Designing Buildings - User contributions [en]

Phenomenology

2014-06-18T16:22:18Z

Spsls: Protected "Phenomenology": Author ([edit=author] (indefinite))

Juhani Pallasmaa (2005, 10) in explaining the aim of his book “The Eyes of the Skin”, emphasises his intention “to create a conceptual short circuit between the dominant sense of vision and the suppressed sense modality of touch.”

Our daily lives have been greatly influenced by the applications of modern technology. Technology has satisfied our need for simplicity and comfort (defined by Oxford Dictionaries (2012) as “a state of physical ease”). One of the purposes of modern architectural design and also a measure of our quality of life is comfort. The meaning of comfort is . But, as it has made our lives easier so it has reduced the manual aspect of daily life, and our bodily involvement in our experience of life has been focussed on the senses favoured by technology, predominantly vision.

Our daily needs are often satisfied with the click of a button, and touch screens have reduced our interaction with our physical environment to a mere touch on a digital surface. It can only be expected that there will continue to be further reductions in the haptic aspect of our day to day interaction with the world.

Comparing the sense of vision to the sense of touch, Rene Descartes suggested that tactility “is more certain and less vulnerable to error” (Pallasmaa, 2005, 19). Pallasmaa (2009, 16) argues that “the hand grasps the physicality and materiality of thought and turns it into a concrete image”. To Pallasmaa the traditional methods of sketching are more natural and certain. The hand interacting with the paper reveals an almost primitive relation in Luis Kahn’s words in his 1931 writing “The value and aim in sketching”: “I try in all my sketching not to be entirely subservient to my subject, but I have respect for it, and regard it as something tangible – alive – from which to extract my feelings.” (Kahn, 1991, 11)

But is this true even in the modern world, a world which Pallasmaa (2009, 22) characterised as hedonistic, where our skin is responsible for our most dangerous desires?

Vision is still considered honest in an instinctive way: people have been looking into each other’s eyes for evidence of truth. They are still considered the “mirrors of the soul”. In that sense vision can be penetrating but at the same time discreet. When we stare intensely in another person’s eyes, we instantly look away like two magnets of the same polarity. Vision has boundaries.

Touch on the other hand is still penetrating, looking for truth but in the same way it can be invading and unwelcome. Its boundaries are ambiguous. Today our daily social interactions cannot easily be defined by the tactile sense because of the existence of a strong “personal space” (defined by the Oxford Dictionaries (2012) as “the physical space immediately surrounding someone, into which encroachment can feel threatening or uncomfortable”). The intimacy of the tactile sense is not without risks.

Pallasmaa’s concerns regarding the way architecture is approached today are centred on the dominance of the visual sense (occulacentrism) and its consequences: “the world becomes a hedonistic but meaningless visual journey” (Pallasmaa, 2005, 22). However modern conditions promote and extend the visual sense, and 'correcting' this would have an impact not just on architecture, but also in areas like the media, marketing and advertisement, urban planning and the internet.

Architecture could not have been unaffected from the media frenzy in recent decades or from the persuasive power of advertisement and marketing. The outcome of this process was to create a commercialised aspect to architectural practise. According to Vesely (2004, 3), such commercial forces created a “rather narrow contemporary vision of architecture as a discipline that can be treated as an instrument, or as a commodity”.

Simulation techniques, along with the emergence of the internet has enabled people to “share” architecture even where there are large physical distance between it and the observer. We can experience architecture without being physically present and without the involvement of senses like touch and smell. The design of the built environment affects millions of people in the highly urbanised world in which we live in. The visual imagery offered by technology, proves to be an absolutely necessary tool through which architectural projects can be globally communicated to the public. This allows for discussion and critique, greatly improving social contribution to decision making.

Technology has created even greater possibilities in the creative process of architectural design through computer aided design software (CAD). In this context Pallasmaa focuses his argument about a distant visual sense in comparison to the traditional haptic approach to design: “The computer creates a distance between the maker and the object, whereas drawing by hand as well as model making put the designer into a haptic contact with the object or space” (Pallasmaa, 2005, 12).

However despite the obvious authenticity of the traditional design method, it seems that the role of the multisensory bodily experience in the design process is still overshadowed by the demand for a more accessible, market oriented and above all, technologically compatible practise. In his interview to Blaine Brownell, Makoto Sei Watanabe who is involved in algorithmic design, suggests that 'traditional' deisgn techniques are “arbitrary in nature” (Brownell, 2011, 218). According to Watanabe, traditional design is “the genius of the brain” and not accessible to everyone (Brownell, 2011, 218). To improve the accessibility of architectural practise “...we can instead use software that is accessible to anyone because its rules are transparent” (Brownell, 2011, 218-219).

Is such approach to design then incapable of creating meaningful architecture? The work of the Mexican modernist architect Juan O'Gorman, in an era greatly defined by the machine and a shift away from tradition. Japanese architect Toyo Ito (2011, 134) suggests that O'Gorman’s design for the Rivera-Kahlo house “...failed due to a rejection of the body as a strong collective memory of the land."

Toyo Ito's own work is largely based on computer technology. His approach may be the key in reconfiguring the urban environment towards more human-friendly conditions. In the heavy urban landscape, Ito’s “obsession with lightness and his desire to strip away anything that reminds us of gravity” (Worsley, 2002), can be thought of as a decisively human approach. For Ito (2011, 168), the dissection of structural elements such as columns beams and walls offered by computer technology and the use of innovative materials, has revolutionised the way space is conceived through architectural design. Talking about his 2002 Serpentine pavilion – designed in collaboration with structural engineer Cecil Balmond – Ito explains the experience created in the absence of these traditional construction elements: “...the experience of being inside the pavilion with no visible columns and beams or windows and doors, none of the usual hierarchy of architectural forms, is that of space itself – an ever-fluctuating, self-recursive abstract space” (Ito, 2011, 169).

Computer technology can inform the design process in a way which can allow for enhanced spatial interaction.

However, Pallasmaa (2005, 31) warns that “architectural structures become repulsively flat, sharp edged, immaterial and unreal” ? Is it because of “the loss of tactility” as Pallasmaa (2005, 31) suggests, or is the computer actually to blame for this result? The computer is mistakenly blamed because of its predominantly visual nature. From a phenomenological point of view, the flat and sharp nature of architecture is because this is more acceptable to the visual realm. Is that true however or is it because it is simply easier to craft? Complexity is everywhere in nature and our vision is intrigued by it and not alienated. But it is not easy to physically replicate – craft – nature. It could therefore be argued that hapticity has constraints and computer technology is needed to complement it in order to achieve the high levels of precision required in architectural representation.

So the visual dominance of our times may not be the reason why today’s architecture is so simple and flat. It is the restraints in the representation – the actual crafting of such organic forms – and not the constraints in their conceptual creation. It is eventually a problem which tactility is unable to solve. In order to rationalise the complexity of organic forms you need the help of CAD.

The influence of the body and its senses on architecture is not as clear as one would think: it is evident that there is a distinguishable division between on one hand the design process: here multi-sensory involvement and the reconsideration of the visual dominance are desirable, and on the other hand, architectural representation, where the visual realm empowered by technology is vital in the current context. The rest of our senses have as yet little to offer in this field but technological progress may change the situation in the future.

This distinction is evident in Vesely’s words: “The distance separating the instrumental and the communicative understanding of architecture represents a wide gap in our contemporary culture” (Vesely, 2004, 4). But Vesely does not look at this issue lightly. He goes on to suggest that our calls for a reinforcement of the visual realm is not without costs. The risk lays in “...issues pertaining to the truth of representation” (Vesely, 2004, 44). To him – as for Pallasmaa – the aim of our practise is human life (Vesely, 2004, 5). In these words the meaning of architecture is immediately defined even in the contemporary context. He comments that trying to achieve humanity with inhuman means such as computer technology is indeed paradoxical (Vesely, 2004, 5).

