Contributions of Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux

Contributions of Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux To what extent Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux have contributed to the professional practice of Landscape Architecture? Both Frederick Law and Calvert Vaux are actively participating in Landscape Architectural projects in the 19th century. Calvert Vaux was a young Architect in the year 1857. He collaborated with Frederick Law in the Central Park competition. Apart from landscape projects Vaux also committed himself as an architect designing various houses that harmonises with nature. Frederick Law Olmsted being known as the â€Å"Founder of American Landscape Architecture as well as a well-known park designer† by the National Park Service. Frederick Law Olmsted started the being a Landscape Architecture after experimenting and trying out many different career fields. From a newspaperman, social commentator and farmer. He had many interests in his early life. In landscape architecture, Olmsted combined his thoughts and interests in rural life and conditions and thoughts of autonomous glory to create a new form of civil engineering that not only focuses on its function but as well as beauty. The Urbanization Olmsted seen on the road with its interest in rural problems soon make him wanted to work as a Landscape Architect. As he was touring around in Britain in the 1850s, he visited England’s Birkenhead Park, which was an important and a catalyst in venturing into the landscape career path. In the year 1858, the city commissioners selected, out of the total thirty-tree designs being submitted in the competition for the new park (Central Park) the one chosen â€Å"Greensward,† which was the collaboration work of Frederick Law and Calvert Vaux. Central Park is the recognition of this design through its significant features. It was also one of the earliest examples of a park that is being referred as a well balance work of landscape architecture, as well as the first in any country to propose spacious relaxing grounds which have the beauty of minimalist natural scenery as it met the qualities of complete enclosure by a tightly built city. Central Park was a great success where both he and Vaux are able to closely towards each other. The use of hills, trees and curve walkways created a form of tranquillity and remoteness from the city. Both Olmsted and Vaux also formed a company and designed major parks in Brooklyn, Buffalo and more. Apart from the formed company, Olmsted also founded his own personal firm in the 1883 which led him to move his home to modernize Boston and created â€Å"Fairsted† known as the world’s first professional office for the Landscape Design. Vaux and Olmsted then started a long partnership with each other where they form the landscape ideas of the position that should be played in the life of cities. But individual inputs by each of them has always been unclear. Some also argued that Vaux must be leading in the project as he is more experience in landscape architecture as compared to Olmsted, thus there is no reason to misbelief Vaux’s design. Soon later, the park’s authorities had decided to make Olmsted the Head Architect with Vaux as an assistant. Although Olmsted had a lot of suffering in the later years in order to highlight Vaux important role towards the design as well as the development of the parks, Vaux had always felt that he did not had the fame that he should receive. Apart from the Central park project, Olmsted and Vaux also collaborated in 1865 after the Civil War on what many referred as their most successful design The Brooklyn’s Prospect Park. Not only that they also designed several other Brooklyn parks which includes the Carroll Park in Carroll Gardens , Washington Park and the Parade Ground and Tompkins Square. Olmsted and Vaux also created a new form of pathway that is able to solve the problem of inefficiency of Brooklyn’s Grid Street system. These landscaped pavements are used to connect various different neighbourhoods to different parks all around the queen’s border. Olmsted crafted various examples of designs which the Position of Landscape Architecture is able to enhance the quality of life in America. These include large urban parks being devoted to the contact and involvement of the scenery and designed to resist and balance out the bogusness of the city and the stress of modern life. One of the most important transports were the Private carriages a smooth road reserved for them that is able to connect parks and spread the advantages of public green space around the city. Olmsted and Vaux designed the park to be able to create ways and path for the pedestrians and carriages to enjoy and admire the park without having to annoy each other. The design of the roads is considered radical as it allows vehicular access to drive through the park without being divided from the park’s experience. It provides an array of public facilities for the residents and scenic preservation safeguarding areas of extraordinary landscape beauty from destruction as well as commercial uses. Garden / landscape design could improve both awareness as well as the self-reflections of occupants. With an increasing number in open-air apartments, it encourages outdoor activities where the garden space is a specified training ground for the citizens living around it. Governmental buildings would have been more efficient and do understand the importance of planning. Olmsted’s design approach showed the complexity of his perception and even paid attention to the slightest details for a resident in harmonizing green-space. Olmsted understands the reasoning behind his landscape work which is capable of affecting the emotions of others. This was quite noticeable throughout his park designs, where he designed the pavements of the scenery such that the visitors would be saturated. Able to experience the curative action of the landscape as what Olmsted would describe it as â€Å"Unconscious† process. In order to achieve this outcome, he overpowered all the elements of the design in making the land-art contacts more subtle. Olmsted always wanted to think ahead of the current trends and actions and being able to derive his designs based on the important principles of human psychology. In detail, he cross referenced