History of Architecture Essay

1. Comparing and contrasting Minoan and Mycenaean architecture, distinguish how the two architectures are different and why.Minoan architecture was characterized by a number of structures that acted as epicenters for religious, commercial, and administrative lifestyles. In the recent past, archeologists discovered tombs, palaces, towns, and roadstead in Crete which symbolized the Minoan landscape. All this evidences the pre-historic culture that survived in the Aegean Sea. Minoan palaces were used to hold gatherings, workshop for trickists and food stores. The palaces were multi-storied buildings with impressive exterior and intragroup staircases. The tombs were built in round shape with a flat wood-framed roof. It was non until Neopalatial period, 1700-1400 BC that Minoan towns started to emerge and easier linkage between the towns and palaces, roads were real via the interior of the island (Marquand, 2008).On the other hand, Mycenaean architecture came into being in the Mycena ean period and most of their architecture is indebted to architecture of Minoans of Crete. An great characteristic make of Mycenaean architecture comprises of megaron, usage of exceptionally magnanimous stone blocks, corbel vaulting, and large fortification walls. Besides, the Bronze Age Cities innovation and layout on the mainland resembled that of palaces of Crete to a large extent. Some of the major Mycenaean architectural projects were huge tombs, city planning, and palace.Palaces in the Minoan period had an open, vast motor hotel whereas in Mycenaean megaron indoor(a) hall. Mycenaean architecture is also verbalise to cast been characterized by professional engineering works -evidenced by surface of stone blocks used in constructing walls. Later their work was referred to as cyclopean architecture by the Hellenics and another distint feature from from the Minoans was the technique used in corbel vaulting. Therefore, Mycenaeans can be said to have been more skilful in th e architectural works as compared to the Minoans (Marquand, 2008).2. Discuss the evolution of the Grecian synagogue form from its early days as a megaron to how it is correspond in the Hellenistic period. How and why did it evolve in the way that it did?A number of earliest Hellenic Temples are up to date the orientalizing and geometrical periods. The temple had a votive model which in most cases was appoint in tombs and the basic geometric style of an ornament. The persistent advancement of the Greek Temple was was characterized by an addition of more columns, increased sizing, and inclusion of everyday underlying base of three steps. Therefore, the columnar screens and base generated a exemplary and visual transition from the normal world to the space of the temple. The progression of the Greek Temple involved a number of stages the first stage is the megaron indoor hall- which saw it being used as temple and it was initiated in the Mycenaean period second stage was charac terized by initiation of peristyle and an increased size stage three was evidenced by completion of the peristyle, integration of the secretaryality of Egyptian temple, symmetrical construction, and architectural design in conformity with requirements of Golden office (Marquand, 2008).The Greek Temple has therefore totally remained to be a monument and it does not seem to combine its setting with the Mycenaean and Minoan designs. The temple is also a major achievement by human beings to have accomplished and the Temple represents an exceptional object from the rude(a) environment. Consequently, the Temple has move to serve as a commemoration of the geographical sacredness and provision of sanctification with a terrace that acted as the temples pedestal. It is also expense noting that the aforesaid column conk outs of the Temple does not match to natural forms much(prenominal) as plants or trees since the basic assumption was to evoke a human rationale and reasoning as oppose d to monumentalism. The masterpiece of Greek architecture continued to evolve into classical designs (500-323 BC) and Hellenistic designs (323-27 BC) and it was evidenced by improved engineering skills applied in constructing towers (Ibid, 2008).3. Describe the sensory survive of the Panathenaic Procession that would lead you to the Acropolis and up into the complex.It is quite evident that when one takes a closer look in the historical books of ancient Greek and during the definitive period that there was a direct relationship between religion, politics, and art or architecture. Historians have established that first temples were created to house cults and in contingent to facilitate religious practices in the community. Parthenon as a temple was stunningly placed in the Holy City of Acropolis and hence acted as a means with which people could link the temple to their past. A notable feature is the Panathenaic Procession as it represented the religious and social lifestyles of the Athenians. Besides, the Procession was part and parcel of festivities that honored Athena, panathenaea which was commemorated annually. The procession comprised of ritual presentation of new cloaks or peplos to the ceremonial Athena statue (Neils, 1992).After every four years, a presentation of a huge peplos was made to the Grand Panathenaea in spite of appearance the Parthenon. Subsequently, every other successive year, Panathenaic Procession was marked by peplos presentation to Athena within the Erechtheum. As a formality, the Panathenaic Procession was started at Diployn Gate and traversed Agora with the final destination being in Acropolis. The performance of most importance to the women as during the period they performed a lot of activities such as weaving and presenting huge peplos to Athena every quarter year in Pathenon and smaller peplos to Athena in Erechtheum on yearly basis. Phases of Procession were represented by the frieze of the Parthenon that extended to a distance of about 160 Metres. It stretched from the South West end of the Temple with sawbuck riders- to the North and West sides before heading to South, West sides (Neils, 1992).