“Architecture has probably never abandoned completely its humanistic role; though in modern times this role has mostly been improvised” (Vesely, 2004, 5). The goal of architecture has not significantly changed, only the tools to realise it.

= Find out more =

=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===
*Architectural styles.
*Beta City :Temporary, Collaborative City Design.
*Building Information Modelling.
*Computer aided design.
*Comfort.
*Living in the hyperreal Post-Modern city.
*Smart cities.

=== External references ===
*Brownell, B., 2011. ''Matter in the floating world : conversations with leading Japanese architects and designers. ''New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
*Cataluña, C. d. A. d., 2006. ''EMBT - Enric Miralles, Benedetta Tagliabue : work in progress. ''Barcelona: Col.legi d'Arquitectes de Catalunya .
*Gomez, A. P., 1983. ''Architecture and the crisis of modern science. ''Cambridge, Mass. ; London: MIT Press.
*Ito, T., 2011. ''Tarzans in the media forest. ''London: Architectural Association.
*Jenks, C. & Baird, G., 1969. ''Meaning in architecture. ''London: Barrie & Rockliff .
*Kahn, L. I., 1991. ''Louis I. Kahn: Writings, Lectures, Interviews. ''New York: Rizzoli International publications, Inc.
*Pallasmaa, J., 2005. ''The Eyes of the Skin. ''Chichester: John Wley & Sons Ltd.
*Pallasmaa, J., 2009. ''The Thinking Hand: Existential and embodied wisdom in architecture. ''Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
*Psathas, G., 1990. ''Phenomenology and sociology : theory and research. ''Lanham ; London: Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology & University Press of America .
*Schulz, C. N., 1971. ''Existence, space & architecture. ''London: Studio Vista.
*Vesely, D., 2004. ''Architecture in the age of divided representation : the question of creativity in the shadow of production. ''Massachusett: MIT Press.
*Zumthor, P., 2006. ''Atmospheres: architectural environments, surrounding objects. ''Basel: Birkhäuser.
*Worsley, G., 2002. ''The Telegraph. ''[Online] Accessed 16 December 2011, available at: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/3580220/Opening-up-a-box-of-delights.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/3580220/Opening-up-a-box-of-delights.html]
*2009. ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ''[Online] Accessed 12 January 2012, available at: [http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=phenomenology http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=phenomenology]
*Holl, S., 2012. ''Architectural Record. ''[Online] Accessed 28 December 2011, available at: [http://archrecord.construction.com/community/letters/steven_holl.asp http://archrecord.construction.com/community/letters/steven_holl.asp]
*Curtis, W. J., 2012. ''Architectural Record. ''[Online] Accessed 28 December 2011.
*“comfort”, 2012. ''Oxford Dictionaries. ''[Online] Accessed 8 January 2012, available at: [http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/comfort?q=comfort http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/comfort?q=comfort]
*“personal space”, 2012. ''Oxford Dictionaries. ''[Online] Accessed 27 December 2011, available at: [http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/personal%2Bspace?q=personal+space http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/personal%2Bspace?q=personal+spaceStudent]

[[Category:Theory]]

The origins of perspective

2013-01-31T19:07:26Z

Spsls: Replaced content with " Category:Student_architect_essay_competition"

[[Category:Student_architect_essay_competition]]

Phenomenology

2013-01-31T19:05:56Z

Spsls: Replaced content with " Category:Student_architect_essay_competition"

[[Category:Student_architect_essay_competition]]

The origins of perspective

2012-11-25T01:13:16Z

Spsls:

Evidence show that perspective had been used into pictorial representation, centuries before the Renaissance. The Greeks were the first to use perspective on painted vases, but according to Pirene, only at “a fragmentary and possibly purely empirical way” (1970, 180). As back as 300 B.C, Euclid studied natural perspective in his book ''Optica, ''and was the first to define the terms visual ray and cone (Calter, 1998)

Roman painters seem to have understood such basic principles of perspective. Vitruvius defined perspective as “the method of sketching a front with the sides withdrawing into the background, the lines all meeting in the centre of a circle” (Calter, 1998). Roman paintings such as the ones in Pompeii and Herculaneum, according to Pirene (1970, 181), “strangely overshadow many of the paintings of the Italian Renaissance”.

Ptolemy, in his book ''Optica ''(140 A.D), studied geometrical optics and defined the centric ray, a key element in perspective. In his book ''Geographia, ''he applied linear perspective but only on maps (Calter, 1998).

In the centuries that followed these classical pioneers, religion was the main focus of painters and the main aim was the representation of the divinity. There was no need to depict depth as the divine figure was placed in a divine context (often represented simply by gold and silver) and not in a physical landscape. The angle of view was not important as the distinction between man and divinity was signalled by size (Battisti 2002, 106).

During the Renaissance, artists focused on the representation of man and shifted away from just depicting the divine. Humanism was the main influence in both art and science as intellectuals returned to Greek thought. The Byzantine Empire was reaching its nadir under the Ottoman threat and people fled to the West. Classical knowledge reached Italy by the beginning of the Quattrocento and the discovery of the moving press by Gutenberg would make it even more accessible. However, examples of the beginning of a shift to perspective paintings existed even before the Quattrocento, like the work of Giotto in the fourteenth century.

In the Quattrocento, Filippo Brunelleschi (1377-1446), a great Florentine architect, visited Rome and closely studied the magnificent monuments of the ancient city. His desire to accurately draw what he saw, urged him to start exploring the forgotten principles of linear perspective (Fazio et al, 2009, 286). Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli (1397-1482), an astronomer and mathematician, had studied Ptolemy’s work and wrote his treatise on optics in 1424 (Edgerton 1975, xi). When Brunelleschi returned to Florence and with possible coaching by his friend Toscanelli, he made the first linear perspective pictures since antiquity (Edgerton, 1975, xi). Although Brunelleschi was influenced by the work of artists like Giotto, it was, according to Millon (1994, 123), “in a way that was no longer intuitive and empirical” but was rather “scientific, rational and systematic”.

Brunelleschi’s experiments would soon make an impact on the work of painters in the Quattrocento. The painter Masaccio (1401-1428) was assisted by his friend Brunelleschi in applying linear perspective in his painting ''The Trinity''. (Fazio et al, 2009, 286). Brunelleschi’s solution in the struggle of how best to depict spatial relationships proved, to be the best ever proposed by artists up to then. (Fazio et al, 2009, 286).

The experiments carried out by Brunelleschi had influenced many artists of his time. In 1435 Leon Battista Alberti, (1404-1472), documented and expanded Brunelleschi’s theories on linear perspective in his book ''Della Pittura ''(Fazio et al, 2009, 292). Following this, and after searching the writings of Vitruvius, Alberti wrote his own treatise on Architecture. His book ''De re aedificatoria'' is considered the first architectural treatise of the Renaissance (Fazio et al, 2009, 292).

In the years that followed, painters used the principles described in Alberti’s Della Pittura in their work. Paolo Uccello applied Alberti’s theories in his painting ''The Flood'' (1447-1448). Uccello’s work is, according to Collins (2008), “a visual interpretation of the theories expounded by Alberti in his treatise ''Della Pittura.''”

During the Quattrocento, many intellectuals had tried to codify the principles of linear perspective, but it was Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519) that expanded these theories into a scientific context. “The new art science was never applied either to scientific drawings or architectural models until the time of Leonardo da Vinci” (Edgerton, 1975, 24). Leonardo was aware of the inconsistencies in the theories of his predecessors and evidence suggests that he had even prepared a book on perspective, separated from his treatise on painting (Pedretti, 1977, 119). In one of the most famous pieces of his work, The Last Supper (1497), Leonardo successfully uses his study on perspective to dramatically place the main focus on Christ. The vanishing point is placed on Christ’s right eye and the perspective is emphasized by his hands, which are set almost parallel to the converging lines (Calter, 1998). Leonardo’s treatise proved to be of great importance as artists in the years to follow referred to his writings as the most comprehensive on perspective. Even today, according to Toman (2007, 106), “architects and painters still consider the method of perspective construction as refined by Leonardo to be a valid one, and use it themselves accordingly”.

