Ideology, Philosophy, Environment and Design
Compare and contrast the underlying principles of:
a) Technology and myths of modernity
The underlying principles of technology and myths of modernity include movements, schools of design and architectural styles. Some of these styles are in tension with one another, and they usually defy their classification through the process in which they keep on changing. In comparison, the perspectives are similar in the sense that they are subject to rationalization. Each perspective is relative to a different cultural framework. The difference between the two is that each of them is independent in the manner in which it is applied to the architectural field. On one hand, schools of design are used to improve the existing formations and designs in the field. Architectural styles provide a platform for technology to become effective, through improvement of structural designs that have been developed through various theories.
b) Complex systems perspectives and new models of intervention
The underlying principles in this perspective are the integration of the systems and their complexity. The principles share a similarity in that there is a corresponding increase in the development, operation and sustenance of the systems in the global environment that exist today. This leads to a situation whereby there is need to take a broader view of the principles as systems in themselves. These principles have to be based on the specific roles they play when applied. Thus, the field of architecture requires a more holistic approach in the context of all architectural perspectives. The difference between the two perspectives is that each of them has an individual roadmap for making changes and improvements in the field of architecture. Complexity ensures that any design that has been created is complicated to avoid simple designs that become ineffective when put in practice.
Effects of the perspectives on Human agents position and design
These perspectives ensure that the human agents in the field of architecture and design have been given the opportunity to come up with creative designs that are not aligned to any one of them. This means that the position of human agents is caught in between technology and modernity theories, thus ensuring that they have been combined in a balanced manner. Myths of modernity are used in reference to a condition of design whereby it has been imposed on individuals or human agents by the process of modernization.
On the other hand, complex systems perspectives and new models of intervention affect the human position in the sense that they can always identify the systems of architecture and production of designs. They are able to integrate multiculturalism in the field and also ensure that they have applied the systems perspectives in addressing the issues at hand. Additionally, the human agents are enabled by this perspective to enhance the use of advanced technologies in making their designs better and marketable.
Shared ideologies between the perspectives
Technology and myths of modernity, as well as Complex systems perspectives and new models of intervention share the same ideology in terms of clinging to traditional ways of architectural values. These values include harmony and permanence. Another ideological territory shared by these perspectives is that they have integrated a comprehensive relationship between the capitalist civilization and the culture of architecture, both modern and traditional.
Another ideological territory that is shared between the two is that they are focused on the customer, because there is the need to balance the needs of the shareholders. The customer thus becomes a unifying factor between them, and they are able to work together in harmony. Additionally, they share the ideology of standardization. This is an ideology that is needed in architecture for the purpose of efficiency and effectiveness. It is usually important in the process of reducing total lifecycle costs. In the long run, standardization ensures that there has been the creation of value in the designs that are developed.
Different position for scope, role and ambitions for a designer
When a designer brings to work the perspective of technology and myths of modernity, the scope of their designs is going to be wide and all inclusive. The role of technology will be to ensure that the designs incorporated in each work of architecture are up to date with the modern technology. It will also ensure that a design have the creativity of the highest degree that is available in the market. In the case of complex systems perspectives and new models of intervention, the scope will be narrower than that of technology.
The perspectives will be able to incorporate the past and modern designs in order to come up with ones that are more unique and advanced. Thus, the ambitions of many architects usually relates with the complexity of designs. Complex systems perspectives and new models of intervention allow designers to ensure that their work is unique and that they have taken into consideration all the underlying issues in each perspective.