Scripture
& Practice 8 ENCOUNTERING
RESONANCE BETWEEN SOME WRITINGS OF A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND
SOME LETTERS OF AN APOSTLE The
main sources of this paper are: ‘Ove Arup
Philosophy of Design: Essays 1942-1981’ edited Nigel Tonks,
published Prestel Verlag, 2012, and the Letters
of Paul to the Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians in the New Revised
Standard Version of the Bible Introduction First, a definition of resonance:
‘Condition or quality of being resonant’ and, in particular, ‘sound
produced by a body vibrating in sympathy with a neighbouring source of
sound’. (www.collinsdictionary.com) It was, if I recall correctly, the
winter of 1967-68. I was working for the Chartered Institute of Building. It
was our turn that year to be the host institution for the Joint Building
Group, a winter discussion forum for the senior members of the professional
bodies for builders, architects, engineers and surveyors. The very un-senior
me was asked to be secretary to the group. In return for looking after the
Group’s chores, after each meeting at University College, London I was
invited to join our President and the normally two guest speakers for
dinner. One evening, one of our guests was the eminent structural engineer
Sir Ove Arup (1895-1988). To be round a table of
four with him was for me quite something. What he spoke about that evening
in his address or round the dinner table I don’t recall, but I guess it
was on one of the profound themes that he explored over many years and which
figure in the collection of essays, lectures, talks, articles and interviews
which have been gathered together around the idea of the Philosophy of
Design. Roads
to Damascus At the end of this collection of his
writings, we find Arup pondering ‘… religion, God creating the world in
7 days, the Trinity, the Holy Ghost...’. He believes that ‘that meant
something’, ‘but what?’ he goes on to ask. The path for him did not
lie in the study of academic theology, from the myths of Genesis to the
mysteries of Trinitarian Christianity. Rather, he says, ‘I wanted to find
out how things worked, what was behind it all. It was a quest for Truth,
truth with a capital T. And parallel with that, there was this business of
good and bad. To be truthful was good, but it was difficult to be good… to
give others what one valued most. And the foundation of ethics, was it just
God’s will? I would have my own ideas about what was good. But why? I had
to find out… Science was the search for truth. But on what was science
founded? ... That was where philosophy came in. There was no doubt in my
mind, I had first to study philosophy’. (p219) In these undated notes, maybe from early
life or late, he continues ‘…we have got to live this life. We must know
what we live for. A much advertised way to solve this problem was to have
‘faith’. But there are so any faiths. My system revolted against having
faith in something I couldn’t believe in… All I can do, or rather try to
do, is to live in the way that I feel right, without having the assurance
that what I think is the only right way to think’. (p220) Paul too had a problem with philosophy.
He warns the Colossians, ‘See to it that no one takes you captive through
philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition, according to the
elemental spirits of the universe and not according to Christ’. In his
view, not only philosophy but pettifogging constraints must be cast off,
‘If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do
you live as though you still belonged to the world? Why do you summit to
regulations… they are simply human commands and teachings? These have
indeed an appearance of wisdom but they are of no value.’ Colossians
2: 8, 20-23 Crumpets,
Canvey Island and Coventry Cathedral Paul’s commitment expressed above is
to wisdom. Arup was to search for it and, I think, to a great extent find it
through the worldwide and lifelong practice of structural and civil
engineering. After graduating in civil engineering, he tells us that he
‘Applied for a job with Christiani and
Nielson, a well-known firm of engineers and contractors who had been the
first to introduce reinforced concrete to Denmark and who had branches in
many countries. I was offered a job in Hamburg where I certainly learnt how
to design quay walls and all sorts of marine structures’. After some two