Alberti’s and Leonardo’s treatises inevitably influenced the way perspective was used in an architectural context. Donato Bramante, a close associate of Leonardo, was greatly influenced by their work (Fazio et al, 2009, 299). In his design of the S. Maria presso S. Satiro (1482-92), Bramante was able to overcome obstacles, which prevented him from adding a conventional choir, by “using the illusionistic potential of linear perspective” (Fazio et al, 2009, 299). Later on, Michelangelo would apply perspective principles in his designs for the Medici Chapel and the Laurentian Library in Florence.

The legacy of the treatises of the Quattrocento is evident even in modern days. CAD software use perspective view as the main method to communicate design ideas. Technology, clearly owes its advancement to the close study and application of perspective principles in the Renaissance.

'''BIBLIOGRAPHY'''

• Battisti, E. (1976). ''Filippo Brunelleschi. ''Milano: Electa.

• Beck, J. (1979). ''Leonardo’s Rules of Painting – An Unconventional Approach to Modern Art. ''Oxford: Phaidon.

• Calter, P. (1998). ''Geometry in Art & Architecture. ''Dartmouth (21/02/2011)

[http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.geometry/unit14/unit14.html http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.geometry/unit14/unit14.html]

[http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.geometry/unit11/unit11.html http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.geometry/unit11/unit11.html]

• Collins, N. (2008). ''Encyclopaedia of Irish and World Art. ''Visual-Arts-Cork (21/02/2011)

[http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/old-masters/paolo-uccello.htm http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/old-masters/paolo-uccello.htm]

• Crooks, R. (2010). ''2D vs. 3D CAD Advantages and Disadvantages.'' eHow (20/02/2011)

[http://www.ehow.com/facts_6189318_2d-3d-cad-advantages-disadvantages.html http://www.ehow.com/facts_6189318_2d-3d-cad-advantages-disadvantages.html]

• Edgerton, S. Y. (1975). ''The Renaissance Rediscovery of Linear Perspective.'' USA: Harper & Row.

• Fazio, M. et al (2009). ''A World History of Architecture. ''London: Laurence King.

• Grayson, C. (1972). ''Leon Battista Alberti On Painting and On Sculpture. ''London: Phaidon.

• Ivins, W.M. (1973).'' On the Rationalization of Sight. ''New York: Da Capo Press.

• Kemp, M. (1990). ''The Science of Art''. London: Yale University Press.

• Pedretti, C. (1977). ''The Literary works of Leonardo da Vinci – A commentary to Jean Paul Richter’s Edition.'' Oxford: Phaidon.

• Richter, J. P. (1970). ''The Literary Works of Leonardo da Vinci. ''New York: Phaidon.

• Toman, R. (2005). ''The Art of the Italian Renaissance. ''Tandem: Ullmann&Konemann.

• West, T. W. (1968). ''A History of Architecture in Italy. ''London: University of London Press.

[[Category:Student_architect_essay_competition]]

The origins of perspective

2012-11-25T01:12:54Z

Spsls: Protected "The origins of perspective" ([edit=author] (indefinite) [move=author] (indefinite))

Evidence show that perspective had been used into pictorial representation, centuries before the Renaissance. The Greeks were the first to use perspective on painted vases, but according to Pirene, only at “a fragmentary and possibly purely empirical way” (1970, 180). As back as 300 B.C, Euclid studied natural perspective in his book ''Optica, ''and was the first to define the terms visual ray and cone (Calter, 1998)

Roman painters seem to have understood such basic principles of perspective. Vitruvius defined perspective as “the method of sketching a front with the sides withdrawing into the background, the lines all meeting in the centre of a circle” (Calter, 1998). Roman paintings such as the ones in Pompeii and Herculaneum, according to Pirene (1970, 181), “strangely overshadow many of the paintings of the Italian Renaissance”.

Ptolemy, in his book ''Optica ''(140 A.D), studied geometrical optics and defined the centric ray, a key element in perspective. In his book ''Geographia, ''he applied linear perspective but only on maps (Calter, 1998).

In the centuries that followed these classical pioneers, religion was the main focus of painters and the main aim was the representation of the divinity. There was no need to depict depth as the divine figure was placed in a divine context (often represented simply by gold and silver) and not in a physical landscape. The angle of view was not important as the distinction between man and divinity was signalled by size (Battisti 2002, 106).

During the Renaissance, artists focused on the representation of man and shifted away from just depicting the divine. Humanism was the main influence in both art and science as intellectuals returned to Greek thought. The Byzantine Empire was reaching its nadir under the Ottoman threat and people fled to the West. Classical knowledge reached Italy by the beginning of the Quattrocento and the discovery of the moving press by Gutenberg would make it even more accessible. However, examples of the beginning of a shift to perspective paintings existed even before the Quattrocento, like the work of Giotto in the fourteenth century.

In the Quattrocento, Filippo Brunelleschi (1377-1446), a great Florentine architect, visited Rome and closely studied the magnificent monuments of the ancient city. His desire to accurately draw what he saw, urged him to start exploring the forgotten principles of linear perspective (Fazio et al, 2009, 286). Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli (1397-1482), an astronomer and mathematician, had studied Ptolemy’s work and wrote his treatise on optics in 1424 (Edgerton 1975, xi). When Brunelleschi returned to Florence and with possible coaching by his friend Toscanelli, he made the first linear perspective pictures since antiquity (Edgerton, 1975, xi). Although Brunelleschi was influenced by the work of artists like Giotto, it was, according to Millon (1994, 123), “in a way that was no longer intuitive and empirical” but was rather “scientific, rational and systematic”.

Brunelleschi’s experiments would soon make an impact on the work of painters in the Quattrocento. The painter Masaccio (1401-1428) was assisted by his friend Brunelleschi in applying linear perspective in his painting ''The Trinity''. (Fazio et al, 2009, 286). Brunelleschi’s solution in the struggle of how best to depict spatial relationships proved, to be the best ever proposed by artists up to then. (Fazio et al, 2009, 286).

The experiments carried out by Brunelleschi had influenced many artists of his time. In 1435 Leon Battista Alberti, (1404-1472), documented and expanded Brunelleschi’s theories on linear perspective in his book ''Della Pittura ''(Fazio et al, 2009, 292). Following this, and after searching the writings of Vitruvius, Alberti wrote his own treatise on Architecture. His book ''De re aedificatoria'' is considered the first architectural treatise of the Renaissance (Fazio et al, 2009, 292).

In the years that followed, painters used the principles described in Alberti’s Della Pittura in their work. Paolo Uccello applied Alberti’s theories in his painting ''The Flood'' (1447-1448). Uccello’s work is, according to Collins (2008), “a visual interpretation of the theories expounded by Alberti in his treatise ''Della Pittura.''”

During the Quattrocento, many intellectuals had tried to codify the principles of linear perspective, but it was Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519) that expanded these theories into a scientific context. “The new art science was never applied either to scientific drawings or architectural models until the time of Leonardo da Vinci” (Edgerton, 1975, 24). Leonardo was aware of the inconsistencies in the theories of his predecessors and evidence suggests that he had even prepared a book on perspective, separated from his treatise on painting (Pedretti, 1977, 119). In one of the most famous pieces of his work, The Last Supper (1497), Leonardo successfully uses his study on perspective to dramatically place the main focus on Christ. The vanishing point is placed on Christ’s right eye and the perspective is emphasized by his hands, which are set almost parallel to the converging lines (Calter, 1998). Leonardo’s treatise proved to be of great importance as artists in the years to follow referred to his writings as the most comprehensive on perspective. Even today, according to Toman (2007, 106), “architects and painters still consider the method of perspective construction as refined by Leonardo to be a valid one, and use it themselves accordingly”.

