Biographical Essay

Biographical Essay

IARC 1200 – Survey of Architecture UNIVERSITY of TENNESSEE at CHATTANOOGA

Page 1 of 2

Biographical Essay

Outcomes: • Analyze the work of select architects and their contributions to the history of architecture. • Evaluate multiple perspectives from varying sources regarding the work of your chosen architects. • Explain the varieties of historical evidence used and assess the strengths and limitations of each. • Analyze and interpret primary and secondary source material, distinguish between them, and place

them in context.

Task: All students are required to research two influential architects and write an essay (minimum 3 pages total) comparing and contrasting their work and contributions. The essay should focus on the architects’ work/style and the similarities and differences between the two architects.

Students must utilize a minimum of four sources of varied perspectives when writing the essay. Reliable, published content should be used. Wikipedia (or similar open-source content) is not considered a valid source! A minimum of one source must be a primary source. All sources must be correctly cited (MLA style) with proper in-text citations included. Students must also submit a brief explanation accompanying their bibliography, describing why each source would be considered either primary or secondary (see next page) and assessing the strengths and limitations of each source. This explanation is in addition to the required 3 page minimum.

Suggested architects include: 1. Frank Lloyd Wright 2. Le Corbusier 3. Antoni Gaudi 4. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe 5. Frank Gehry 6. Louis Henri Sullivan 7. Ieoh Ming Pei 8. Jean Novel 9. Bruce Goff 10. Oscar Niemeyer 11. Philip Johnson 12. Paul Rudolph 13. Alvar Aalto 14. Michael Graves 15. Charles & Ray Eames 16. Eero Saarinen 17. Walter Gropius 18. Zaha Hadid 19. Rem Koolhaas 20. Santiago Calatrava

21. Renzo Piano 22. Sir Norman Foster 23. Richard Meier 24. Daniel Libeskind 25. Louis Kahn 26. Alvaro Siza Vieira 27. Tadao Ando 28. Adolf Loos 29. Carlo Scarpa 30. Fumihiko Maki 31. Peter Eisenman 32. Lebbeus Woods 33. Marcel Breuer 34. Sean Godsell 35. Steven Holl 36. Richard Rogers 37. Bjarke Ingels 38. Thom Mayne 39. Bernard Tschumi 40. Jorn Oberg Utzon

41. Gerrit Thomas Rietveld 42. John Pawson 43. Samual “Sambo” Mockbee 44. Eric Owen Moss 45. Glenn Marcus Murcutt 46. Paulo Mendes da Rocha 47. Maya Lin 48. Ricardo Legorreta 49. John Edward Lautner 50. Coleman Coker 51. Mario Botta 52. Sir Nicholas Grimshaw 53. Euine Fay Jones 54. Greene and Greene 55. Jacques Herzog and Pierre

de Meuron 56. Coop Himmelblau 57. Robert Venturi and Denise

Scott Brown

IARC 1200 – Survey of Architecture UNIVERSITY of TENNESSEE at CHATTANOOGA

Page 2 of 2

Additional Information Regarding Primary and Secondary Sources Quoted from the following source:

“Library Guides: Distinguish Between Primary and Secondary Sources: Home.” Library Course Guides. University of California Santa Cruz, n.d. Web.

1. Introduction Whether conducting research in the social sciences, humanities (especially history), arts, or natural sciences, the ability to distinguish between primary and secondary source material is essential. Basically, this distinction illustrates the degree to which the author of a piece is removed from the actual event being described, informing the reader as to whether the author is reporting impressions first hand (or is first to record these immediately following an event), or conveying the experiences and opinions of others—that is, second hand.

2. Primary sources These are contemporary accounts of an event, written by someone who experienced or witnessed the event in question. These original documents (i.e., they are not about another document or account) are often diaries, letters, memoirs, journals, speeches, manuscripts, interviews and other such unpublished works. They may also include published pieces such as newspaper or magazine articles (as long as they are written soon after the fact and not as historical accounts), photographs, audio or video recordings, research reports in the natural or social sciences, or original literary or theatrical works.

3. Secondary sources The function of these is to interpret primary sources, and so can be described as at least one step removed from the event or phenomenon under review. Secondary source materials, then, interpret, assign value to, conjecture upon, and draw conclusions about the events reported in primary sources. These are usually in the form of published works such as journal articles or books, but may include radio or television documentaries, or conference proceedings.

4. Defining questions When evaluating primary or secondary sources, the following questions might be asked to help ascertain the nature and value of material being considered:

How does the author know these details (names, dates, times)? Was the author present at the event or soon on the scene?

Where does this information come from—personal experience, eyewitness accounts, or reports written by others?

Are the author’s conclusions based on a single piece of evidence, or have many sources been taken into account (e.g., diary entries, along with third-party eyewitness accounts, impressions of contemporaries, newspaper accounts)?

Ultimately, all source materials of whatever type must be assessed critically and even the most scrupulous and thorough work is viewed through the eyes of the writer/interpreter. This must be taken into account when one is attempting to arrive at the ‘truth’ of an event.

  • Outcomes:
  • Task:
  • Suggested architects include:
  • Additional Information Regarding Primary and Secondary Sources
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. Primary sources
    • 3. Secondary sources
    • 4. Defining questions

Comments are closed.