years he came to London and stayed ten years, ‘Coming to England was
certainly a big change… big coal fires in the waiting room at Harwich,
London pea-soupers, tea and crumpets. I
felt rather lost but then met a Danish girl. That changed my life and we got
married in 1925. I am very grateful for what I learnt in my twelve years
stay with this firm, first in Hamburg and then in London…’ (p84) The
first building [as opposed to marine structures] I had anything to do with
was a small café and shelter built just behind the river wall in Canvey
Island [Essex] in 1932 or 33 by Christiani
and Nielson, specialists in the design and construction of reinforced
concrete. I was employed by them as their chief
engineer in their London office. I functioned both as architect, engineer
and contractor – but was severely restricted by lack of funds and lack of
architectural training. [The design] couldn’t be simpler, and was
certainly cheap – and, I am afraid, almost certainly rather nasty. Anyway
the one time I was allowed to visit the job – my place was in the office
– I was depressed by the shoddiness of the metal windows, the finishing to
the concrete, and poor materials and bad detailing to other elements. ‘The moral of it all?’ he goes on to
asks, ‘That architecture on the cheap by an amateur architect employed by
a contractor, and a client with no money to spend, is not a good way in
which to achieve perfection’. (p191) The path
to unravelling the problems lay through in his own
practices, set up in 1946 for engineering and for architecture in 1970. One day, he thought, ‘To
create anything good of its kind would give satisfaction’ – from a
joiner making a good table. (p83) to architects
and engineers designing Coventry Cathedral. At Coventry, Arup
explained in 1962, ‘the emphasis is on aesthetic quality… The problem is
not just to design an efficient and economical roof spanning 80ft. It is to
create a visual impact, to create an abstract sculpture if you like. If it
were not for the demands imposed by the aesthetic or symbolic requirements,
there would hardly be any structural problem at all’. (p68) Finding the best way to do this involved
patient searching. ‘To span a roof 80ft can be done in a hundred different
ways. The design of the canopy has gone through many stages as the architect
– aided and abetted by the engineers – worked untiringly for some years
to find the form that would satisfy him. [After much exploration], the
canopy now appears as a free-standing framework of ribs and columns,
complicated by the fact that the ribs pursue a somewhat angular course up
and down, which never goes from column to column, but, proceeding diagonally
from a column always ends up on the other side between two columns’. (p69) On another occasion, he put it like
this, ‘Art, as the Danish author Piet Hein has stressed, is solving
problems which cannot be formulated before they have been solved. The search
goes on until a solution is found, which is deemed to be satisfactory. There
are always many possible solutions, the search is for the best – but there
is no best, just more or less good. Quality is produced by the search, which
continues until no better solution can be found…. All this applies to
engineering design as well as architectural design. (p179) Paul uses the imagery of space, ‘I
pray that you may have the power to comprehend, with all the saints, what is
the breadth and length, and height and depth and to know the love of Christ
that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the fullness of
God’. While the engineer searches, the theologian opens himself to the
fullness that he believes is there. Ephesians
3: 18-19 Arup picks up the concept of space in
this way, ‘I see the architect’s job as essentially the spatial
organisation of things to serve human needs and aspirations. That means that
he must be an expert on space, on human needs and on their relationships….
To contain and utilise the forces of nature is predominantly the
engineer’s domain, and the architect must accept the spatial consequences
of such functions. The architect’s domain is the human aspect. He must
soften the edges of ‘technocratic space’ to make it bearable or
preferably enjoyable for human beings’. (p171) Humanity,
design and spirituality Arup has now brought us to one of his
greatest themes, the centrality of humanity, of people, in building design.
