>> In structural art, the forms for bridges, buildings, and long span restructures come
from the imagination of the engineer.
The structural artists that we will speak of -- engineers such as Roebling, Ammann, Maillart,
Menn and others -- sought to integrate elegance into their forms.
Beauty wasn't an afterthought;
it was a conscious decision embedded in the process of design.
The elegance derived by the form is based on engineering principles, not decoration,
and elegance can be achieved without compromising efficiency and economy.
Despite the discussion of elegance, I'm not talking about works of architecture
in this course; I'm talking about works of engineering.
There's a lot of confusion regarding the difference between engineering and architecture
and the role in the design of structures.
A perhaps too simplified way to explain the difference between structural engineers
and architects is this; for engineers the form controls the forces whereas
for architects, the form controls the spaces.
Of course it's more complex than this but this difference is essential and it is
in this selection of form that both architects
and engineers have an opportunity to be creative.
For buildings where both the forces and spaces must be controlled,
collaboration between engineers and architects is essential.
The final design benefits from both complementary approaches
and from the integration of both disciplines.
For bridges, however, the need to control the forces -- meaning the engineering task --
becomes prevalent while the architectural contribution which is focused
on aesthetic values must be subordinate to the structural concept.
The bigger the bridge, the larger the forces to be controlled and, therefore,
the more prevalent structural efficiency becomes.
I believe that both engineers and architects should be educated so that they are adept
at rapidly finding approximate dimensions using simple formulas.
Further, they should study the development of structural forms and construction methods
from times past to the present and also learn to critique structures
from both a technical and aesthetic point of view.
The study of history and criticism is not common in engineering education.
There is little interest in the recent history of engineering; therefore,
society tends to see engineering as a work of teams of technicians and committees of experts
when in fact engineers are the heirs of centuries
of technical progress achieved by outstanding minds.
In summary, the neglect of history and aesthetics in the education
of the engineer has had the effect of dehumanizing
and discrediting modern engineering.
The importance of civil engineering in today's world and my intention
of crediting civil engineers for the value of their work and highlighting the role
of structural engineers in the design
of civil works are what have motivated me to teach this course.
Believe me when I say that I would be satisfied if through this course I could transmit
to you just a minor fraction of the talent, passion, perseverance, and ingenuity embodied
by all these structural artists; by these engineers
that still today deserve our deepest admiration.
Just follow me and give me a chance to inspire you.
I have a question for you; who designed the Millau viaduct; Michel Virlogeux,
Norman Foster, both, or you have no idea?
Don't worry about getting the right answer.
I'm not giving you credit on the right answer; I'm just giving you credit on answering.