Do you think that Architectural Manifestos are usefultools for Architecture? Why or why not? Be specific.Architectural manifestos are public declarations that are created in order to have a specific intentionand opinion about a certain issue within architecture, that the writer wants to tackle. Manifestos canbe seen useful or not useful by, specific audiences and the topics they cover. In exploring thisquestion, I would like to compare between manifestos written by architects exploring: ClassicalArchitecture, Modernism, Post-Modernism and Futurism. Through comparing between thesediffering manifestos, I hope to become aware to the effectiveness of each one and how theyaffected the style of architecture at a specific period. Some believe that architecture cannot bemade without organizing people to help make it, as it is thought that the birth of architecturemirrors the birth of organized societies. Therefore architecture, politics and civilization are allextremely intimately connected. Written manifestos can be defined by the writing style and politicalview that takes place within some manifestos. A manifesto isn’t distinguished by the length, it isdistinguished between other writing styles by the language, grammar and punctuation used, thus Iwill explore the particular ways each manifesto is written and find what distinguishes them fromother forms of writing.Andrea Palladio inspired the European style of Palladian architecture in the early 14th century. InPalladio’s book ‘The Four Books of Architecture’, he discusses a specific way in which to build and usethe materials in order to create a strong and solid building or structure. Palladio states that thestrength and duration of a structure depends on its “walls [being] thicker below than above” [1] whichwill make the walls be “carried directly upright” [2]. Additionally, he declares that all “the uppercolumns [be] directly perpendicular to the those that are underneath” [3] and all “openings of doorsand windows be one on top of the other” [4], as then “the solid is on top of the solid… and void on topof the void” [5], showing architect how to build a structure through his ‘correct’ way to do so. To myknowledge and understanding Palladio’s manifesto involves the declaration of the style and way inwhich he believes structures should be built, but this is done in a long and less effective way thenthe more recent manifestos that I will explore.Although Andrea Palladio was inspired by Marcus Vitruvius Pollio’s work on classical architectureand how he tends to gloss over much contemporary variation in architectural form and his view ofthe Greek history that he bases his modes of architecture on. Vitruvius’ book, ‘The 10 Books onArchitecture’ encapsulates in book IV the three modes of architecture that present part of hismanifesto. The first mode was invented by Dorus, ruler of Achaia and Peloponnesus, he built severaltemples which were then copied by Athenians following further expansion. As the builders wereunsure of the proportions used by Dorus, they turned to the form of the herculean male was footwas supposed to be one sixth of his height. Therefore, the Doric column was created to be in heightsix times the width of the column at its base. Thus, the figurative idea of the human form derivesfrom here and was then further created to make the Ionic and Corinthian column; which were theclassical order of columns in Ancient Greek Architecture. Vitruvius believed that architects focusought to be around the three themes when designing any structure; firmitas (strength), utiitas(functionality), and venustas (beauty). Many abided by these three themes in Ancient Greece, thiswas what his manifesto was mainly based on at the start of his 10 books.A manifesto by a famous architect may be read by anyone studying or exploring the relationshipbetween politics and architecture. Manifestos are believed to be created to distinguish between thedifferent eras within architecture and how they changed through the political background of thewriting architect or through the change in style of building. Architectural manifestos can be thelength of 10 books, as Vitruvius’ manifesto is, or as short as one book that goes into enough detail.Palladio’s and Vitruvius’ manifestos differ in many ways, although one is based on the other, bothpeople have had different defining experiences that they believe in and differing inspiration, including the background of architectural knowledge of both architects. This is shown through thediffering themes in which their manifestos are both focused on. As Vitruvius has three main themesof architecture while Palladio’s architecture was thought to be “governed by reason and by theprinciples of classical antiquity” [6], which the principles are based of Vitruvius’ theories so do stand forsimilar reasoning but were developed by Palladio in the latter 16th century. Therefore, it is believedthat their manifestos had an interconnecting link between architectural writing and politics, whilesome other manifestos might have a weaker link between the two.Nevertheless, although Andrea Palladio was originally inspired by Vitruvius, his architecturalplatform was specifically surrounding the laws of symmetry, the use of pediments and proportions,which a few centuries later were rivalled by the Gothic form of architecture. As Augustus Puginbelieved it to be unsuitable for Anglican and