对体系结构的回顾可以帮助人们在背景上下文中理解体系结构的元素，这可能会增加体系结构的重要性。当评审由专家作家(如架构师本人)进行时，评审的重要性就会增加得更多。随着作者可信度的提高，观众对讨论的主题更有信心。这篇分析论文将考虑建筑师James Stirling在《Ronchamp: Le Corbusier’s Chapel and the crisis of Rationalism》中的评论工作。分析重点放在对Stirling的回顾上，并考虑了作者对Stirling所撰写的主要源文档的回顾风格。此外，分析利用了作者萨拉·梅宁和弗洛拉·塞缪尔的作品以及《自然与空间:阿尔托和勒·柯布西耶》一书。在回顾和分析中，确定了表征、形式、历史、意识形态、气场、纪律和涌现等要素。
Reviews of architectures help people understand the elements of architecture in a background context that might add more to the significance of the architecture. When the review is conducted by an expert writer such as an architect himself then the significance of the review increases more. With the credibility of the writer, the audience gets more persuaded on the subject of discussion. This analysis paper will consider the review work of architect James Stirling in ‘Ronchamp: Le Corbusier’s Chapel and the Crises of Rationalism’. The analysis focuses on the review of Stirling, and considers authors style of reviewing from primary source documents that Stirling has authored. In addition, the analysis makes use of the work of author Sarah Menin and Flora Samuel and this book “Nature and Space: Aalto and Le Corbusier” in this work. The elements of Representation, Form, History, Ideology, Aura, Discipline, and Emergence are identified in the review and discussed in the analysis.
Art, religion and philosophy are three corners in the Hegels pyramid. In the case of this architecture, all three come into place. The acoustics of the place are seen to be similar to that of a cathedral space and the religious building effect is present here. Although being a modernist architecture the element of functionalism is also well captured in serving well for the people of religion who visit this place.
The building is more than accepted by the local population as Stirling notes people from Marseilles and Ronchamp are both proud of the architecture. The local population considers the architecture as an envisioning of poetry. It is modern but at the same time captures the local emotions also. Local visitors accept the architecture better. A lack of public intellectual participation actually is seen to lead to a better acceptance. The ideology of the masses is hence supported more here. The reviewer states that it is not a concrete solid structure and is seen to be much interrupted in the way its openings are constructed. An element of discipline is noted in the way spaces are used, yet the interruptions paves way for the elements of emergence also. In the new world it becomes much easier to deviate from more proper and perfect expressions and the architecture shows that. Newer techniques such as that of local and folk architectural expressions are made use of in here. In fact, indigenous elements are seen to be present here. Even the adjoining houses such as that of the priests are seen to be more decoratively applied in nature. This again shows the change in ideology and philosophy of architecture compared to what used to be the proper elements in European architecture.
It is inferred from the review analysis that European architecture is seen to take a more hesitant attitude towards technology. However, in the case of the Chapel it is seen that there is some application of technology. The handrails are industrial products. The architecture hence is a mix of old and the new. The architect states that the Le Corbusier has in fact proceeded from general to the particular producing a masterpiece and it can be said from the analysis of the elements of form, structure and history that this indeed seems to be the case.