Alberti’s and Leonardo’s treatises inevitably influenced the way perspective was used in an architectural context. Donato Bramante, a close associate of Leonardo, was greatly influenced by their work (Fazio et al, 2009, 299). In his design of the S. Maria presso S. Satiro (1482-92), Bramante was able to overcome obstacles, which prevented him from adding a conventional choir, by “using the illusionistic potential of linear perspective” (Fazio et al, 2009, 299). Later on, Michelangelo would apply perspective principles in his designs for the Medici Chapel and the Laurentian Library in Florence.

The legacy of the treatises of the Quattrocento is evident even in modern days. CAD software use perspective view as the main method to communicate design ideas. Technology, clearly owes its advancement to the close study and application of perspective principles in the Renaissance.

'''BIBLIOGRAPHY'''

• Battisti, E. (1976). ''Filippo Brunelleschi. ''Milano: Electa.

• Beck, J. (1979). ''Leonardo’s Rules of Painting – An Unconventional Approach to Modern Art. ''Oxford: Phaidon.

• Calter, P. (1998). ''Geometry in Art & Architecture. ''Dartmouth (21/02/2011)

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.geometry/unit14/unit14.html

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.geometry/unit11/unit11.html

• Collins, N. (2008). ''Encyclopaedia of Irish and World Art. ''Visual-Arts-Cork (21/02/2011)

http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/old-masters/paolo-uccello.htm

• Crooks, R. (2010). ''2D vs. 3D CAD Advantages and Disadvantages.'' eHow (20/02/2011)

http://www.ehow.com/facts_6189318_2d-3d-cad-advantages-disadvantages.html

• Edgerton, S. Y. (1975). ''The Renaissance Rediscovery of Linear Perspective.'' USA: Harper & Row.

• Fazio, M. et al (2009). ''A World History of Architecture. ''London: Laurence King.

• Grayson, C. (1972). ''Leon Battista Alberti On Painting and On Sculpture. ''London: Phaidon.

• Ivins, W.M. (1973).'' On the Rationalization of Sight. ''New York: Da Capo Press.

• Kemp, M. (1990). ''The Science of Art''. London: Yale University Press.

• Pedretti, C. (1977). ''The Literary works of Leonardo da Vinci – A commentary to Jean Paul Richter’s Edition.'' Oxford: Phaidon.

• Richter, J. P. (1970). ''The Literary Works of Leonardo da Vinci. ''New York: Phaidon.

• Toman, R. (2005). ''The Art of the Italian Renaissance. ''Tandem: Ullmann&Konemann.

• West, T. W. (1968). ''A History of Architecture in Italy. ''London: University of London Press.

The origins of perspective

2012-11-25T01:12:18Z

Spsls: Created page with " Evidence show that perspective had been used into pictorial representation, centuries before the Renaissance. The Greeks were the first to use perspective on painted vases, but..."

Evidence show that perspective had been used into pictorial representation, centuries before the Renaissance. The Greeks were the first to use perspective on painted vases, but according to Pirene, only at “a fragmentary and possibly purely empirical way” (1970, 180). As back as 300 B.C, Euclid studied natural perspective in his book ''Optica, ''and was the first to define the terms visual ray and cone (Calter, 1998)

Roman painters seem to have understood such basic principles of perspective. Vitruvius defined perspective as “the method of sketching a front with the sides withdrawing into the background, the lines all meeting in the centre of a circle” (Calter, 1998). Roman paintings such as the ones in Pompeii and Herculaneum, according to Pirene (1970, 181), “strangely overshadow many of the paintings of the Italian Renaissance”.

Ptolemy, in his book ''Optica ''(140 A.D), studied geometrical optics and defined the centric ray, a key element in perspective. In his book ''Geographia, ''he applied linear perspective but only on maps (Calter, 1998).

In the centuries that followed these classical pioneers, religion was the main focus of painters and the main aim was the representation of the divinity. There was no need to depict depth as the divine figure was placed in a divine context (often represented simply by gold and silver) and not in a physical landscape. The angle of view was not important as the distinction between man and divinity was signalled by size (Battisti 2002, 106).

During the Renaissance, artists focused on the representation of man and shifted away from just depicting the divine. Humanism was the main influence in both art and science as intellectuals returned to Greek thought. The Byzantine Empire was reaching its nadir under the Ottoman threat and people fled to the West. Classical knowledge reached Italy by the beginning of the Quattrocento and the discovery of the moving press by Gutenberg would make it even more accessible. However, examples of the beginning of a shift to perspective paintings existed even before the Quattrocento, like the work of Giotto in the fourteenth century.

In the Quattrocento, Filippo Brunelleschi (1377-1446), a great Florentine architect, visited Rome and closely studied the magnificent monuments of the ancient city. His desire to accurately draw what he saw, urged him to start exploring the forgotten principles of linear perspective (Fazio et al, 2009, 286). Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli (1397-1482), an astronomer and mathematician, had studied Ptolemy’s work and wrote his treatise on optics in 1424 (Edgerton 1975, xi). When Brunelleschi returned to Florence and with possible coaching by his friend Toscanelli, he made the first linear perspective pictures since antiquity (Edgerton, 1975, xi). Although Brunelleschi was influenced by the work of artists like Giotto, it was, according to Millon (1994, 123), “in a way that was no longer intuitive and empirical” but was rather “scientific, rational and systematic”.

Brunelleschi’s experiments would soon make an impact on the work of painters in the Quattrocento. The painter Masaccio (1401-1428) was assisted by his friend Brunelleschi in applying linear perspective in his painting ''The Trinity''. (Fazio et al, 2009, 286). Brunelleschi’s solution in the struggle of how best to depict spatial relationships proved, to be the best ever proposed by artists up to then. (Fazio et al, 2009, 286).

The experiments carried out by Brunelleschi had influenced many artists of his time. In 1435 Leon Battista Alberti, (1404-1472), documented and expanded Brunelleschi’s theories on linear perspective in his book ''Della Pittura ''(Fazio et al, 2009, 292). Following this, and after searching the writings of Vitruvius, Alberti wrote his own treatise on Architecture. His book ''De re aedificatoria'' is considered the first architectural treatise of the Renaissance (Fazio et al, 2009, 292).

In the years that followed, painters used the principles described in Alberti’s Della Pittura in their work. Paolo Uccello applied Alberti’s theories in his painting ''The Flood'' (1447-1448). Uccello’s work is, according to Collins (2008), “a visual interpretation of the theories expounded by Alberti in his treatise ''Della Pittura.''”

During the Quattrocento, many intellectuals had tried to codify the principles of linear perspective, but it was Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519) that expanded these theories into a scientific context. “The new art science was never applied either to scientific drawings or architectural models until the time of Leonardo da Vinci” (Edgerton, 1975, 24). Leonardo was aware of the inconsistencies in the theories of his predecessors and evidence suggests that he had even prepared a book on perspective, separated from his treatise on painting (Pedretti, 1977, 119). In one of the most famous pieces of his work, The Last Supper (1497), Leonardo successfully uses his study on perspective to dramatically place the main focus on Christ. The vanishing point is placed on Christ’s right eye and the perspective is emphasized by his hands, which are set almost parallel to the converging lines (Calter, 1998). Leonardo’s treatise proved to be of great importance as artists in the years to follow referred to his writings as the most comprehensive on perspective. Even today, according to Toman (2007, 106), “architects and painters still consider the method of perspective construction as refined by Leonardo to be a valid one, and use it themselves accordingly”.

Alberti’s and Leonardo’s treatises inevitably influenced the way perspective was used in an architectural context. Donato Bramante, a close associate of Leonardo, was greatly influenced by their work (Fazio et al, 2009, 299). In his design of the S. Maria presso S. Satiro (1482-92), Bramante was able to overcome obstacles, which prevented him from adding a conventional choir, by “using the illusionistic potential of linear perspective” (Fazio et al, 2009, 299). Later on, Michelangelo would apply perspective principles in his designs for the Medici Chapel and the Laurentian Library in Florence.