Anglo-Catholic worship structures. Alas, Le Corbusier’smodernism became widely recognized by architects a few centuries later. Conflicting with classicalarchitecture, Le Corbusier’s minimalistic architecture became popular among architects as a newapproach to creating structures.Le Corbusier was an influential key role in the modernization of urbanism. As mentioned byFrederick Etchells in the introduction of Le Corbusier’s book ‘Towards A New Architecture’, Etchellsmentions that the book may “annoy” [7] people, as Le Corbusier isn’t many peoples favourite due tohis manifesto of architecture. Although the book is said to “certainly stimulate” [8] as it is a significantinfluence on the modern understanding and study of architecture. Le Corbusier’s ‘guiding principles’of a new architecture discuss “the two things that march together” [9]; the engineer and the architect.The engineer is thought to be an individual inspired by the “law of economy and governed bymathematical calculation” [10], while the architect builds a structure that is dependent on the feelingsof the person as then it creates a relationship that echoes within the person, as Le Corbusier states“in accordance with…heart and our understanding” [11], implying that only one this connection is madethen the architect has fulfilled their purpose and abided by Le Corbusier’s principles.Additionally, he talks of “three reminders to architects” [12]; mass, surface and plan, which some wouldsay are the underlying basis of what his architecture is built upon. Le Corbusier’s manifesto thatstarts in the first chapter of his book, titled ‘argument’, he brings about some of the key argumentsof modernist architecture and his beliefs within constructing and building. These arguments aremainly bought about in short and straight to the point sentences, such as; “the ‘styles’ are a lie” [13],“the necessity for order” [14] and “the plan is the generator” [15]. These key arguments that Le Corbusier believes in connect architecture to politics and to his beliefs of what people should believe in,according to him. In this first chapter, there are headings to each ‘argument’, that are shortparagraphs explaining his exact views on each matter. For example, the last sentence within theparagraph headed ‘plan’ states that “modern life demands, and is waiting for, a new kind of plan,both for the house and for the city” [16], encapsulating his views on architecture but again, on politicstoo. Thus, making Le Corbusier’s manifesto a useful tool for architecture and for people who areinterested and read about the topics, as it can help define the different expectations and needs ofeach architect within architectural manifestos.Robert Venturi’s ‘Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture’ gives us a ‘gentle manifesto’explaining to the readers that the “increasing dimension and scale of architecture in urban andregional planning add[s] to the difficulties” [17] that were not around in the previously simple singlebuildings. In Venturi’s book he talks of the contradictory levels of the “both-and” [18] phenomenonwithin architecture. Venturi criticises Le Corbusier’s Shodhan House and Villa Savoye which bothimply the “both-and”; as both structures are opened and closed in their architectural curtain. Havingthe both rather than, “either-or” [19], implies the way in which Venturi is trying to teach and explain to architects how to build structures; without the contradictory and complexity within architecture,within the post-modernist era. Through his manifesto about the contradictions of how “even flowingspaces [have] implied being outside when inside and inside when outside, rather than both at thesame time” [20], showing that manifestations about the contradiction and complexity are unknown toarchitecture that includes “both-and” rather than excluding “either-or”. As Venturi studied in Romehis primary inspiration came from the urban facades in Italy rather than the “Greeks Temple’shistorical and archetypal” [21] style that Le Corbusier was inspired by. Therefore, Venturi’s conclusionscreate an essential antidote to the “cataclysmic purism of contemporary urban renewal” [22] thatnearly ruined many cities. Consequently, presenting to us the need for change between erasthrough new manifestos of architects, but also the old manifestos that the new have beendeveloped from.However, Le Corbusier and Venturi are mostly different but have a few concepts and places wherethey hold similarities that many are unaware too. Venturi’s inspiration of the city facades in Italy andtheir complexity of spatial vessels, resemble that of Le Corbusier in their intensely visual and artisticway of focusing on an individual structure and “not the schematic or two dimensionally diagrammatic view toward which many planners” [23] come to use. In this way they are similar due totheir symbolic attitude towards urbanism. While Vincent Scully, in the introduction of Venturi’s‘Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture’, mentions the way in which they are “diametricallyopposed” [24] as Venturi holds a more fragmented approach, as his “conclusions are general only byimplication” [25]. Le Corbusier and Venturi were also similar through their irony used in both theirqualifying recommendations. Although Venturi is an easier and more flowing architect, while LeCorbusier was a sharp and tough character, that mainly united