from the analysis of earlier British Sophist of unsentimental landscape and their attention towards the special qualities of composition and attractive scenery. The essence of agrarian landscape was the English deer park, creating an emotion of an enlarged space and its delicately inflected ground and smooth, a cropped lawn. He was able to realise that this style is known as his special formula to cure the bad effects of an modern life. The â€Å"Picturesque† style was being used in deep and worn out terrain, and followed by planting with a thick layer of different ground covers , shrubs and etc. This eventually will result in a thought of charitableness, outpouring and secrecy. His extreme experience of this effect was on the Isthmus of Panama as he was passing through a journey to California. Where both forms includes the qualities of infiniteness, and the shortage of singular objects for a detail exploration. As Olmsted defined it , the term â€Å"scenery† is never applied to vision of any field that is seen as straight forward. Hence it should have a level of complexity in its shapes and visuals closer towards the eye, unimportant details when looked further away. These characters were important for the unknown motion of the scenery in mind. They were also an important element to his design as practicing benchmarks for exquisite understanding. The standard of elegance that includes a mixture, complexity and a fine series of surfaces, colours and tones were important to Olmsted creative and cultivating purpose. Although the site that Olmsted favoured needs a at least a rainfall in order to achieve its outcome, he understood that majority of the United States does have a different weather. Following that he sets out to develop a distinct landscape technique for the south, while in the west it requires a water-conserving technique. He applied the techniques of this approach with six projects in the San Francisco Bay and Colorado. During Olmsted career, he and his firm completed out over 500 commissioned projects. Which includes 100 parks and recreation areas, with over 200 private estates as well as numerous residential projects and campus design for a handful of academic institutions. Olmsted himself is a creative designer, even though he had trouble with expressing his ideas in words. With approximately six thousand letters were still around till this days, With its discussion with 300 design commissions. And at times he paid for the publications as well as public distribution of these letters which includes his experience in journeys and several documents by the United States commission. Calvert Vaux who is also one of America’s well-known architect / Landscape architect. He also shaped some of America’s most prominent landscape during the 19th century. He worked with famous landscape figures such as Andrew Jackson Downing and later with Frederick Olmsted, and hence Vaux’s style on the landscape architecture was ignored in the 20th century. Vaux was an optimist who worked hard throughout his career and life to improve the living conditions of the lower class and promoted art education for all. Calvert Vaux had been successful in Architecture before the age of twenty-four, where he came to America and met downing. And after the sudden death of downing in the 1854, the project of designing the grounds of the capitol and the Smithsonian Intuition has yet been completed in America. In Vaux private life, he was a man of singular purity, kindness and trustworthy. Although he lacked of socializing skills, which was able to allow him to have a better position. But he still had many accomplishments and practice of the best type. The career of Vaux was an inspiring one for those young artists who are struggling as well as citizens who are labouring and working in civic and village improvements. Although the 1870s were Vaux’s most productive years but he latter soon found out that his High Victorian Gothic Style against the rising popularity of Neoclassical style had soon made his worked looked dull and outdated. Even though he won the projects with the High Victorian architect, for the American Museum of History as well as the Metropolitan Museum of Art and building the first stage of each of them, he soon lost the projects for continuing the later parts, due to the multiple reviews that the buildings had. His ability to win over large projects soon drops, and he turned to designing lodge houses and other beneficial buildings for the Children’s Aid Society located over in New York City. Apart from that he also devoted his last few years of life in focusing projects on the New York Public Parks as landscape architect, which led him to design several small parks throughout the city and also being able to continue his work on the Central Park. At his death during 1895, Vaux did not lead the role in the developments of architecture in America but he had left a long and unforgotten projects. In their late 1880s both Frederick Olmsted and Vaux collaborated with each other on Special projects such as providing free design service to the city of Newburgh (New York) where they construct a park in memory of Andrew Jacks. Their final collaboration concerns the Niagara Reservation. An area the state of New York bought as to prevent any form of commercial development which will compromise the scenery. Both Olmsted and Vaux composed their plans that would revive the Niagara’s spectacular sceneries making it accessible to tourist. In conclusion I think that both Landscape Architects did way beyond their part in the professional practice of Landscape Architecture as they were very sensitive towards minor details such as the landform, climate changes, materials/surfaces and the thoughts / activities of the people. They did not neglect other points in its design such as transportation in which are widely used till this day where they are able to immerse themselves in to the landscape, rather than being separated and divided. They also tried to make roads and path efficient for both pedestrians as well as vehicles. And the landscapes that both men design had special qualities in them where it’s designed towards tranquil and peaceful emotions. These psychological design qualities are a huge advantage towards the users in terms of de-stressing themselves and being able to admire the elegant sceneries.