The legacy of the treatises of the Quattrocento is evident even in modern days. CAD software use perspective view as the main method to communicate design ideas. Technology, clearly owes its advancement to the close study and application of perspective principles in the Renaissance.

'''BIBLIOGRAPHY'''

• Battisti, E. (1976). ''Filippo Brunelleschi. ''Milano: Electa.

• Beck, J. (1979). ''Leonardo’s Rules of Painting – An Unconventional Approach to Modern Art. ''Oxford: Phaidon.

• Calter, P. (1998). ''Geometry in Art & Architecture. ''Dartmouth (21/02/2011)

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.geometry/unit14/unit14.html

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.geometry/unit11/unit11.html

• Collins, N. (2008). ''Encyclopaedia of Irish and World Art. ''Visual-Arts-Cork (21/02/2011)

http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/old-masters/paolo-uccello.htm

• Crooks, R. (2010). ''2D vs. 3D CAD Advantages and Disadvantages.'' eHow (20/02/2011)

http://www.ehow.com/facts_6189318_2d-3d-cad-advantages-disadvantages.html

• Edgerton, S. Y. (1975). ''The Renaissance Rediscovery of Linear Perspective.'' USA: Harper & Row.

• Fazio, M. et al (2009). ''A World History of Architecture. ''London: Laurence King.

• Grayson, C. (1972). ''Leon Battista Alberti On Painting and On Sculpture. ''London: Phaidon.

• Ivins, W.M. (1973).'' On the Rationalization of Sight. ''New York: Da Capo Press.

• Kemp, M. (1990). ''The Science of Art''. London: Yale University Press.

• Pedretti, C. (1977). ''The Literary works of Leonardo da Vinci – A commentary to Jean Paul Richter’s Edition.'' Oxford: Phaidon.

• Richter, J. P. (1970). ''The Literary Works of Leonardo da Vinci. ''New York: Phaidon.

• Toman, R. (2005). ''The Art of the Italian Renaissance. ''Tandem: Ullmann&Konemann.

• West, T. W. (1968). ''A History of Architecture in Italy. ''London: University of London Press.

Phenomenology

2012-11-24T02:31:54Z

Spsls: Protected "Phenomenology" ([edit=author] (indefinite) [move=author] (indefinite))

ARCHITECTURE, TECHNOLOGY AND PHENOMENOLOGY

Juhani Pallasmaa (2005, 10) in explaining the aim of his book “The Eyes of the Skin”, emphasizes his intention “to create a conceptual short circuit between the dominant sense of vision and the suppressed sense modality of touch.” At first glance, Pallasmaa‘s ambition to explore and reveal the forgotten multisensory interaction with the world, appears to be an obvious necessity in our contemporary life. But to what extend is the rediscovery of the multisensory bodily experience essential and applicable in the contemporary world? And furthermore, is that what really defines meaningful architecture or is it just another approach towards this realisation? These questions can only be answered through a review of what the role of bodily interaction is today not just in terms of architecture but also as an influence on our day-to-day social interactions.

It is obvious that our daily lives have been greatly influenced by the applications of modern technology. One of the purposes of modern architectural design and also a measure of our quality of life is comfort. The meaning of comfort is defined by Oxford Dictionaries (2012) as “a state of physical ease”. Technology has provided simplicity making our lives easier. In this context the manual aspect of our daily life has been significantly undermined. Consequently our bodily involvement in our experience of life has been reduced to the senses favoured by technology, predominantly vision.

The need for simplicity and the search for comfort through innovation have largely inspired technology. Today, touch screens have reduced our interaction with our physical environment to a mere touch on a digital surface in places even beyond the domestic context. Similarly our daily wants are often satisfied with the click of a button. Under these conditions how more tactile could the modern world be? The expected outcome seems to be an even further reduction to the haptic aspect of our day to day interaction with the world. Even factors like the spread of viral pandemic diseases in the last decade have favoured this shift away from tactility and technology had already pushed motion sensors in our lives in a constantly growing range of applications. Therefore it is questionable to what extend an enhancement in the role of bodily involvement is possible in the lives of contemporary people.

However this cannot suggest that it is applicable in the architectural practise. Pallasmaa (2009, 16) argues that “the hand grasps the physicality and materiality of thought and turns it into a concrete image”. To Pallasmaa the traditional methods of sketching are more natural and certain. The hand interacting with the paper reveals an almost primitive relation in Luis Kahn’s words in his 1931 writing “The value and aim in sketching”: “I try in all my sketching not to be entirely subservient to my subject, but I have respect for it, and regard it as something tangible – alive – from which to extract my feelings.” (Kahn, 1991, 11)

Comparing the sense of vision to the sense of touch, Rene Descartes suggested that tactility “is more certain and less vulnerable to error” (Pallasmaa, 2005, 19). But to what extend is this applicable anymore? Has it remained true even in the modern world, a world which Pallasmaa (2009, 22) characterised as hedonistic? Is it not our very own skin responsible for our most dangerous desires? Our skin is deeply associated with lust, craving and immorality. Imagine if we were to base many of our decisions according to the appetites of the flesh.

How does such comparison of vision and touch apply in the modern context? Vision is still considered honest in an instinctive way: people have been looking into each other’s eyes for evidence of truth. They are still considered the “mirrors of the soul”. In that sense vision can penetrating but at the same time discreet. When we stare intensely in another person’s eyes, our gazes will instantly look away like two magnets of the same polarity. Vision has therefore boundaries.

Touch on the other hand is still penetrating, looking for truth but in the same way it can be invading and unwelcome. Its boundaries are ambiguous. Today our daily social interactions cannot easily be defined by the tactile sense because of the existence of a strong “personal space”. This is defined by the Oxford Dictionaries (2012) as “the physical space immediately surrounding someone, into which encroachment can feel threatening or uncomfortable”.

Today, misunderstandings are situations which we look to avoid in our daily interactions because of this amplification of our personal space making its dynamics impossible to predict. Under these conditions the intimacy of the tactile sense is not without risks – risks which in the contemporary world we are not prepare to take in our social interactions.

Pallasmaa’s concerns of the way architecture is approached today are centred on the dominance of the visual sense (occulacentrism) and its consequences: “the world becomes a hedonistic but meaningless visual journey” (Pallasmaa, 2005, 22). However modern conditions justify to a great extend the empowerment of the visual sense, in a way that any suggestion to alter or correct this should have an impact not just on architectural thought, but also in areas like the media, marketing and advertisement, urban planning and the internet.

From the Renaissance to Le Corbusier, the hygiene of the visual was encouraged in city planning (Pallasmaa, 2005, 29). In addition, architecture could not be left unaffected from the media frenzy which characterises the last decades and the persuasive power of advertisement and marketing. Under these influences it was unavoidable for architecture to become a field dominated by the visual image.

The outcome of this process was to create a new, commercialised aspect of the architectural practise. According to Vesely (2004, 3), such commercial forces created a “rather narrow contemporary vision of architecture as a discipline that can be treated as an instrument, or as a commodity”.

In a different aspect, the wide spread influence of the internet has made visual imagery an important tool for people around the globe to “share” their architecture. For Pallasmaa (2005, 46), “the eye is the organ of distance and separation”. But in this case is it not the visual realm as provided by the internet that provides a close up look in architecture around the world despite the physical distance separating the observer? Merleau-Ponty had defined our body as the centre of the experiential world (Pallasmaa, 2005, 40). However today we need to experience architecture without being physically present and essentially without the involvement of senses like touch and smell because of technological restrictions. Pallasmaa (2005, 36) admits that simulations like sound enhanced – animation can offer a more haptic experience despite the fact that they are creations of the visual realm. Progress is still to be made in the future and simulation technology will eventually develop a widely used system of virtual reality which will possibly incorporate all our senses. It should be noted that the outcome would still be a simulation but in a world acting under the forces of globalisation such simulation should be necessary since people want to be involved with architectural issues all over the world even if they are not physically affected by them

Contemporary architectural projects affect millions of people in the highly urbanised world in which we live in. The visual imagery offered by technology, proves to be an absolutely necessary tool through which architectural projects can be globally communicated to the public. This allows for public discussion and critique, greatly improving social contribution to decision making regarding the urban environment.

