Traditionally, views of specialists on design and architecture vary dramatically, because each person has his/her own unique perception of design and architecture. It is possible to view design and architecture as art, while, on the other hand, it is possible to be skeptical in regard to artistic value of design and architecture. Moreover, even if specialists have similar positions, their views on design and architecture can have substantial differences. In this respect, it is possible to refer to works by Le Corbusier and by Hiesinger and Marcus.
At first glance, both works are focused on the analysis of design and architecture as subjects of art. Le Corbusier focuses his attention on architecture, while Hiesinger and Marcus are more concerned with the modern design. It is necessary to underline the fact that the authors agree that architecture and design are very important forms of art. Even though Hiesenger and Marcus are very skeptical about works of modern artists and they agree that many artist supporting traditional views on design will not support experiments started in the modern design, the authors still cannot keep from viewing design as art. Unlike Le Corbusier they are very critical in relation to modern designers who, according to Hiesinger and Marcus, pay too much attention to geometric forms and accuracy. According to Hiesinger and Marcus such works are deprived of aesthetic value and can hardly be treated as true objects of art, at least in its classical forms (Hiesinger and Marcus 1993).
In this respect, the position of Le Corbusier is absolutely different. Throughout his work, he repeatedly underlines the importance of order in architecture. In other words, he supports the strife of architects to accuracy and the use of carefully planned and geometrically correct buildings and structures. At this point, on analyzing the position of Hiesinger and Marcus, it is possible to presuppose that they are likely to reject such approach to architecture and art at large because they do not share the admiration of Le Corbusier with accurate geometric forms neither in design nor in architecture.
At the same time, it is important to underline that Le Corbusier analysis the development of architecture in a historical retrospection. To put it more precisely, he refers to the past experience and developments in the field of architecture and attempts to trace some common trends and rules which were typical for architecture of different epochs, starting from the epoch of antiquity. In this respect, the work by Hiesinger and Marcus is deprived of historicism which is present in the work by Le Corbusier. Instead, they focus on the recent trends only and analyze the current development of design paying little attention to the historical evolution of design.
Finally, it should be said that Le Corbusier basically presents his own researches and his personal position concerning architecture. His studies of the past and current trends are grounded on his own observations and researches (Le Corbusier 1924). At this point, Hiesinger and Marcus do not only present their own analysis of various works of contemporary designers but they also include examples of works of modern designers which allow readers to make their own judgments concerning these works. However, Le Corbusier also uses visualization to support his ideas and to provide readers with the possibility to make their own judgments concerning architecture.
Thus, in conclusion, it is possible to say that both works have similarities, but differences are more distinct in their works. The authors attempt to analyze the basic trends that were typical for the development of design and architecture in different epochs. At the same time, they pay a particular attention to the study of the contemporary design and architecture, which are characterized by diversity and numerous experiments that made design and architecture quite controversial from an artistic point of view.