Central, yes, but never the only aim in design. (p220)
It falls within the field of quality. ‘In the sphere of practical
thinking, then, what I believe in is to be involved in what you do to strive
for quality. But when it comes to building, what exactly is quality? It is a
composite quality that we must seek, the best possible compromise between
conflicting aims. We must never forget that we are building for people.’(p220) Other allusions to the need for
quality-directed collaboration include these: ·
Each
designer should be good at his own subject, for a failure on any part can
spoil the whole thing, but the excellence which should
be pursued by all is the excellence of the whole. The judicious
allocation of priorities is the job of the leadership. ·
What
we need is a combination of the integrity of the engineer with the vision,
sense of beauty and human understanding of a good architect. We need what
architecture stands for, more than ever. Humanity must win the battle for
control. (p171)
Arup sees a model in the natural world
for what needs to be aspired to in building design. In addition to its
materiality design is shot through with the search for spirituality: Everything in nature hangs together in
various ways, and the same applies to the artificial world of human
creation. In our building activity we are mainly interested in three such
relationships: 1)
The relationship of part and whole 2)
That of means and ends, and 3)
What I might call the spiritual relationship between
inanimate objects, usually thought of as aesthetic, though I don’t think
this word covers it entirely The last is a very difficult
relationship or quality to define, describe or
manipulate – but is of the greatest importance. (p152) Elsewhere Arup expands on his idea of
spirituality: ‘And this spiritual quality, which can neither be defined
nor created according to a formula or recipe, but which can contribute so
much to our happiness, this quality is the result of personal involvement,
of enthusiasm. And of many other things as well, but enthusiasm must be the
impelling force’. (p156)
Spirituality and practicality go
together and must never eclipse each other: ‘And the emphasis on the
spiritual quality and the preoccupation with architectural theories in
architectural schools sometimes made pupils forget about how their beautiful
drawings were to be transformed into real buildings… Now, in the Modern
Movement … everything made by man for man’s use has to be designed. And
in all these spheres dedicated engineers are trying to conjure forth that
mystical spiritual quality which is the essence of art’. (p155) Paul, too, has a deep sense of
spirituality and mystery woven into the plans and fabrics of our lives on
earth as much as in any heaven we might imagine: ‘Blessed be the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every
spiritual blessing… With all wisdom and insight he has made known to us
the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure that he set forth in
Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him,
things in heaven and things on earth’. Ephesians
1: 3, 8-10 Organisational
structures Large and complex buildings require
large and complex organisations to design and build them and such
organisations group themselves into professions and industries and adopt
patterns of contractual relationship, which at times can obstruct the very
purposes they exist to achieve. Of his early experience, Arup said:
‘[In Denmark] Christiani and Nielson preferred
to design their own jobs but this was not the accepted practice in England
where there was a sharp distinction between the consulting engineers and the
contractors, the professional people bound by a code of honour and those
working for profit. There is no doubt about it,
the design which we came across was often shockingly bad. And it is kind of
frustrating, when you know that you could save the country thousands of
pounds not to be allowed to do anything about it … I think that many of my
best designs lie buried in the files of Christiani
and Nielson’.(p85) Elsewhere he further laments, ‘The
whole situation is extremely confused with institutions, charters, societies
and other bodies proliferating, but never dying. Unity is extolled,
apartheid practised’. (p183) Nowhere is confusion and need of new
understanding greater than in the relationship between the design of a
building or structure and its cost. Arup states categorically, ‘If we want
quality, at least of a spiritual kind, we must master the economy of
construction. All the many economic units, professional firms, builders,
manufacturers etc are in business to make money.
Collaboration therefore collides with competition. The gap between design
and execution is almost unbridgeable, preventing the designers from
obtaining first-hand knowledge of the cost of various means of construction.
The prevailing system of quantity surveying only makes matters worse. These
over-elaborate bills of quantities are a clumsy method of defining the
contractor’s obligations, which can be better done by drawings and
specifications’. (p158). In strong comments such as this we can
hear Arup doing what Paul, in a different context, says must be done – the
truth must be spoken in love between the various participants in the task
and calling: The gifts he gave were that some would
be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers to
equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of
Christ, until all of us come… to
maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ… Speaking the truth
in love, we must grow up in every way into him from whom the whole body is
joined and knitted together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as
each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building
itself up in love. Ephesians 4: 11-13,
15-16 While unity and coherence are Paul’s
goals, buildings are his metaphor: ‘For [Christ] is our peace; in his
flesh he has made both groups [Jews and Gentiles] into one and broken down
the dividing wall, that is the hostility between us. He has abolished the
law with its commandments and ordinances, so that he might create in himself
one new humanity in place of the two, thus making
peace… So then you are no
longer strangers and aliens but you are…,
members of the household of God built upon the foundation of the apostles
and prophets with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. In him the whole
structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in
whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for
God’. Ephesians 2: 14-22 A key issue in organisations is that of
training. Arup reflects: ‘Presumably, man will continue to build, and the
great majority of the many people who will take part in this activity will
have to be trained for their roles. This training is not first and foremost
an academic but a vocational training. The two kinds, if they could be
defined, would no doubt overlap. But the usefulness of the training must be
judged by whether it fits the student for the job he will have to do or –
since this is only vaguely known – whether it fits him to do a useful job
in the sphere of building. This leaves the question of what is useful
entirely open’. (p169) In Paul’s way of thinking, vocation is
enhanced by the idea of ‘calling’. ‘I, therefore, a prisoner in the
Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been
called. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one
hope of your calling’. Ephesians 4:
1,4 Ethics Arup’s work is frequently concerned
with ethical values, issues and questions. A basic ethical matter is what to
build and what not to build. He poses the question, ‘To know how to build
is all very well, but to build what?’