With the possibilities created for architectural communication, the visual world of technology has created even greater possibilities in the creative process of architectural design through computer aided design software (CAD). But at the same time this can be considered a significant cost to architectural practise as the design process has suddenly shifted away from the traditional methods. It is in this context that Pallasmaa focuses his argument about a distant visual sense in comparison to the traditional haptic approach to design: “The computer creates a distance between the maker and the object, whereas drawing by hand as well as model making put the designer into a haptic contact with the object or space” (Pallasmaa, 2005, 12).

However despite the obvious authenticity of the traditional design method, it seems that the role of the multisensory bodily experience in the design process is still overshadowed by the demand for a more accessible, market oriented and above all, technologically compatible practise. In his interview to Blaine Brownell, Makoto Sei Watanabe who is involved in algorithmic design, is suggesting that the traditional way of design is “arbitrary in nature” (Brownell, 2011, 218). According to Watanabe, this method of design is unfortunately only “the genius of the brain” and not accessible to everyone (Brownell, 2011, 218). So in order to improve the accessibility of the architectural practise and apply it to contemporary demands, he suggests that: “We can instead use software that is accessible to anyone because its rules are transparent” (Brownell, 2011, 218-219).

Is such approach to design then incapable of creating meaningful architecture - as its meaning is to be defined in the criteria set by the age in which it exists? How unnatural and inhuman can it really be considered in comparison to the traditional design method? A look at the example of Mexican modernist architect Juan O'Gorman can light one aspect of the argument. The innovative idea of modernism was not easy to implement in a culture strongly connected with its identity. Working in the context of modernism an era greatly defined by the machine and a shift away from tradition, O'Gorman’s design for the Rivera-Kahlo house is evaluated in the words of Toyo Ito (2011, 134) : “it failed due to a rejection of the body as a strong collective memory of the land."

Is the innovative shift to technology going to have the same results as the modernist example? Japanese architect Toyo Ito whose work is largely based on computer technology, might have the answer for applying these new possibilities in respect of our current context. His approach may be the key in reconfiguring the urban environment towards more human friendly conditions. In the heavy urban landscape, Ito’s “obsession with lightness and his desire to strip away anything that reminds us of gravity” (Worsley, 2002), can be a decisively human approach in an environment dominated by vertical masses. For Ito (2011, 168), the dissection of structural elements such as columns beams and walls offered by computer technology and innovative materials, has revolutionised the way space is conceived through architectural design. Talking about his 2002 Serpentine pavilion – designed in collaboration with structural engineer Cecil Balmond – Ito explains the experience created in the absence of these traditional construction elements: “the experience of being inside the pavilion with no visible columns and beams or windows and doors, none of the usual hierarchy of architectural forms, is that of space itself – an ever-fluctuating, self-recursive abstract space” (Ito, 2011, 169).

If computer technology can inform the design process in a way which can allow for enhanced spatial interaction then how come according to Pallasmaa (2005, 31) “architectural structures become repulsively flat, sharp edged, immaterial and unreal” ? Is it because of “the loss of tactility” as Pallasmaa (2005, 31) suggests, or is the computer eventually to blame for this result? It is quite possible that the answer is hidden deeper in the roots of the architectural practise and that the computer is mistaken to be at fault because of its predominantly visual and not multisensory nature. But this could be a problem that is not necessarily relevant to the sensual spectrum. The problem is rooted in the methods of representation. From a phenomenological point of view, the flat and sharp nature of architecture is considered to be such because it is more acceptable to the visual realm. Is that true however or is it because it is simply easier to craft? Complexity is everywhere in nature and our vision is intrigued by it and not alienated. But it is not easy to physically replicate – craft – nature. It can be therefore argued that hapticity has constraints and computer technology is needed to complement it in order to achieve the high levels of precision required in architectural representation.

To better understand the role of technology and that of bodily involvement, consider the following example: Imagine that you need to design a tree. You can mould it in your mind, colour it and let it interact with the wind. But in order to construct it you need to represent it in two dimensions as well. Specifically you need to take a section out of your tree. You can still imagine this section and actually cut the tree in half and look inside. You can sense in your mind that you touch it and even feel the verticality of the section plane! But can you guarantee that you can represent the flatness of the section with the required precision either on paper or with a section model? You wouldn’t ever be able to predict precisely the position of thousands of branches in terms of the section cut with the traditional methods of the practise.

So the visual dominance of our times may not be the reason why today’s architecture is so simple and flat. It is the restraints in the representation – the actual crafting of such organic forms – and not the constraints in their conceptual creation. It is eventually a problem which tactility is unable to solve. In a drawing such as the orthographic, precision is elemental. In order to rationalise the complexity of organic forms you need the help of CAD.

Out of this situation we can see that in the contemporary world the influence of the body and its senses on architecture is not as clear as one would think: it is evident that there is a distinguishable division between on one hand the design process: Here multisensory involvement and the reconsideration of the visual dominance are desirable. On the other hand is architectural representation, where the visual realm empowered by technology is vital for the current context. The rest of our senses have yet little to offer in this field but technological progress may change the situation in the future.

This distinction is evident in Vesely’s words: “The distance separating the instrumental and the communicative understanding of architecture represents a wide gap in our contemporary culture” (Vesely, 2004, 4). But Vesely does not look at this issue lightly. He goes on to suggest that despite our era calls for a reinforcement of the visual realm, this is not without costs. The risk lays in “issues pertaining to the truth of representation” (Vesely, 2004, 44). To him – as for Pallasmaa – the aim of our practise is human life (Vesely, 2004, 5). In these words the meaning of architecture is immediately defined even in the contemporary context. He comments that trying to achieve humanity with inhuman means such as computer technology is indeed paradoxical (Vesely, 2004, 5).

“Architecture has probably never abandoned completely its humanistic role; though in modern times this role has mostly been improvised” (Vesely, 2004, 5). Therefore essentially, the goal of architecture has not significantly changed, only the tools to realise it. From this assumption it is evident that architects of today are still capable of meaningful architecture despite the substantial reduction of bodily involvement.

'''BIBLIOGRAPHY'''

Brownell, B., 2011. ''Matter in the floating world : conversations with leading Japanese architects and designers. ''New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Cataluña, C. d. A. d., 2006. ''EMBT - Enric Miralles, Benedetta Tagliabue : work in progress. ''Barcelona: Col.legi d'Arquitectes de Catalunya .

Gomez, A. P., 1983. ''Architecture and the crisis of modern science. ''Cambridge, Mass. ; London: MIT Press.

Ito, T., 2011. ''Tarzans in the media forest. ''London: Architectural Association.

Jenks, C. & Baird, G., 1969. ''Meaning in architecture. ''London: Barrie & Rockliff .

Kahn, L. I., 1991. ''Louis I. Kahn: Writings, Lectures, Interviews. ''New York: Rizzoli International publications, Inc.

Pallasmaa, J., 2005. ''The Eyes of the Skin. ''Chichester: John Wley & Sons Ltd.

Pallasmaa, J., 2009. ''The Thinking Hand: Existential and embodied wisdom in architecture. ''Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Psathas, G., 1990. ''Phenomenology and sociology : theory and research. ''Lanham ; London: Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology & University Press of America .

Schulz, C. N., 1971. ''Existence, space & architecture. ''London: Studio Vista.

Vesely, D., 2004. ''Architecture in the age of divided representation : the question of creativity in the shadow of production. ''Massachusett: MIT Press.

Zumthor, P., 2006. ''Atmospheres: architectural environments, surrounding objects. ''Basel: Birkhäuser.