with Venturi only through theirinspiration on Michelangelo. Le Corbusier and Venturi hold similar beliefs of the nature of the worldand its vanishing civilisation, that can be seen by comparing both manifestos. Therefore, manifestoscan create the way in which we compare and contrast to become aware of the similarity’s anddifferences of such influential architects that impact us all until today, through their usefularchitectural manifestos.Futuristic architecture came about in the early 20th century but wasn’t so popular or well-known tillthe later 20th century. Antonio Sant’Elia who brings about a futurist manifesto of architecture,inspired by Filippo Tommaso Marinetti; who began futurism, believes that “no architecture hasexisted since 1700” [26] as Sant’Elia explains that the modern style is “mask[s]… and skeletons” [27] overarchitecture. Sant’Elia describes vigorously his hatred towards the earlier styles within architectureand their “idiotic flowering of stupidity and impotence” [28] especially that of “neoclassicism” [29] as hebelieves these architects that created “Gothic pointed arches, Egyptian pilasters, rococo scrolls…” [30]are all people who continue to “stamp the image of imbecility on our cities, our cities which shouldbe the immediate and faithful projection of ourselves” [31]. This express his strong feelings of‘incorrect’ architecture and explains via his manifesto what architecture should not do. Thus,although this manifesto is strong worded and formatted in paragraphs, combined of short and longsentences that attack other architects, this manifesto can help bring about the change that futuristarchitects wanted to see within our cities. Sant’Elia’s manifesto argues that of Le Corbusier in asense that Sant’Elia believes architecture should not be filled by Le Corbusier’s “tradition, style,aesthetics, proportion…” [32] rather by a futuristic way in “resources of technology and science,satisfying magisterially all the demands of our habits and spirit” [33]. Therefore, the creation of thesemanifestos help to bring about change in an effective manner through writings and studies that arguewith one another.The futuristic philosophy is that everything should be made of “scientific and technical expertise.Everything must be revolutionised” [34]. The strong opinionated and argumentative way of writing inmanifestos create an impactful read and can help to bring about change architecture, thus beinguseful. But some may argue that we are at a stage where we have so many manifestos from manyinfluential and not so influential architects. Which brings about the opinion of some, that a largenumber of architectural manifestos are not effective or useful tools for architecture, as they don’timplement change and are not written by influential architects; meaning they don’t change styles ofarchitecture within a period of time, but they are just there to create a political agenda toarchitecture.On the other hand, I do believe that manifestos are useful tools for all and any designers to have, asthey are a declaration of the beliefs and views that an architect stands on when planning andcreating structures. This can be seen through all manifestos, every person should have their ownmanifesto, whether it be an architect or a politician, all people have the right to share their opinionand argument in a manifesto whether it becomes useful or not, depends on the person who haswritten it and what the intend on doing with their manifesto. An architectural manifesto is useful forall architects and designers; as each person is unique and different and has different understandingsabout architecture, which can then be implemented in their structural, planning or even lecturingwork that one might do in an architectural environment. Architectural manifestos help studentsstudying in architectural field, to think about what they would change in architecture, what they likeor dislike or even despise like Antonio Sant’Elia.When comparing and contrasting between the four manifestos I have mentioned above, one canportray that Le Corbusier’s and Venturi manifestos are similar in the way they are broken down intoparagraphs with subheadings for each and short sentences that are mostly statements. WhilePalladio and Sant’Elia’s are different from each other and the rest, they provide a more contentheavy text. Palladio’s manifesto is written in a more formal way in order to suit a specific type ofaudience he wanted to reach. Whereas, Sant’Elia had a more informal approach while stronger useof language and images to accompany his statements and accusations. Manifestos provide us asreaders with a new perspective when exploring architecture and the problems surrounding it.Therefore, when asked if architectural manifestos are useful tools for architecture, many wouldagree as they provide us with an opinion of an expert within the field or with an opinion of anoutsider that is exploring architecture.Leslie Kanes Weisman includes a ‘Women’s environmental Rights: A manifesto’ as a prologue in afeminist architecture book. This manifesto discusses the way in which the environment hasoppressed us (women) as “they have conditioned us to an environmental myopia” [35] which thenlimits women in the field of architecture. This manifesto is structured similarly to that of LeCorbusier’s and Venturi in its short and sub-headed paragraphs. In the first paragraph titled‘Architecture