As the train raced through the French country side, the landscape out the window were continuous patches of brown and green. It was autumn and the sky was gray, as had been the norm in Paris for the past two weeks. Occasionally, the scenery was interrupted by small clusters of trees or small streams, sometimes with small stone bridges crossing over them.
About half an hour out of Paris, a tall building appeared in the near horizon. It was a grain elevator, sitting prominently within the otherwise flat landscape of green. It was a similar grain elevator which Le Corbusier claimed to have been inspired by when he wrote Towards a New Architecture, arguing for an architecture that was functional and embracive of new technologies.
In a grain elevator, every form served a purpose. There was a reason behind every line. Every element of the grain elevator served a purpose and this purpose was laid out for all to see. No longer was there a need to hide parts of the building behind a screen of ornaments. Architecture became rational.
With the Villa Savoye, Corbusier exemplified his Five Points of a New Architecture. Every architecture students since has learned about the pilotis, the horizontal window, the free façade, the roof garden and the opened plan. Their lineage arguably traces back to the grain elevators dotting the French landscape.
We consider the Villa Savoye as architecture but what about the grain elevator? Surely if we make the argument that the Villa Savoye is architecture because it has been designed, then the grain elevator can likewise claim its architectural status on a similar basis. Yet it would be hard to find anyone arguing for the merits of the grain elevator as architecture.
Or is it that design does not factor into the equation of architecture? The distinction could be made between good and bad design as a contributing factor to the differentiation between architecture and building, though is the grain elevator a bad design? On the basis that it fulfils its function and accomplishes its intended purpose, how can the grain elevator be considered bad design?
Too often architecture has been considered too simply at an aesthetical level. We equate aesthetic design with architecture and consider good design as those which are pleasing to the eye. What we neglect is the ability of architecture to be an expression. Good architecture does not necessarily look good, and looking good has never been a criteria for good architecture.
The pre-occupation on the aesthetics of design hinders the potential of architecture. We consider the Villa Savoye as a piece of architecture not because it is aesthetically pleasing. The Villa Savoye is architecture because it is inspiring. It showed what a building could be in the 20th century and in turn changed the way we perceived of common perceptions. It is not to say that architecture should neglect form, but architecture must strive to move beyond aesthetic design.
Footnotes 