And he answers: I
don’t hold with the view that you can’t – as long as there is anybody
in the world starving or not having a house you are not allowed to build a
theatre or a monument. That’s going too far. People need that kind of
thing. They need a bit of uplift and they need an inspiration. And they need
something which is good and which is marvellous for all of them. You are
doing more than just building this thing. It’s a spiritual thing. It is a
spiritual thing to have this sort of example of perfection, which will be
classified as one of the great buildings of the world. Our whole mental
atmosphere would be different if we hadn’t got the Parthenon and all these
big buildings – if they’d all been just hundreds of millions of families
who all had a nice house and were all happy, but there would be nothing to
know and talk about. (p114) We know that Paul visited Athens. He
might even have had the Parthenon in mind when he wrote to the Philippians,
‘Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is
just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if
there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think
about these things’. Philippians 4:8 Again, perhaps with Greece in mind, Arup
wrote, ‘I do not share Plato’s belief in the possibility of government
by philosopher-kings… Instead of master-minds
we have just the average imperfect individuals. And the idealistic urge to
create better conditions for mankind has to compete with common or garden
greed, vanity, laziness and stupidity’. (p124)
Whatever our limitations, ‘We must take an ethically critical look at the
brief [for a project], make it more comprehensive. We must look beyond the
narrow object and ask ourselves: What will be the consequences? What about
the working conditions for those who carry out the work, including their
spiritual well-being; will the work provide
useful employment or cause unemployment – perhaps in other countries. What
effect has it on other industries? What is the cost in scarce resources? We
must ask ourselves what would happen if everybody else did what we do. Would
that serve humanity?’ (p189) It is interesting that Arup mentions
spirituality here in relation to the well-being
of the work force. Previously, as we have seen, he has related spirituality
to aesthetics and the sensitivities and humanity of design. These are
complementary components of a practical spirituality. Unfortunately, at
least in this collection of papers, Arup does not open up a full discussion
of spirituality and built environment. On the point of working conditions and
relationships, Paul addresses the contemporary practice of slavery. Whether
it is or is not an acceptable principle in a particular culture, in practice
it involves fairness, duty and justice, ‘Slaves, obey your earthly masters
in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but
wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, put yourselves into
it, as done for the Lord and not your masters… Masters, treat your slaves
justly and fairly, for you know that you have a Master in heaven’. Colossians
3:22 – 4:1 Arup believes in flexible and adaptable
moral principles which can be developed according
to time, circumstances and the people involved. In what became known as his
1970 Key Speech to senior colleagues he said: ‘Who
am I to tell you and the firm what to think and feel in the future when I am
gone – or before that? It
wouldn’t do any good my trying to lay down the law and I haven’t the
slightest inclination to do so. That is my difficulty. I dislike hard
principles, ideologies and the like. They can do more harm than good. And
yet we cannot live life entirely without principles. But they have in some
way to be flexible, to be adaptable to changing circumstances. What needs to
be defined is our attitude. Where to draw the line in border cases depends
on who you are, what life has taught you, how strong you are.
In the following thirteen points I am grappling with this question, perhaps
not very successfully. I give them to you now: 1.
Some people have moral principles. 2.
The essence of moral principles is that they should
be lived 3.
But only saints and fanatics do follow moral
principles always 4.
Which is fortunate 5.
Are then moral principles no good? 6.
It appears we can’t do without them 7.
It also appears we can’t live up to them 8.
So what? 9.
A practical solution is what I call the star
system 10.
The star,
or ideal, indicates the course. Obstacles in the way are circumnavigated but
one gets back on the course after the deviation 11.
The system is adopted by the
Catholic Church. Sins can be forgiven if repented – it doesn’t
affect the definition of good or evil 12.