'''WEBSITES'''

Worsley, G., 2002. ''The Telegraph. ''[Online] Accessed 16 December 2011, Available at: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/3580220/Opening-up-a-box-of-delights.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/3580220/Opening-up-a-box-of-delights.html] 

2009. ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ''[Online] Accessed 12 January 2012, Available at: [http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=phenomenology http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=phenomenology] 

Holl, S., 2012. ''Architectural Record. ''[Online] Accessed 28 December 2011, Available at: [http://archrecord.construction.com/community/letters/steven_holl.asp http://archrecord.construction.com/community/letters/steven_holl.asp] 

Curtis, W. J., 2012. ''Architectural Record. ''[Online] Accessed 28 December 2011, Available at: [http://archrecord.construction.com/features/critique/2011/1102commentary.asp http://archrecord.construction.com/features/critique/2011/1102commentary.asp] 

“comfort”, 2012. ''Oxford Dictionaries. ''[Online] Accessed 8 January 2012, Available at: [http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/comfort?q=comfort http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/comfort?q=comfort] “personal space”, 2012. ''Oxford Dictionaries. ''[Online] Accessed 27 December 2011, Available at: [http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/personal%2Bspace?q=personal+space http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/personal%2Bspace?q=personal+space]

[[Category:Student_architect_essay_competition]]

Phenomenology

2012-11-24T02:31:38Z

Spsls:

Phenomenology

2012-11-24T02:29:55Z

Spsls:

Juhani Pallasmaa (2005, 10) in explaining the aim of his book “The Eyes of the Skin”, emphasizes his intention “to create a conceptual short circuit between the dominant sense of vision and the suppressed sense modality of touch.” At first glance, Pallasmaa‘s ambition to explore and reveal the forgotten multisensory interaction with the world, appears to be an obvious necessity in our contemporary life. But to what extend is the rediscovery of the multisensory bodily experience essential and applicable in the contemporary world? And furthermore, is that what really defines meaningful architecture or is it just another approach towards this realisation? These questions can only be answered through a review of what the role of bodily interaction is today not just in terms of architecture but also as an influence on our day-to-day social interactions.

It is obvious that our daily lives have been greatly influenced by the applications of modern technology. One of the purposes of modern architectural design and also a measure of our quality of life is comfort. The meaning of comfort is defined by Oxford Dictionaries (2012) as “a state of physical ease”. Technology has provided simplicity making our lives easier. In this context the manual aspect of our daily life has been significantly undermined. Consequently our bodily involvement in our experience of life has been reduced to the senses favoured by technology, predominantly vision.

The need for simplicity and the search for comfort through innovation have largely inspired technology. Today, touch screens have reduced our interaction with our physical environment to a mere touch on a digital surface in places even beyond the domestic context. Similarly our daily wants are often satisfied with the click of a button. Under these conditions how more tactile could the modern world be? The expected outcome seems to be an even further reduction to the haptic aspect of our day to day interaction with the world. Even factors like the spread of viral pandemic diseases in the last decade have favoured this shift away from tactility and technology had already pushed motion sensors in our lives in a constantly growing range of applications. Therefore it is questionable to what extend an enhancement in the role of bodily involvement is possible in the lives of contemporary people.

However this cannot suggest that it is applicable in the architectural practise. Pallasmaa (2009, 16) argues that “the hand grasps the physicality and materiality of thought and turns it into a concrete image”. To Pallasmaa the traditional methods of sketching are more natural and certain. The hand interacting with the paper reveals an almost primitive relation in Luis Kahn’s words in his 1931 writing “The value and aim in sketching”: “I try in all my sketching not to be entirely subservient to my subject, but I have respect for it, and regard it as something tangible – alive – from which to extract my feelings.” (Kahn, 1991, 11)

Comparing the sense of vision to the sense of touch, Rene Descartes suggested that tactility “is more certain and less vulnerable to error” (Pallasmaa, 2005, 19). But to what extend is this applicable anymore? Has it remained true even in the modern world, a world which Pallasmaa (2009, 22) characterised as hedonistic? Is it not our very own skin responsible for our most dangerous desires? Our skin is deeply associated with lust, craving and immorality. Imagine if we were to base many of our decisions according to the appetites of the flesh.

How does such comparison of vision and touch apply in the modern context? Vision is still considered honest in an instinctive way: people have been looking into each other’s eyes for evidence of truth. They are still considered the “mirrors of the soul”. In that sense vision can penetrating but at the same time discreet. When we stare intensely in another person’s eyes, our gazes will instantly look away like two magnets of the same polarity. Vision has therefore boundaries.

Touch on the other hand is still penetrating, looking for truth but in the same way it can be invading and unwelcome. Its boundaries are ambiguous. Today our daily social interactions cannot easily be defined by the tactile sense because of the existence of a strong “personal space”. This is defined by the Oxford Dictionaries (2012) as “the physical space immediately surrounding someone, into which encroachment can feel threatening or uncomfortable”.

Today, misunderstandings are situations which we look to avoid in our daily interactions because of this amplification of our personal space making its dynamics impossible to predict. Under these conditions the intimacy of the tactile sense is not without risks – risks which in the contemporary world we are not prepare to take in our social interactions.

Pallasmaa’s concerns of the way architecture is approached today are centred on the dominance of the visual sense (occulacentrism) and its consequences: “the world becomes a hedonistic but meaningless visual journey” (Pallasmaa, 2005, 22). However modern conditions justify to a great extend the empowerment of the visual sense, in a way that any suggestion to alter or correct this should have an impact not just on architectural thought, but also in areas like the media, marketing and advertisement, urban planning and the internet.

From the Renaissance to Le Corbusier, the hygiene of the visual was encouraged in city planning (Pallasmaa, 2005, 29). In addition, architecture could not be left unaffected from the media frenzy which characterises the last decades and the persuasive power of advertisement and marketing. Under these influences it was unavoidable for architecture to become a field dominated by the visual image.

The outcome of this process was to create a new, commercialised aspect of the architectural practise. According to Vesely (2004, 3), such commercial forces created a “rather narrow contemporary vision of architecture as a discipline that can be treated as an instrument, or as a commodity”.

In a different aspect, the wide spread influence of the internet has made visual imagery an important tool for people around the globe to “share” their architecture. For Pallasmaa (2005, 46), “the eye is the organ of distance and separation”. But in this case is it not the visual realm as provided by the internet that provides a close up look in architecture around the world despite the physical distance separating the observer? Merleau-Ponty had defined our body as the centre of the experiential world (Pallasmaa, 2005, 40). However today we need to experience architecture without being physically present and essentially without the involvement of senses like touch and smell because of technological restrictions. Pallasmaa (2005, 36) admits that simulations like sound enhanced – animation can offer a more haptic experience despite the fact that they are creations of the visual realm. Progress is still to be made in the future and simulation technology will eventually develop a widely used system of virtual reality which will possibly incorporate all our senses. It should be noted that the outcome would still be a simulation but in a world acting under the forces of globalisation such simulation should be necessary since people want to be involved with architectural issues all over the world even if they are not physically affected by them

Contemporary architectural projects affect millions of people in the highly urbanised world in which we live in. The visual imagery offered by technology, proves to be an absolutely necessary tool through which architectural projects can be globally communicated to the public. This allows for public discussion and critique, greatly improving social contribution to decision making regarding the urban environment.

With the possibilities created for architectural communication, the visual world of technology has created even greater possibilities in the creative process of architectural design through computer aided design software (CAD). But at the same time this can be considered a significant cost to architectural practise as the design process has suddenly shifted away from the traditional methods. It is in this context that Pallasmaa focuses his argument about a distant visual sense in comparison to the traditional haptic approach to design: “The computer creates a distance between the maker and the object, whereas drawing by hand as well as model making put the designer into a haptic contact with the object or space” (Pallasmaa, 2005, 12).

