**1.1 Fundamentals**

I would like to begin this analysis by quoting a phrase of Frederich Nietzsche, who reflects, "If you kill a cockroach you are a hero, but if you kill a beautiful butterfly you are a bad guy. Morality has aesthetic criteria" [1]. Under this premise, I asked several friends, relatives and professional colleagues, what would you do if you came across a butterfly or a cockroach? More than 95% affirmed that they would kill or at least move away from the cockroach and that they would appreciate the beauty of the butterfly, affirming that the beautiful is good and the ugly is bad; it is in the innate of the human being the prejudice of the esthetic, ethics and morals. I wonder now, does the same principle apply to architecture, could we affirm that every beautiful architectural work can be good? To answer this question, we will analyze the following

**Figure 1.**

*The project design process and its ethical–esthetic implications.*

concepts that will allow us to answer the question posed, considering that the process of project design is a complex system of knowledge and concepts used to transcend from the idea (intangible) to the design (plans – the tangible) (**Figure 1**):

#### *1.1.1 Architecture*

The construct architecture has had several conceptualizations through time. From the historical analysis of Jorge Sainz, some concepts are cited below: Vitruvius indicates that the architect has to be imposed in many branches of knowledge and gather knowledge from many different fields, because, in his work, the value of the sciences and the arts are contrasted, Carlo Lodoli mentions that architecture is an intellectual and practical science aimed at establishing with reasoning the good use and proportions of the artifacts, and with experience, to know the nature of the materials that compose it, on the other hand, Francesco Milizia asserts that architecture is the art of building; and takes different denominations according to the diversity of its objects. Also Etienne L. Boulleé defines architecture as the art of producing and bringing to perfection any building. Other authors also define architecture from different historical contexts, for example, Eduardo de la Rosa, citing Villagrán J. postulates that architecture is the art, science and technique of constructing, designing and projecting habitable spaces for human beings. Jorge Sainz Avia quoting E. Viollet – Le – Duc comments that architecture consists of two parts, theory and practice; the theory comprises: the art itself, the rules inspired by taste, based on traditions, and the science that can be demonstrated with invariable, absolute formulas [2].

In summary, we can say that, architecture is the art of projecting, transforming or creating space to satisfy the habitat needs of the human being. If the word art is implicit in its definition and classically architecture has been part of the seven fine arts, it is imperative to define art.

#### *1.1.2 Art*

According to Muñoz [3] art, in the classical conception, is a system of rules drawn from experience, but logically thought out afterwards, that teach us the way to perform an action tending to its perfection and repeatable at will, an action that is not part of the natural course of events and that we do not want to leave to the whim of chance. It is a habit or intellectual virtue that is learned through the exercise in cases,

#### *Architectural Trend and Style a Historical-Ethical-Esthetic Approach to Design Praxis DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112331*

the imitation of examples and the study of doctrine through the discipline taught by the masters. Hegel sustains: "Art is a particular form under which the spirit manifests itself" "The task of art consists in making the idea accessible to our contemplation under a sensible form," Heidegger affirms in one of his conferences: "The essence of art would be, then, this: to put into operation the truth of the entity." Now, it is important to analyze what is the relationship between man and art, Medina analyze:

¿Can art be considered a necessity for human beings or is it simply a luxury with which they adorn their lives? From the outset, it must be said that it seems clear that art is something that belongs to the very essence of man, since man has been "forced" by his own interiority to represent or express something, whether it be the exterior that surrounds him or has surrounded him or the interior felt at certain specific moments in history. If by necessity we understand "something" without which another "something" would not be possible; and by luxury we understand "something" that is superfluous and that only serves to please reality or life more, it is clear that art is a necessity of the human being. Art gathers the present for the future and remains as the past. It is obvious, then, that art is a total and absolute necessity of the human being. Does art exist since there is man; or perhaps it would be better to ask: does man exist since there is art? Art takes us to a dimension of transcendence that is necessary for the human being and that we cannot reach in that modality in any other way. Whether through literature in general, architecture, painting, sculpture or music, man has been forced to create artistically since he is man. And something that is imposed from within as a mandate, as Kant would say, is undoubtedly a necessity The artist is the creative subjectivity that creates the work of art. Trying to reach a deep understanding of this component of art involves looking at many decisive elements that occur in the artist and lead to creation. The artist is that creative subjectivity that is capable of creating (art) from himself. A first element to highlight in the analysis of the artist is "inspiration," which is the state in which he finds himself when he feels impelled to create. Hegel states in this regard: "Artistic production thus becomes a state to which the name of inspiration is given" [4].

The avant-garde theoreticians define: art as that human activity that produces beauty, that represents or reproduces reality, that creates forms, that expresses, that produces esthetic experience, among others; each word and concept cited allows us to articulate our analysis in a deeper way, in short, art is the process of creating beauty in an intentional way and motivated by the artist's inspiration.

#### *1.1.3 Esthetic*

According to Acosta, etymologically, esthetics comes from the Greek aesthesis = perceptible by the senses. This term designates the science of art and beauty. Hegel considered esthetics as a sensible manifestation of the absolute. For Schopenhauer, the esthetic is the idea that liberates the cosmic pain and for Heidegger, art is realized as the putting into action of truth as the manifest presence of being. In trying to make a general definition, we can say that esthetics is the science of the beautiful, a concept on which the so-called philosophical esthetics has been built, to be distinguished from the simple philosophy of art. The beautiful involves ontological structures and also includes rational factors. In the beautiful, all aspects of the being are harmonized. Philosophical esthetics clarifies, from the point of view of being, the essence of the beautiful in general (nature) and in particular (art), a problem that has an ontological-metaphysical sense; from the point of view of human nature, it is the manifestation of an anthropological-existential problem, since it

studies the essence of the esthetic experience in a double sense: that of the creator and that of the contemplator. From this analysis, derive the problems of esthetic value and esthetic valuation [5].