That this system can degenerate into permanent
deviation is obvious 13.
One needs a sense of proportion (p164) One notes the use of the symbol of the
star in items 9 and 10. Paul too uses the symbol of the star for all that
guides and challenges, ‘Do all things without murmuring and arguing, so
that you may be without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse
generation in which you shine like stars
in the world… I am glad and rejoice with all of you – in the same way
also you must be glad and rejoice with me’. Philippians 2: 14-15, 17-18 While Arup’s direct reference in item
11 to Catholic doctrine is unusual for him, it is a reminder that his mind
is not closed to the concepts of religion. They are part of the wide
scenarios with which he works. So much is about searching and trying to
find out what it may be best to do in any given situation. Arup reminds us,
‘We are forgetting that people, or human relations, are the most important
things in life. No theory, no ideology, no set of rules can deal with human
complexity, human sensitivity or vulnerability. This is something I somehow know,
perhaps this is the real truth. But to turn this truth into a precept for
living is not easy… Reflection, even understanding, is no substitute for
compassion. But you could say perhaps that I believe in trying’. (p220) Arup’s twin motifs of finding out,
searching, trying, and compassion are just as clear in Paul: Live as children of the light. Try to
find out what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works
of darkness. Ephesians 5: 10
and As God’s chosen ones, holy and
beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion,
kindness, humility, meekness and patience. Bear with one another and, if
anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other... And above all,
clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect
harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed
you were called in the one body. And be thankful. Colossians 3: 12-15 Balancing Paul’s concept of the one
body in which everything is bound together, is Arup’s delight in variety:
[I believe] there is not one truth, one kind of goodness. It seems to
me one should savour and try to understand, in an artistic way if you like,
the richness and variety of life. That there are infinitely many
different kinds of people, different nations, races, languages, customs and
art-forms, that nature is so rich and wonderful beyond belief, and also
frighteningly cruel. That there are so many different kinds of excellence
– so many kinds of good architecture for instance, and I am afraid still
more of bad….’ (p90) The echo comes back again and again from
Paul: ‘Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honourable,
whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is
commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of
praise, think about these things’. Philippians
4:8 Arup continues: ‘The possibilities are
so endless. What sort of excellence should one pursue? Should one study art,
science, religion, politics, history and social behaviour? Should one lead a
life of action for the good of mankind or just enjoy life? Should one have
great humility, be meek – to inherit the earth – mild, charitable,
tolerant, kind, self-effacing or should one be intolerant of stupidity and
prejudice and be ruthless in the pursuit of some idea or ideology? It is
very difficult to choose’. (p90) However hard the choices may be, the
most basic principle, Paul reminds us, is: ‘Do nothing from selfish
ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than
yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests but to the
interests of others. Let this mind be in you which
was in Christ Jesus’. Philippians 2:
3-5 End
or beginning? Arup often revisits the beginning of his
journey: ‘Then there was this business about religion and about the
ultimate purpose of the whole thing. And naturally one found out that
science wasn’t everything. The main thing was to find out what you –
what you really had to do here on this planet. I mean why are you here-
what’s the whole thing about and so on? I would say that the transition
from science to philosophy is very natural… [But] the transition from
starting philosophy then taking up engineering, that’s quite a different
matter – that’s an irrational thing… that’s because I got fed up
with philosophy, I realised that philosophy could not give the answer to all
these questions which mankind has asked since the beginning of days’. (p109)
As we have seen, the practice of engineering brought, if
not always direct answers, rich insights and wisdom in which we are
able to share. In his letter to Colossae, Paul mentions
various friends and colleagues by name: Tychicus
will tell you all the news about me; he is a beloved brother. Aristarchus,
my fellow prisoner greets you, as does Mark the cousin of Barnabas. Epaphras,
who is one of you, greets you – he has worked hard for you. Luke, the
beloved physician, and Demas greet you… And say to Archippus,
‘See that you complete the task that you have received in the Lord’. Arup, I think, might ask each of us what we have discovered about our purpose on the planet and Paul may say to us as he said to Aristarchus, ‘See that you complete the task that you have received…’
|
||||||||||||
|