; Architecture and text scripts. Zealotry, laziness, vanity. Identity crisis as an architect is a big problem. “Love what you will never see twice”. We discussed all of these reasons for hating architecture but in the end we can see that we as an architect love architecture more than we hate.
Attending the lecture by Francesca Hughes was a thought-provoking exploration of the relationship between architecture and hate. It was interesting and engaging the way the speaker used the expression of “What’s not to love?” to examine the nature of not loving and to question this phenomenon in architecture. The analysis of the seven sins- Chauvinism, Appropriation, Fetishization, Repression, Zealotry, Laziness, and Vanity – was both insightful and was useful to look at architecture from different perspectives. Also, the lecturer’s ideas about the role of error in architecture were interesting as it was something that I had never thought of before, particularly considering her book “The Architecture of Error.” Both the lecture and the book suggest that errors are not simply mistakes to be avoided, but rather, they can be a productive force that drives innovation and experimentation. These ideas were supported with case studies. In the end, Francesca Hughes suggested for the role of architects in their professional career to be inspired by what we’ve seen in these examples, too.
The lecture given by Francesca Hughes was very interesting, but in some points it’s also quite complex because his entire study path has been focused on hating architecture and in my opinion his speech has led to reason about some aspects that are generally not treated. Very interesting were the identification of the seven sins of architecture and somehow the connection of the human figure and the building, especially the importance of the architect who over the years has taken on different roles depending on the various theorists, No less important is the feminist intersection and the history of technology to get to the parametric and the use of spreadsheets that order our lives and hinder our future.
The lecture by Francesca Hughes “What’s not to love?” was interesting, it’s been talked about seven “sins” of architecture: Ignoring context, prioritizing form over function, Lack of sustainability, over-reliance on technology, failure to consider accessibility, lack of innovation, poor communication. Maybe these reasons organise our hate of architecture. Thie lecture is very interesting, the general speech is to tell us how to love architecture, but this one tells it from another angle.
Francesca Hughes’ presentation had a very original theme, taking the perspective of why we hate architecture and illustrating the network relationship between seven reasons. Several of the chapters discussed, Chauvinism; Appropriation; Fetishisation; Repression; Zealotry; Laziness; Vanity. what these represent and explained them with some illustrations and photos. From the theme of what is not to love, arose my deep thoughts about architecture and architects, how architecture should bring people to feel, and how architects can apply their abilities and tools to work wisely, such as smart tools and programs that are prevalent nowadays.
The guest opened the conference with a curious and original presentation to contextualize the reasons why there is a close link between the pleasure and hatred about architecture. That was done by using a great metaphor about the hypothetical “seven deadly sins” that define its nature. Related characteristics such as strong individualism that becomes competition, passion that turns into fanaticism, and even the lazy intellectual vanity of the architects seem to define a common profile, as rich as self-destructive. Of all the sins illustrated, the one of “appropriation” particularly fascinated me, as this indicates a tendency to assimilate skills deriving from other professional fields to fill “gaps” in knowledge. A positive side of that “sin”, in my opinion, can only be an increase in the sensitivity of the architect both in the design techniques and in the socio-cultural impact of his work.
Francesca Hughes’ lecture titled “What’s not to love?” which argues that the commonly held belief that there are seven “sins” of architecture responsible for our negative feelings towards it is not entirely accurate. The lecture explores the themes of the human body’s relationship with architecture and the relationship between architecture and the landscape. A speaker at a conference used a metaphor of the seven deadly sins to explain why we both love and hate architecture. The sin of “appropriation” is discussed as a positive factor that can increase an architect’s sensitivity to design techniques and socio-cultural impact. The text concludes that architects love architecture more than they hate it.
“You have to hate it in order to change it.” This is one of the phrases that most struck me from the lecture given by architect Francesca Hughes. It is a powerful sentence that sums up well the speaker’s point of view that there is a thin but solid connection between loving (pleasure) and hating architecture. Paradoxical, but one is functional to the other as if they were opposing forces that can balance each other and initiate processes. This theme was introduced through a metaphor, seven reasons, sins, that explain and answer the question “what’s not to Love”: Chauvinism; Appropriation; Fetishisation; Repression; Zealotry; Laziness; Vanity. Of these, I was particularly fascinated by the discussion made on “Appropriation” and the commentary on Philarete’s text: the comparison between the mother-son and architect-design relationship was interesting. As there is a natural bond between the first two, so it is with the others, and the architect becomes both mother and nurse of her project, his child.
