I think the way architecture lies is a type of metaphorical way of saying that some built environments have a way of expressing themselves in ways that can convey messages or perceptions that aren’t entirely reality. Architecture is powerful in visual and spatial communication, and it holds the power to influence emotions and perceptions as well as beliefs in a given space. An example of a space that illustrates this, would be the Palais Stoclet in Brussels, designed by Austrian architect Josef Hoffmann in the early 20th century. This building, although aesthetically brilliant and known for breaking away from traditional aesthetics and turning to a more modernized and geometrical approach, can be seen as a building where its architecture may “lie” in terms of the representation and the overall underlying functions. It can be seen from the facade and overall aesthetic that it illustrates the narrative of wealth and modernity. However, the overall reality of daily life and functionality is somewhat hidden and cannot be understood from the outside, becoming a building where the facade is a deceptive element. This building exemplifies how architecture, although aesthetically brilliant, can be selective in the representation and create a notion or misleading narrative about the purpose and lived experiences inside the building.
Figure 1: Palais Stoclet in Brussels, designed by Austrian architect Josef Hoffmann in the early 20th century.
I think this building is a great example of how a lie can negatively impact a building. From my experience, I tend to avoid these big, grand structures because of associations with religion or wealth.
A core part of the rationalism movement is morality Lying about a building’s use misleads the public and people who may want to use it. As well, too much ornament can seem like they’re trying to hide the building’s true purpose.
I think this is a great example of what can go wrong by draping a building in too much ornament. There’s a shared idea that architects must make buildings clear in their use, to avoid accidently deceiving people. I agree that the building is very beautiful, but the design should stay true to the purpose.
I like this idea of how some buildings lie through omission, while inflating features that are not representative of reality. I think a lot of buildings are made to be intentionally vague in this way, concealing their purpose and function. In class we’ve looked at how rationalism was applied to how legibly clear designs, and I think you example has a lot to do with those ideas. While the building is interesting and expressive in its own right, it doesn’t legibly present any characteristics that hint to how and why it belongs where it is. It’s interesting because while a lot of the architecture we have previously looked at have used ornament to communicate claims relating to things like power, wealth, and history, this building also seems to actively try to avoid communicating anything specific.