Children + Violence + Television = Bad Essay -- essays research pape

On September 11th, 2001, millions around the world crowded around televisions across the globe and watched the horrific scenes of terrorism that had struck New York City, Washington, D.C and Pennsylvania on that ill-fated and now infamous morning. Suddenly, in a crowded room everyone felt alone. As the Twin Towers vanished before our very eyes, so did our sense of security and protection. We watched with shock and horror, disbelief and grief as the images were repeatedly flashed before our eyes. There was no escape. Every television channel and every radio station constantly reminded us of the tragedy that we will never forget. Even today, over three years later, I can see the images and remember the desperate pleas for help of people searching for their loved ones in my mind – over and over. Every sympathetic person was captivated by the horror on the television. We felt like we were there. September 11th, 2001 was an unprecedented tragedy that undoubtedly proves that violenc e on television is a very powerful influence. In that crowded room, workplace, classroom, or living room we all felt alone. We could not have been more wrong. We were all probably feeling a lot of the same emotions. Children across the globe were seeing the same events unfold repeatedly too. For the next few days, the major broadcasting stations had twenty-four hour coverage of the â€Å"attack on America.† I remember turning off the television because I watched all I could bare. I laid in bed with my eyes closed, but all I could see were the images replay and all I could feel was the warmth of my tears on my pillow. If we as adults were so affected by the trauma of the events, then what about the children? With an undeveloped capacity to understand the world and the proximity of danger, how can anyone claim that children were not affected by the violence illustrated on television of this tragedy? In the weeks following the tragedy, the images of the attack on the Pentagon and World Trade Center were banned from the media. Government officials and scientific experts agreed that the trauma incited by these images were detrimental to children. President Bush expressed his concern for the welfare of our children who were exposed to violence in the media reports of the attack. It is evident that scientific experts, government officials, and The President of the United States all agree that vio... ... family fun. The worst thing I can remember ever hearing or seeing on that television show was Bart saying, â€Å"Eat my shorts.† That was near ten years ago. Things have certainly changed. That television show now covers a wide range of topics from puberty to pregnancy, from detentions to murder, from injury to death. Television shows on regular television need to rated and placed into appropriate time slots. How can people expect their children not to curse when that’s what they hear on television shows they watch with their parents? The line has to be drawn. Parenting is probably the most important job anyone can have. Unfortunately, it’s also the only job that does not come with training. If our government can regulate television shows to enhance the lives of every citizen by lessening the affects of violent television on children, then they should – and they can. The government just hasn’t done it. In my opinion, three words will always be synonymous with each other: politics, power, and money. If experts believed that this violence has no effects on children, why then would they regulate exposure to the images of violent destruction and terrorism that occurred on September 11th?

