Is it possible to quantitatively evaluate the aesthetic characteristics of architectural
objects?
It is well known that architecture is a unity of some components: efficiency, usefulness
and beauty. It should be noted that when analyzing any complex scientific objects that
are a unity of constituent elements, it is inevitable that for methodological purposes it is
necessary to conduct a separate analysis of each element. In the analysis of
architectural objects, it is necessary, first of all, to conduct an analysis of efficiency, an
analysis of functionality and an analysis of beauty.
If we separately analyze the quantitative analysis of each component, then in relation to
the first two criteria - the criterion of efficiency and the criterion of functionality - in
principle, the issue is considered resolved, since relatively good methods have already
been developed with the help of which it is possible to quantitatively evaluate all
construction costs in the first case or, in the second case, the efficiency of the system.
The situation is completely different with the quantitative analysis of beauty, which has
never been calculated in architecture and the possibility of calculating which is often
disputed to this day. Therefore, the main task of this essay will be to assess the
possibility and impossibility of a quantitative assessment of aesthetics in architecture.
First, what is beauty? To define the term "beauty" we need to answer several questions.
Does beauty imply any principles? If the patterns of beauty are knowable, can one
objective assessment be obtained from them or are assessments always subjective? So
is beauty based on any patterns? In order to answer this question, we will turn to
various specialists and authors. First, we will identify the opinions of authors who deny
the reduction of beauty in architecture to scientific methods or laws. Kant argued that
beauty does not depend on concepts or rules, since it is perceived subjectively: "Beauty
is a form of the expediency of an object, perceived without an idea of the goal." Roland
Barthes argued that beauty is a game of interpretations: "Beauty is not revealed through
analysis, it exists in an endless process of comprehension." Friedrich Nietzsche
believed that architecture is the embodiment of an unconscious urge to create: "The
beauty of architecture is born not in calculations, but in passion." The architect Ludwig
Mies van der Rohe, who strove for strict geometric forms, admitted that "Mathematics
helps to build a house, but does not create its beauty." In addition to the above
statements, there are no fewer positive opinions confirming the presence of patterns in
beauty. The philosopher (Aristotle) believed that beauty is not an abstract idea, but an
objective quality of things: "The chief forms of beauty are order, symmetry and
definiteness." or "Again, a beautiful object, whether it be a living organism or any whole
composed of parts, must not only have an orderly arrangement of parts, but must also
be of a certain magnitude; for beauty depends on magnitude and order." Leon Battista
Alberti defines beauty as “that reasoned harmony of all the parts within a body, so that
nothing may be added, taken away, or altered, but for the worse” and specifies that “the
three principal components of the whole theory [of beauty] into which we inquire are
number [numerus], what we might call outline [finitio] and position [collocatio]”. Another
Renaissance architect wrote “Proportion is the basis of beauty”. The architecture of both
Alberti and Palladio support Plato’s belief that “those arts which are founded on
numbers, geometry and the other mathematical disciplines, have greatness and in this
lies the dignity of architecture”. The compared opinions of various experts do not
provide a specific answer to the question of whether beauty is based on any patterns.
But despite this, we can move on to the next question: can the patterns that determine
beauty be known? Let's start with the positive opinions:
Arnheim believed that understanding the laws of perception can help explain beauty:
"The laws of perception can be investigated, and they play a key role in understanding
aesthetics." Leonardo da Vinci believed that the laws of beauty can be derived through
proportions and geometry and developed his theory of ideal human proportions:
"Proportions and symmetry are the basis for understanding beauty, and they can be
investigated through science and mathematics." Le Corbusier and his "Modulor" system
believed that architecture is closely related to scientific laws and argued that
"Proportions and measures are key elements that can be investigated through science
and mathematics." Plato believed that beauty is a reflection of ideal forms: "Beauty is
known through reason, and it can be described through ideal proportions and harmony."
But all these positive opinions of high-ranking people can be offered a number of
negative ones from the same high-ranking people:
Kant doubted that it is possible to know beauty through strict laws, emphasizing that the
perception of beauty is always subjective. "Beauty cannot be reduced to universal laws,
since its perception varies among different people." Theodor Adorno argued that
attempts to know beauty through patterns do not give a full understanding of its
essence: "Beauty cannot be reduced to simple patterns, since it includes elements of
social dynamics and subjectivity." Goethe believed that beauty is subjective: "Beauty
cannot be reduced to logic and mathematics, it exists in the eyes of the beholder."
Friedrich Schiller believed that beauty is a synthesis of harmony and feeling: "Beauty is
not something that can be expressed mathematically, it is a form in which mind and
feeling come into harmony." Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that beauty is a natural
state and it cannot be revealed artificially by scientific explanations "Beauty is not
something that can be scientifically explained; it exists in freedom and nature." In the
second question there is also no single comparison to one opinion. But if we still allow a
small probability, then a new question arises. Is it possible to get an objective
assessment of beauty?
Most experts, authors and thinkers who consider beauty objective reduce it to
mathematical proportions, formulas and geometric shapes. Ancient Greek philosophers
perceived beauty as an objective and ontological phenomenon in its essence,
associated with the perfection of the Universe, with the understanding of the cosmos as
a world order, expediency, decoration. Pythagoras considered beauty and mathematics
to be one and noted that objects whose proportions correspond to the golden ratio are
considered ideal.
All the above opinions leaning towards the "elements of beauty" actually lean towards
the "elements of harmony". Harmonic series can be more or less successfully
calculated through various proportions, etc. However, it is impossible to qualimetrically
characterize the humane concept. It is impossible to quantitatively evaluate aesthetic
relations because aesthetic is not a property or quality, it is aesthetic relations, and not
only objective, but objective-subjective relations, which are characterized not only by
harmony, rhythm, proportionality, etc. According to Karl Marx, aesthetic relations are
labor and social relations of people and are evaluated in the light of social interactions.
So, it is possible to quantitatively and qualimetrically evaluate the harmonic series
characteristic of aesthetic relations and architectural composition, but not aesthetic
relations and beauty in general.
Resources:
http://www.labrate.ru/azgaldov/Numerical_measure_of_the_problem_of_beauty_in_arch
itecture_page_1-88.pdf
https://conservancy.umn.edu/items/af4f566e-d543-4f18-b5c1-5fcbde266b3c
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Красота
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty/