For there to be esthetic value in an architectural work, there must be a consensus of the social masses or of an expert group on the subject, which is why not everything can be called art and not everything can be beautiful; therefore, esthetics is directly articulated with the ethics of man.

#### *1.1.4 Ethic*

Ethics defined as a theory is the reflection on free acts and the argumentation of the motives of human action. Important factors are included in this definition: reflection, argumentation, rights and duties. Each epoch brings its own vision of the events, its complaints, its questions and difficulties. The present time has its particularities and its complaints, one of them referring to a society with a crisis of values, selfish, corrupt, godless and lawless. In the face of this complaint, a call is made to ethics as a remedy for the current "evils"; it is ethics that must take charge of these vicissitudes of the present time. Given the great transformations, it can be said that ethics is in vogue when the great summaries are not credible, rights swarm and multiple possibilities of decision open up. This is, therefore, the time of ethics where it is important to rethink it in a new way, with the characteristics of a postmodern society. As Lipovetsky rightly says: Therein lies one of the reasons for the success of ethics: it enters into a state of grace at the moment when the great ideological breviaries no longer respond to the urgencies of the moment [6].

Since ethics is the one who must respond to the moral conduct of man, good or bad, after his performance in a given social reality, within the work of the architect, it is necessary to articulate this concept with the essence of our study, esthetics.

#### *1.1.5 Architectural ethics and esthetics*

We will speak of a work of art as autographic if, and only if, the distinction between the original and the copy is significant; or better yet, if, and only if, even the most exact duplicate cannot be considered authentic. If a work is autographic, we can also qualify that art as autographic. Thus, painting is autographic and music nonautographic, or allographic. The identification of an architectural work with a design rather than with a building is less clear than that of a musical work with a composition rather than with a performance. Insofar as architecture has a reasonably adequate notational system and some of its works are unequivocally allographic, art is allographic. But insofar as its notational language is concerned, it has not yet acquired sufficient authority to divorce the identity of the work in all cases from the particular production; architecture is a mixed and transitional case.

For example, plans result from the appropriate combination of lines, data, and symbols represented on an agreed scale, but they also include certain specifications such as the materiality of the building or considerations regarding construction that cannot be considered notational. They would find their parallel in music in the verbal specifications of tempo. "The class of buildings selected by plans-plus-specs is narrower than that defined by plans alone; but plans-plus-specs form a brief, not a score" [7].

Each of the arts uses a different language, that is, a system of symbolization to order, classify, represent a world of objects. Each symbol refers to something

### *Architectural Trend and Style a Historical-Ethical-Esthetic Approach to Design Praxis DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112331*

that is not itself; it stands in place of something else. Referring to something is the core of symbolization, even if the difficulty of elaborating an infallible theory of interpretation of the work of art persists. Goodman admits that "the search for the precise interweaving of the symbol and the symbolized requires the utmost sensitivity and is a never-ending quest." There are, then, no infallible rules of interpretation, no artistic vocabularies that link sounds to feelings, forms to emotions. That said, Goodman does not, however, renounce the articulation of an analytical system of interpretation: "pluralism and endless openness do not dispense the analytical philosopher from analysis. It merely obliges one to elaborate techniques sensitive enough to unravel the richness and complexity of aesthetic symbols." Esthetic experience is an articulated search for meaning, placing it in the realm of epistemological objectivism, even though he recognizes that the existence of "logical gaps" in the passage from symbol to knowledge hinders its interpretation.

Architecture, whose nature shares artistic values and material principles, will not be able to continue the "theoretical discourse" for long, let alone become independent in metaphysical audacities; hence the failure that accompanied the elimination of the theoretical debate on the city and the postulates of planning globalist (according to which the construction of the industrial city should be understood as a "moral model" for the new uses, freeing man from the formal slavery of styles) should not come as a surprise. This is why our era has become a decidedly industrial-economist period and the relationship with objects is dissociated from their anthropological and functional links. The architectural project today manifests itself as integrated, as a reproductive phenomenon of objects in the spaces of culture and is inscribed in the emerging processes of the information society, whose accelerated changes constantly demand spatial structures of growing flexibility and mutation, alien to their intrinsic functionality [8].

When thinking about the relationship between ethics and esthetics applied to architecture, the question immediately arises as to what can be understood by ethics of architecture; in what sense does the notion of good intervene in the architect-creator when creating his work? We could answer that traditionally it has done so with respect to three values: constructive sincerity, suitability to function and decorum, and dignified form. These three values refer to the three classic Vitruvian principles found in all architecture: firmitas, utilitas and venusta.


ing character for the activity to be carried out, a leading character. By creating spaces, the architect has often tried to teach the user how to live them, so that architecture takes on an educational role in society. It is the architect assuming the role of social reformer through his work. To some degree, this has often been put into practice, and in a more radical way, we find it in the utopias and drawn architectures present in all ages.

3.The search for decorum, for the form worthy of the man who will inhabit the architecture, is a constant aspect, as it seeks to respond not only to the physical needs of man but also to his spirituality. It refers to the dignity of every man by virtue of the fact that he is a man, and also to the dignity added by the professional or social function he performs. In some cases, it is no longer a question of the individual man, but of the institution that will house the building, which may represent the city, the nation or even God himself in the case of temples. In certain epochs, this decorum was given preferably by the ornament, which according to ALBERTI "consisted first of all in the columns," that is to say, in the typified forms of the classical orders. But it also consists in the spatial determination, proportions and even measures of the spaces, being the physical greatness in all the epochs a symbol of the moral greatness [9].