Multi-Level Organizational Research

Organization is central to human achievement. The most accomplished individuals tend to have supporting groups and structures, which have major roles in celebrated successes, though they may remain hidden from superficial views. Organizations date back to the dawn of civilization, with religious institutions and military forces being enduring examples. Organizations are inherently multi-level (Klein, & Kozlowski, 2003). Each level is connected with and dependent on the others. The individual, teams, and the organization as a whole, are the 3 significant parts of a typical structure. Organizations, though they exist in kaleidoscopic varieties of purposes, sizes, and natures, share common issues when they become subjects of systematic inquiry. Performance and effectiveness are the two most important motivations for organizational research, though the interactions between individuals and groups are matters of primary interests in fields of sociology and psychology. This document reflects on the inevitable implications of multiple levels in organizations, and suggests best practices with respect to studying such structures and the people who function within them. The focus is on how to incorporate multi-level realities in to organizational research, Stating the Obvious It is common knowledge that organizations are made of individuals, and that groups of people have to function as teams. However, the implications of the obvious on how organizations should be studied and measured are complex and certainly not as obvious. It may be tempting to resort to over-simplification and ignore multi-level aspects of organizations when designing research projects to study them. Interplay between individual perceptions and organizations are common to all types of organizations. Multi level variations have been found even in the prison structure (Camp, et al. 1997), where institutional operations and satisfaction with immediate supervision have equal influences on the social climate. The implication is that any research in to the functioning and performance of a large structure with branches at multiple levels has to incorporate distinct phases of research for individuals at the periphery, for teams that operate within the body of structures, and for the entire organization as an entity. Each of these levels will be in dynamic inter-play with the other two. A phenomenon at a lower level, for example,   may not connect with theory validation at a higher level (Crowston, 2002). There are many examples of technologies being integrated in to organizations at lower levels, without incontrovertible evidence of the benefits at higher levels. That is why conclusions from research at a single level may not yield entirely relevant conclusions. The best individual technical skills may come to naught if a person cannot deal with others; similarly, the best teams cannot function without adequate resources and support from above (Loo, 2003). No level of organization can be independent, take all the credit, or be assigned all of the blame. Investigative research, which aims to diagnose why an organization functions below par, or which seeks to make recommendations for improvement, has to validate its suggestions for feasibility and appropriateness at each of the multiple levels. Past organizational research has focused more on the individual level, and not enough on teams and the organization as a unit, or on the interactions between these levels (Schnake, and Dumler, 2003). However, this trend has begun to change and researchers of today can no longer the multiple level structures of organizations they may wish to study. Organization science needs to match the integration which marks literature on the existence of multiple levels (Klein, & Kozlowski, 2003). Mixed level research needs methods and measurements of their own (Schnake, and Dumler, 2003); the levels of data collection and analysis are often not the same.   Pluralistic ignorance, in which each individual has a special perception of the self versus that of others and of the organization, commonly plagues organizational research. That is why projects should not be based solely on the surveyed and perceived opinions of individual members about their peers, superior, subordinates, and groups. Bottom up models which draw inferences from lower levels for the higher will yield different conclusions if a top down approach is used (Klein, & Kozlowski, 2003). Research methods must account for how perspectives change with levels. It may be best to adopt an iterative approach, thinking not micro or macro, but both micro and macro (Klein, & Kozlowski, 2003). Research Objectives as Determinants Given that multiple levels are ubiquitous in organizations of all types and sizes, all research in this area should take the phenomenon in to account. Organizational research may vary by objectives, and this factor of difference can help in dealing with multiple levels. The People and Process elements of the Marketing Mix for Services (Payne, 2002) play important roles in determining strategies followed by organizations which do not have concrete or tangible product features in their offers. Research in to the internal workings of such organizations may focus on the lower levels of individual capabilities, and small team functioning, rather than concern itself with organization-level matters. Conversely, stock market analysts who are concerned with specific financial outcomes may prefer to dwell on effectiveness of organizations as a whole (Huber and Glick, 1993), rather than bother with details of issues at micro levels. Downsizing and new designs are some major concerns of contemporary organizational research. These phenomena create most strains on the individual (Huber, and Glick, 1993) and hence projects which seek to study the effects of integration and different hierarchies should focus