as Icon’, Weisman converses about the way in which architecture was created in theself-image of men as they are “the decision makers in our society” [36] and as “men have created thebuilt-environment in their own self-image” [37]. This portrays Weisman’s political views in hermanifesto, helping to bring readers aware of the matter and help bring change about. Weisman alsoexpresses the way in which skyscrapers are mirroring how men act in our societies, “the big, theerect, the forceful” [38], this describes the way in which she delivers a message and opinion through hermanifesto. Weisman discusses in her manifesto a way in which to solve this issue which creates ahigher value and usefulness for architectural manifestos, as then they can convey a message thatforces change. She states that architecture reflects on people so a building with new “architecturallanguage” [39] would help give men and women non-stereotypical roles, as a home and skyscraper do.Architectural manifestos also discuss the issues within public architecture that can affect our societyand how genders are perceived as weaker or stronger, through the inequality of women carrying orpushing children in push-chairs in the underground tube stations or buses. In this way she debatesthat spaces give people power through the way in which they make a gender weaker or stronger.Weisman’s architectural manifesto has stronger sense of her conveying her opinion and asking forchanges to be made and equality to be given in architectural spaces. Thus, her architecturalmanifesto could seem to be the most important one out of the ones I have discussed as it discussesa more specific point about a more specific problem in architecture. The form of her manifestoincludes a poem speaking of the way in which women experience inequality within societiesarchitecture. Lastly, by including this poem she creates a more powerful understanding into heropinion and the problem women face.In conclusion, I believe that architectural manifestos are useful tools for architecture as they providea declaration and thought behind why and how buildings are built, including any political agendasbehind most buildings. A manifesto is the basis of how we grow opinions and stipulations for ourwork within architecture but also within our outside life, for example, the 10 commandments thatJewish people abide by which are the backbone to Judaism, as such, architectural manifestosprovide architects with background knowledge coming in the field of architecture whether in studyor professionally. A manifesto can provide one with the historical and political background of thatperiod and why buildings were built in certain ways in different places. Without manifestos,architecture wouldn’t have developed the way it did from classicalism to futuristic and modernbuildings nowadays. Therefore, I strongly believe that anyone in study or professional aspects ofarchitecture or design should have an architectural manifesto to help accompany the way theypresent and explain their work within their field as this helps create a discussion around architectureand create better styles of architecture that a more thought through and provocative to the worldoutside of architecture. Thus, architectural manifestos are extremely important and useful tools inArchitecture.Bibliography and References:Books:Andrea Palladio, The Four Books of ArchitectureAndrea Palladio, The Four Books of ArchitectureAndrea Palladio, The Four Books of ArchitectureAndrea Palladio, The Four Books of ArchitectureAndrea Palladio, The Four Books of ArchitectureAndrea Palladio, The Four Books of ArchitectureLe Corbusier, Towards a New ArchitectureLe Corbusier, Towards a New ArchitectureLe Corbusier, Towards a New ArchitectureLe Corbusier, Towards a New ArchitectureLe Corbusier, Towards a New ArchitectureLe Corbusier, Towards a New ArchitectureLe Corbusier, Towards a New ArchitectureLe Corbusier, Towards a New ArchitectureLe Corbusier, Towards a New ArchitectureLe Corbusier, Towards a New ArchitectureRobert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in ArchitectureRobert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in ArchitectureRobert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in ArchitectureRobert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in ArchitectureRobert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in ArchitectureRobert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in ArchitectureRobert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in ArchitectureRobert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in ArchitectureRobert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in ArchitectureAntonio Sant’Elia, A Futurist ManifestoAntonio Sant’Elia, A Futurist ManifestoAntonio Sant’Elia, A Futurist ManifestoAntonio Sant’Elia, A Futurist ManifestoAntonio Sant’Elia, A Futurist ManifestoAntonio Sant’Elia, A Futurist ManifestoAntonio Sant’Elia, A Futurist ManifestoAntonio Sant’Elia, A Futurist ManifestoAntonio Sant’Elia, A Futurist ManifestoLeslie Kanes Weisman, Women’s Environmental Right: A manifestoLeslie Kanes Weisman, Women’s Environmental Right: A manifestoLeslie Kanes Weisman, Women’s Environmental Right: A manifestoLeslie Kanes Weisman, Women’s Environmental Right: A manifestoLeslie Kanes Weisman, Women’s Environmental Right: A manifestoOnline sources:https://www.britannica.com/art/Palladianism