Analysis

Hegel in his definition suggests that the representation of design inspired from inorganic nature is
our abstract understanding of it which in practice somehow fails to establish a true relationship with
“God” (which I believe he is referring to the truth in architecture). And for these reasons, the
fundamental type of the fine art of building is the symbolical form of art.

What represents the true essence of architecture? and when do we know we have achieved it? Since
the interpretation of users or critiques of architecture are also abstract understandings of what they
feel the truth is. This points us towards certain features of architecture which are expressed in a way
that they are understandable by a maximum number of people and make the experience cognate to
the mind. It is my understanding that no art can be devoid of symbolism since appearance of an
object is usually the first contact between us and the object and everything has an appearance. The
symmetry or various forms of alignments evoke different experiences in humans when perceived
visually with each one having their own sense of abstract perceptions. So, in this sense I somewhat
agree with Hegel’s definition and that true architecture could be lost in this process.

To build an architecture which levels a space for the God builds a temple as a fit place for the
concentration of his spirit. Such an enclosure of space would be built in accordance to the
understanding of the “being” of humans which places an even higher priority on the materials and
forms used to inspire architecture. Materials evoke human senses such like touch or the forms place
humans in different environments which together build an enclosure capturing the spirit of humans
and inevitably God. It needs to guard the users from the calamities of life but be in conformity with
principles of art.

I do find it conflicting that the limit of architecture is it retains the spiritual as an inward existence
against the external forms of the art which are more tied to outward factors such as culture, location
and other factors. An architecture of truth I feel would incorporate all factors and form a whole in
which all parts come together to be coherent with each other. There would be no distinction
between those parts. In fact both would complement and fill the missing voids in each other.