on the lowest level of individual members of staff. The simplistic approach of focusing on just one level of organization will not work in all cases. Communication issues, matters related to diversity in the work force and matters concerning global organizations, all require work to be done at all levels (Huber, and Glick, 1993). Social climate studies also have to take all levels in to account, since institutional initiatives can have variations at its spatially separated sites, and individual variations as well with regard to job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Camp, et al. 1997). Some of the research problems of multiple levels in organizations arose in the past because of the paucity of prior work in similar areas. However, there has been a cascade of organizational research in recent times, with multiple level enquiries (Huber and Glick, 1993). This new body of work can be used as templates when fresh research projects in organizational behavior are undertaken. The Effects of Organizational Labeling Organizations tend to fit in to stereotypes which have been created in public minds over time. Professionally managed corporations, political parties, religious institutions, and bureaucracies, are a few examples of such set patterns of our collective minds. Simultaneously, organizations are more than just people who control or work in them. Suppliers, financiers, regulators, franchisees, and customers are some of the other categories of stake holders. All organizations do not have to be equally responsive to the environment (Huber and Glick, 1993). Monolithic, powerful, and strongly entrenched organizations may demand research of how to further their aims, but worry less about the proclivities of employees and suppliers of goods and services at the bottoms and fringes of their hierarchies. A highly evolved organization will be dynamic and open minded: it deserves and needs organizational research at multiple levels, with plenty of iteration, and the objective validation of hypotheses. Others will be directive and in a hurry for results: they may appreciate the values of enquiries at multiple levels less or not at all. Organizational research driven by purely scholastic intent is a rare privilege. The professional researcher will more often have a restrictive brief set by a paying client with a specific and selfish perspective. Organizational studies may mention all the levels in passing or for the sake of completeness, rather than address each of them in detail and in concert. The multiple levels within organizations should always be kept in mind when studying structures and group working. Even though studies may be sponsored by the most apical level of organization, valid findings and scientific rigor require that the study extends to teams and to individuals as well. Towards Best Practices Multiple levels are inevitable in organizational studies. How can the complexities of this reality be incorporated for better research project design, and to ensure findings on which sponsors can rely? It is best to start with the environment in which the organization operates (Huber, and Glick, 1993). Such a prior effort will put research fully in context. It is necessary to spend time to collect primary data on how the organization functions; and to focus on processes which link the various levels (Crowston, 2002). It is risky to plunge headlong in to researching an organization: every investment in understanding its needs and to profile it accurately, will pay off in terms of relevant findings on which action can be taken. Levels in organizations can be conceived in terms of internal customers. This is a standard concept in Services Marketing (Payne, 2002). A higher level in an organization, or a branch of the same level, is a customer of a team which supports it through its function. Thus, a Sales Manager is a customer of his or her sales people, and the entire sales function is a customer of the production or manufacturing department. Since dealing with all levels can make organizational research very complicated, a workable option is to use the internal customer concept to delineate levels of research. Another approach is to set up microcosms of the organization in external settings, to act as laboratories for experimentation. Groups of employees may be placed on extended sabbaticals, and asked to play roles equivalent to the levels of their parent organizations. This approach has the advantage of eliciting more objective input data from people inside the organization, but can be expensive and time consuming. Research projects which adopt this ‘laboratory’ approach require patience and sustained support, but yield better and more applicable findings at the same time. A relatively quick and simple compromise could be to adopt a problem-solving approach (Loo, 2003). The median level is a good optimum in such cases, with a focus on actual teams from the structure, with additional participation by representatives from other levels and branches. This team approach can use direct and indirect benchmarking to support its recommendations. Wherever a choice is available, the organizational researcher should try to go as micro as possible as uncontrollable factors and complexities keep increasing as the analysis goes to higher levels (Camp, et al. 1997). Aggregate measures tend to mislead, and reduce the chances of useful and valid findings. Regardless of how organizational research is approached, a common requirement is to specify qualitative organizational performance measures as closely as possible. What for example is motivation or how will supervision be assessed? This will also address the issue of phenomena at lower levels not being confirmed by theories at higher levels-perhaps the higher level has not specified the benefits it seeks (Crowston, 2002). Such specification will also reduce the pitfalls of data from a lower level from pluralistic ignorance, affecting analysis of a higher level (Schnake, and Dumler, 2003). Finally, the organizational researcher must always think of multi-level implications of proposed work and suggestive conclusions whether or not all levels are included in the work (Klein, & Kozlowski, 2003). Such an approach should persist throughout the research, including the critical stage of sampling. Conclusions While multiple levels in organizations and their influences cannot be denied, including all of them comprehensively in actual projects may present.   