It was a very interesting lecture given by Francesca Hughes. The title “What’s not to love” introduces the debate on what are the reasons for hating architecture, which are summarised in seven reasons, sins: Chauvinism; Appropriation; Fetishisation; Repression; Zealotry; Laziness; Vanity. I was very fascinated by the theme of Appropriation, where the similarities between Human body and architecture are analysed. But also it was really interesting the topic of identity crisis of architects.
Francesca Hughes’ lecture delves into the complex relationship between architecture and our emotions. The lecture challenges the notion that there are seven “sins” of architecture responsible for our negative feelings towards it. Instead, it explores various themes, such as the influence of templates, the parallels between the human body and buildings, and the impact of technology on architectural design.
The lecture discusses the sins of chauvinism, appropriation, fetishization, repression, zealotry, laziness, and vanity, shedding light on how they shape our perception of architecture. It also touches on the identity crisis faced by architects and the importance of embracing innovation and societal impact.
The metaphor of the seven deadly sins serves as a framework to explain the intertwined nature of love and hate towards architecture. Hughes emphasizes that architects should challenge and change architecture by harnessing their abilities and tools wisely. Despite the exploration of reasons to dislike architecture, the lecture ultimately conveys that architects possess a deep love for their craft, outweighing any negative sentiments.
In summary, Hughes’ lecture stimulates profound reflections on architecture, architects’ roles, and the potential for transformation within the field. It underscores the complexities of our emotional connection to architecture and highlights the enduring passion that architects have for their work.
The lecture by Francesca was quite different from the previous ones so far, as it discussed concepts within a theoretical realm of architecture. What’s not to love? As one of the possible answers to this question she presented 7 (of many more) sins of architecture: Chauvinism; Appropriation; Fetishisation; Repression; Zealotry; Laziness; Vanity. Some of the most interesting to me points were similarity of the connection of an architect with his project to the connection of a mother with a child; issues of identity crisis of architect and architecture; role of error and precision and connection to the social aspects.
Francesca Hughes’ lecture, entitled “What’s not to love?”, was very interesting if sometimes complicated. She introduced the topic of the pleasure of not loving architecture, a topic that has marked her 30-year career. His study develops through the 7 reasons (sins): Chauvinism; Appropriation ; Fetishisation; Repression; Zealotry; ing Laziness; Vanity. These points are illustrated and deepened through examples and images, giving a better understanding of the subject.
At the end of the lecture, Hughs leaves us with a sentence that really struck me: “If we love architecture, it is important to hate it in order to be able to change it”, it makes us architects think.
Francesca Hughes’ lecture entitled “What’s not to love?” was really interesting. Focused on why to hate architecture, the architect wanted to explain it in seven points, the so-called “seven sins”: chauvinism, appropriation, fetishization, repression, fanaticism, laziness, vanity, analyzing how each of them can make one understand the perception we have about architecture. Starting with the topic of what not to love, my deep reflections on architecture and architects dwell on how on how buildings should feel and how architects can use their skills and tools to work with trend intelligence today (AI). The closing sentence of the conference was particularly thought-provoking: “”If we love architecture, it is important to hate it in order to change it,” and it opens up a future scenario for us future architects.
Why not love architecture? she gives us a critical reference to architecture from the perspective of different architects in history where the appropriation of information is a very important factor for their respective analysis and criticism. Another point that was discussed in the lecture was about the representation of architecture and how, thanks to advances in the matter of materials, it was possible to have a variety of materials when building such as metal, concrete, marble. Thus moving to a more digital age where issues such as design, communication and also parametric optimization are involved.
I found the thought that approaches the creation of a project to give birth to a child fascinating and very truthful. Like the parent-child relationship, the one between the designer and his architecture often enters a crisis, which leads the architect to question this phenomenon. The analysis takes place through the observation of the “seven sins”: chauvinism, appropriation, fetishization, repression, zeal, laziness, and vanity. These phenomena also contribute to making the architect fall into error. The concept of error in architecture has been properly described in the book “The Architecture of Error”, written by guest Francesca Hughes. In this case, the error must not be seen as the end of one’s ability as a designer but must be a source to develop in an unusual and innovative way.
Francesca Hughes’ lecture explores the connection between architecture and our emotions, challenging the idea of seven “sins” responsible for negative feelings towards it. The lecture discusses themes like templates, the human body, technology, and the sins of chauvinism, appropriation, fetishization, repression, zealotry, laziness, and vanity. It highlights the complexity of our emotional bond with architecture and emphasizes the love and passion architects have for their craft.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.