MATERIALITY AND IMMATERIALITY

The role of materiality and immateriality in the present era of architecture is both still relevant in their own respect. Materiality plays the role of ensuring the basic way of construction since the beginning of time isn’t forgotten, and that the natural order of what man had first used for building is begin with, followed, and preserved.

Materiality also prevents the perversion of materials, where only the suitable materials are considered, especially to achieve a fully structural sound building, not for the sake of making a certain element the core of the planned building and forgoing the basic purpose of providing a viable structure for the certain performance of the future occupants. In a sense, the above points to the way where materiality paves the road to guide the present building designers from going astray from the doing their main job of providing a roof on top for the task given to them.

While speaking about immateriality, it has been increasing in relevance for the past decade. It is so, because of the increasing numbers of unconventional designs has slowly creeping into the borders of being “conventional”. For example, take Falling Water by Frank Lloyd Wright, it is the epitomy of going against materiality.

Figure 1 : Falling Waters of Frank Lloyd Wright on a stream of naturally flowing water.

It shouldn’t even be sound to be thinking of placing a structure made of concrete on a stream of river. The concrete would be corroding quicker, on a accelerated rate. With that being said, it still stands proudly today, albeit with a heavy maintenance. Although it relies on a heavy sense of “immateriality” to be materialized, it has successfully propelled itself into the history books and ensures it relevancy in the field of architecture.

That being said, it has since propel immateriality into a true powerhouse of architecture, where for some, immateriality is the path to achieving the true potential of architecture design. In some cases, it does ring true, take the ascendency of a few present era “starchitects” as a gauge, Zaha Hadid’s Heydar Aliyev Center, Guggenheim Museum by Frank Gehry, The Louvre Pyramid by I.M. Pei, it all points to a form of immateriality to immortalize their design. It is safe to say, immateriality in architecture of the present day propels the field of architecture to greater heights, where the current population favour and worship the designs and structure that immateriality brings.

Figure 2 : Frank Gehry's revolutionary Guggenheim Museum which left everyone in awe of its bold design and usage of aluminium as exterior cladding material.

Figure 3 : The first architect of Chinese descent and that of a Asian continent to receive the highest achievement in the field of architecture, the Pritzker Prize, I.M. Pei. It is none other than the Louvre Pyramid which propels him into the realm of starchitects. The sense of both Materiality and Immateriality is perfectly balanced to produce the Louvre, where the bold approach to redesign the extension of the museum with glass has been greatly applauded.

Figure 4 : The Heydar Aliyev Center by Zaha Hadid. Similar to that of the Louvre Pyramid, the Heydar Aliyev Center is meticulously designed with a smooth white cladding with points to a flawless practice of modern materiality, while the form is innovated through countless hours of immaterial design practice.

Expression of material properties, the transformation of materials, human perception, value judgements. They all do at least have a light connection to each other. Take the expression of material properties, the transformation of materials, this both does co-exist, in this case, take Kunsthaus Bregenz by Peter Zumthor. The expression of the material properties is greatly exhibited by the etched glass façade, where most of it is cover by that single material. For the transformation of materials, the architect has manipulate a simple transformation of glass panels which allow harsh sunlight to penetrate the glass and into the space into using a façade full of etched glass with allows light to diffuse through and evenly transfer light throughout the space and transforms the usage of glass as a façade. My opinion that materiality and immateriality is always required, and with it they should come in a almost perfect balance to produce a exemplary piece of architecture, so it should not be a surprise all of the traits stated above can be combined to represent materiality and immateriality.

Figure 5 and 6 : The Kunsthaus Bregenz of Peter Zumthor. A exemplary piece of architecture to proclaim the harmonious relationship between Materiality and Immateriality with the flawless usage of etched glass throughout the building.

If a fourth text were to be added, it will be an argument for the current and present architects to be fearless in the face of materiality and immateriality and instead fully embrace them while maintaining a harmonious balance of both. This is level in the sense where materiality could bring a whiff of outdated practice, immateriality brings the notion of constantly being too radical in every way, which is why a little bit of both is always needed to quench the fire whenever an overreach of either practice has occur. Think of it, a harmony of materiality and immateriality, it may sound a little far-fetched and even radical to some, but I believe they both can propel architects to another level. One encourages a wise usage of materials, solid concepts of construction and sometimes fool-proof. One provides a platform for architects to transcend traditional design boundaries and innovate for better solutions for the future of the field.