It may often be best to make research manageable with clear statements of assumptions and limitations. Organizations are in flux in any case and will evolve towards the median level. This is the historic trend (Huber, and Glick, 1993). Excellence and thoroughness in studying the team level may be a good compromise. The perspective of each category of stake holders is distinct, yet valid. The researcher would do well to keep the expectations and profile of his or her customer in mind! Multiple levels, in the end, are integral to all significant organizations, and all research in to such groupings must take these multiple levels in to account. References Camp, R. et al. (1997) Aggregating Individual-Level Evaluations of the Organizational Social Climate: A Multilevel Investigation of the Work Environment at the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Justice Quarterly 14: 4: 739-762. Crowston, K, (2002) Process as theory in information systems research, Proceedings of The IFIP WG 8.2 International Conference: The Social and Organizational Perspective on Research and Practice in Information Technology, 10–12 June 2000, Aalborg, Denmark. Huber, G, and Glick, W, (1993) Organizational Change and Redesign: Ideas and Insights for Improving Performance, Oxford University Press Klein, K & Kozlowski, S, (2003) A Multilevel Approach to Theory and Research in Organizations: Contextual, Temporal, and Emergent Processes, Chapter 1 in Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, JOSSEY BASS Loo, Robert (2003) A multi-level causal model for best practices in project management, Benchmarking, Vol10, Issue 1; pg. 29, 8 pgs Payne, A, (2002), The Essentials of Services Marketing, Prentice-Hall Schnake, M. and Dumler, M. (2003) Levels of measurement and analysis issues in organizational citizenship behavior research, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 76(3):283         

Buddhism in Korea - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 503 Downloads: 3 Date added: 2019/07/01 Category Religion Essay Level High school Tags: Buddhism Essay Did you like this example? Buddhism is a one of the main religion in Korea and is being recognized by lots of people. Buddhism in Korea came from China and Central Asia in the late 4th century. Korean scholars of the Buddhist tradition put themselves together after Japanese scholars with correcting the evaluation of the Korean Buddhist tradition and came out to prove the uniqueness and originality of Buddhism in Korea. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Buddhism in Korea" essay for you Create order Korean Buddhism still has lots of untouched resources a can still be explored. Due to early ignorance of Buddhism in Korea misleading information was processed. Buddhism has encountered with different regional and historic specifics with modernity also including colonialism and communism. Since the beginning of twentieth century, Korean Buddhism is facing challenge with its past and prospects of its future. In the mid-fifteenth century, nuns and monks were prohibited to enter the capital city which ended in 1895. Korean Buddhists had to go through 400 plus years until Korea started opening to the modern world. As they were going through this change they tried best to show the dignity of Korean Buddhism. With Japan ruling Korea in 1910, it started a 35-year colonial period. Colonialism is one of the aspects that Buddhism had to deal with then and its involvement with modernity in Asia. This period caused conflicting response of Korean Buddhism to Japanese Buddhism. The reform minded Buddhists were trying to redefine Buddhism to make it get into modern social and culture life another form of renovation was going known as Seon/Zen revivalism. With these two reformations; Buddhist reformism and Seon revivalism led to pull Buddhism in two different directions with first one trying to take Buddhism culture in future and other trying to revive the past. Both were trying to redefine Buddhism but with different approach and focus. Seon wanted to bring back the Seon practice and training while Buddhist reformists advancing the religion report with society. To reinstate more rigorous Seon practice Seon revivalists started new Seon monastic regulations. The beginning of modern period in Buddhism is commonly referred to 1895 where ban of monks and nuns to enter capital city was removed. Also a year after that Korea opened up to foreign power. The multi task of Korean Buddhism was to reestablish its status as religio-philosophhical system and showing relevance in modern society as well. Colonialism period between 1910 and 1945 was not easy to describe and was very complex. As Buddhism emerged from the experience of the Joseon dynasty it faced challenges of making it both socially viable and religiously significant (Park 1998, 75). By the late Goryeo dynasty Korean Buddhism was being accounting for using too much resources from the state thus putting a strain on the economy. So while the Josen dynasty was starting criticisms of Buddhism began regarding its moral and philosophical teachings. So while Buddhism was facing problems at that time it became a scattered religion. Even though Korean Buddhism was not at top of its power at the b eginning of twentieth century it was resilient and did enough to work in the limits imposed.