Technology 3 14785 Essay Example

Gasset's technological 'adaptation of the environment' (the structure) through this classification. While Billington attempts to distinguish between machines and structures, he acknowledges their close interdependence, stating that "structures are built by machines, and machines have structure to hold them together." This simple connection serves as the foundation for presenting their essential difference; structures are static and permanent, while machines are dynamic and have a short life-span. Billington argues that we have prioritized change over permanence and severed our connections with the past in favor of embracing the dynamics of the machine world. He adds that we have neglected ideals such as repose, permanence, uniqueness of locale, and patience in our pursuit of change, adaptation to change, and the mechanization of life. It is important to note that Billington places structures (architecture) in a specific place that is environmentally dependent, distinguishing them from machines which are designed to be independent of their environment. This distinction is crucial for architects as it emphasizes the role of technology in place-making, a fundamental responsibility for architects.

Context, both physical and psychological, is a crucial aspect to consider. The hearth exemplifies this issue by serving as a focal point for warmth and family life. With the development of labor-saving machines, the traditional hearth has been transformed into a machine. While this has brought about certain benefits like increased efficiency and safety, it has also resulted in a loss of connection to the heart and soul of a home. The stove now exists as an independent machine in the kitchen, no longer capable of creating or supporting a sense of place. It has been separated from its past and its ability to

enhance family life, excluded from the permanence and tradition of "structure technology" and relegated to the dynamic "machine technology" of performance. As a result, the stove as a machine fails to truly respond or connect with the environment it inhabits. It has become disconnected from its context in the broadest sense. Therefore, designing a space that fosters the complexities of family life differs significantly from designing a machine solely for cooking purposes.

The core of the relationship between technology and architecture is that if architecture becomes more self-sufficient in terms of the environment, it becomes more similar to a machine. As a result, it cannot fully achieve its purpose as a structure that can redirect technology towards a human significance that values the concept of place. By comprehending technology in this way, we uncover the fundamental nature of architecture as a technological occurrence and a technological occurrence as a human occurrence.

Billington further compares the 'Structure and Machine' categories to the 'Art and Science' duality, equating structures with art and machines with scientific inquiry. He suggests that the evaluation of structures is based on qualification, individual works, and forms, while machines rely on data and analysis. This attempt to contextualize technology within society highlights the conditions of our technological world. Although Billington's argument is basic and incomplete, it remains useful.

In Carl Mitcham's third category of technological knowledge, a different viewpoint on the relationship between technology and science is presented. While the question of 'What is Knowledge' isn't directly addressed, certain aspects can be examined to clarify this relationship. Science provides the most precise depiction of our world, and when technology is equated with science, it is

portrayed as applied science. However, this definition is not sufficient for technology. I. C. Jarvie questions the nature of applied science in his essay "Technology and the Structure of Knowledge", explaining that it involves applying abstract theories to the real world. On the other hand, Albert Borgmann suggests that science explores a matrix of laws, while technology embodies the transformative potential of these abstract principles. Jarvie places technology closer to invention rather than applied science and initiates a critical discussion about the distinction between scientific truth and technological effectiveness. He argues that technology aims to be effective rather than true, and these different aims lead to significant differences. Effectiveness can be true, false, or unknown, highlighting that technology is not pure science but rather closer to invention.The inventor believes that the knowledge they generate is not as fundamental as pure science. Instead, it involves using ingenuity to combine different pieces of mechanical and other information to solve a specific problem. The inventor possesses a unique kind of ingenuity and mechanical intuition that sets them apart from pure scientists.

Jarvie argues that technology is specific while science is general. He supports this idea by referencing Billington's concept of the importance of a specific locale in technology's structure. As an example, he mentions the differences in house building technology in Greenland, Tokyo, and Arizona due to their respective environments. He emphasizes that technology is influenced by the demands and solutions of its environment-specific problems like food, shelter, and transportation. Unlike science, which questions nature, technology poses questions to both society and nature, making it socially relevant. Jarvie also highlights the connection between the specificity of place and the

overall well-being of society. Though he does not discuss the origins of technology's volition, he effectively argues that technology is distinct from science, environmentally dependent, place-based, and intrinsically tied to human values.

Technology is not just about practical matters for architects. It goes beyond that, reaching into various aspects of our lives, such as thought, activity, objects, survival, consumption, will, invention, place, and values. These components also make technology vital to our existence, as they are present in various disciplines. Technology is not limited to construction rules; it is both imaginative and empirical.

In his essay "The Practical Uses of Theory," Hans Jonas offers insight into the potential uses of technological theory. He argues that the ultimate goal of any use or activity is twofold: preserving life and improving life, which can be considered as promoting the good life. While it is true and necessary for technology to be practically applied to ensure survival, it does not automatically guarantee a good life. To achieve a truly meaningful and impactful architecture, technology must go beyond the ordinary and address the human condition.

In conclusion, Sullivan's commitment to the powers of vision, imagination, intellect, and sympathy with human need transcends the banal and provides a powerful context for approaching technology in architecture. Other frames of reference that separate technology from the human condition and the creation of place, and disregard its value, fail to fulfill the architect's responsibilities. Understanding technology, designing optimistically, and crossing traditional boundaries are impossible without Sullivan's desire for architects to create poems in stone. Architecture's valuable and optimistic act has the potential to serve both humankind's survival and the celebration of spirit.