However despite the obvious authenticity of the traditional design method, it seems that the role of the multisensory bodily experience in the design process is still overshadowed by the demand for a more accessible, market oriented and above all, technologically compatible practise. In his interview to Blaine Brownell, Makoto Sei Watanabe who is involved in algorithmic design, is suggesting that the traditional way of design is “arbitrary in nature” (Brownell, 2011, 218). According to Watanabe, this method of design is unfortunately only “the genius of the brain” and not accessible to everyone (Brownell, 2011, 218). So in order to improve the accessibility of the architectural practise and apply it to contemporary demands, he suggests that: “We can instead use software that is accessible to anyone because its rules are transparent” (Brownell, 2011, 218-219).

Is such approach to design then incapable of creating meaningful architecture - as its meaning is to be defined in the criteria set by the age in which it exists? How unnatural and inhuman can it really be considered in comparison to the traditional design method? A look at the example of Mexican modernist architect Juan O'Gorman can light one aspect of the argument. The innovative idea of modernism was not easy to implement in a culture strongly connected with its identity. Working in the context of modernism an era greatly defined by the machine and a shift away from tradition, O'Gorman’s design for the Rivera-Kahlo house is evaluated in the words of Toyo Ito (2011, 134) : “it failed due to a rejection of the body as a strong collective memory of the land."

Is the innovative shift to technology going to have the same results as the modernist example? Japanese architect Toyo Ito whose work is largely based on computer technology, might have the answer for applying these new possibilities in respect of our current context. His approach may be the key in reconfiguring the urban environment towards more human friendly conditions. In the heavy urban landscape, Ito’s “obsession with lightness and his desire to strip away anything that reminds us of gravity” (Worsley, 2002), can be a decisively human approach in an environment dominated by vertical masses. For Ito (2011, 168), the dissection of structural elements such as columns beams and walls offered by computer technology and innovative materials, has revolutionised the way space is conceived through architectural design. Talking about his 2002 Serpentine pavilion – designed in collaboration with structural engineer Cecil Balmond – Ito explains the experience created in the absence of these traditional construction elements: “the experience of being inside the pavilion with no visible columns and beams or windows and doors, none of the usual hierarchy of architectural forms, is that of space itself – an ever-fluctuating, self-recursive abstract space” (Ito, 2011, 169).

If computer technology can inform the design process in a way which can allow for enhanced spatial interaction then how come according to Pallasmaa (2005, 31) “architectural structures become repulsively flat, sharp edged, immaterial and unreal” ? Is it because of “the loss of tactility” as Pallasmaa (2005, 31) suggests, or is the computer eventually to blame for this result? It is quite possible that the answer is hidden deeper in the roots of the architectural practise and that the computer is mistaken to be at fault because of its predominantly visual and not multisensory nature. But this could be a problem that is not necessarily relevant to the sensual spectrum. The problem is rooted in the methods of representation. From a phenomenological point of view, the flat and sharp nature of architecture is considered to be such because it is more acceptable to the visual realm. Is that true however or is it because it is simply easier to craft? Complexity is everywhere in nature and our vision is intrigued by it and not alienated. But it is not easy to physically replicate – craft – nature. It can be therefore argued that hapticity has constraints and computer technology is needed to complement it in order to achieve the high levels of precision required in architectural representation.

To better understand the role of technology and that of bodily involvement, consider the following example: Imagine that you need to design a tree. You can mould it in your mind, colour it and let it interact with the wind. But in order to construct it you need to represent it in two dimensions as well. Specifically you need to take a section out of your tree. You can still imagine this section and actually cut the tree in half and look inside. You can sense in your mind that you touch it and even feel the verticality of the section plane! But can you guarantee that you can represent the flatness of the section with the required precision either on paper or with a section model? You wouldn’t ever be able to predict precisely the position of thousands of branches in terms of the section cut with the traditional methods of the practise.

So the visual dominance of our times may not be the reason why today’s architecture is so simple and flat. It is the restraints in the representation – the actual crafting of such organic forms – and not the constraints in their conceptual creation. It is eventually a problem which tactility is unable to solve. In a drawing such as the orthographic, precision is elemental. In order to rationalise the complexity of organic forms you need the help of CAD.

Out of this situation we can see that in the contemporary world the influence of the body and its senses on architecture is not as clear as one would think: it is evident that there is a distinguishable division between on one hand the design process: Here multisensory involvement and the reconsideration of the visual dominance are desirable. On the other hand is architectural representation, where the visual realm empowered by technology is vital for the current context. The rest of our senses have yet little to offer in this field but technological progress may change the situation in the future.

This distinction is evident in Vesely’s words: “The distance separating the instrumental and the communicative understanding of architecture represents a wide gap in our contemporary culture” (Vesely, 2004, 4). But Vesely does not look at this issue lightly. He goes on to suggest that despite our era calls for a reinforcement of the visual realm, this is not without costs. The risk lays in “issues pertaining to the truth of representation” (Vesely, 2004, 44). To him – as for Pallasmaa – the aim of our practise is human life (Vesely, 2004, 5). In these words the meaning of architecture is immediately defined even in the contemporary context. He comments that trying to achieve humanity with inhuman means such as computer technology is indeed paradoxical (Vesely, 2004, 5).

“Architecture has probably never abandoned completely its humanistic role; though in modern times this role has mostly been improvised” (Vesely, 2004, 5). Therefore essentially, the goal of architecture has not significantly changed, only the tools to realise it. From this assumption it is evident that architects of today are still capable of meaningful architecture despite the substantial reduction of bodily involvement.

'''BIBLIOGRAPHY'''

Brownell, B., 2011. ''Matter in the floating world : conversations with leading Japanese architects and designers. ''New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Cataluña, C. d. A. d., 2006. ''EMBT - Enric Miralles, Benedetta Tagliabue : work in progress. ''Barcelona: Col.legi d'Arquitectes de Catalunya .

Gomez, A. P., 1983. ''Architecture and the crisis of modern science. ''Cambridge, Mass. ; London: MIT Press.

Ito, T., 2011. ''Tarzans in the media forest. ''London: Architectural Association.

Jenks, C. & Baird, G., 1969. ''Meaning in architecture. ''London: Barrie & Rockliff .

Kahn, L. I., 1991. ''Louis I. Kahn: Writings, Lectures, Interviews. ''New York: Rizzoli International publications, Inc.

Pallasmaa, J., 2005. ''The Eyes of the Skin. ''Chichester: John Wley & Sons Ltd.

Pallasmaa, J., 2009. ''The Thinking Hand: Existential and embodied wisdom in architecture. ''Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Psathas, G., 1990. ''Phenomenology and sociology : theory and research. ''Lanham ; London: Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology & University Press of America .

Schulz, C. N., 1971. ''Existence, space & architecture. ''London: Studio Vista.

Vesely, D., 2004. ''Architecture in the age of divided representation : the question of creativity in the shadow of production. ''Massachusett: MIT Press.

Zumthor, P., 2006. ''Atmospheres: architectural environments, surrounding objects. ''Basel: Birkhäuser.

'''WEBSITES'''

Worsley, G., 2002. ''The Telegraph. ''[Online] Accessed 16 December 2011, Available at: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/3580220/Opening-up-a-box-of-delights.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/3580220/Opening-up-a-box-of-delights.html] 

2009. ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ''[Online] Accessed 12 January 2012, Available at: [http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=phenomenology http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=phenomenology] 

Holl, S., 2012. ''Architectural Record. ''[Online] Accessed 28 December 2011, Available at: [http://archrecord.construction.com/community/letters/steven_holl.asp http://archrecord.construction.com/community/letters/steven_holl.asp] 

Curtis, W. J., 2012. ''Architectural Record. ''[Online] Accessed 28 December 2011, Available at: [http://archrecord.construction.com/features/critique/2011/1102commentary.asp http://archrecord.construction.com/features/critique/2011/1102commentary.asp] 

“comfort”, 2012. ''Oxford Dictionaries. ''[Online] Accessed 8 January 2012, Available at: [http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/comfort?q=comfort http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/comfort?q=comfort] “personal space”, 2012. ''Oxford Dictionaries. ''[Online] Accessed 27 December 2011, Available at: [http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/personal%2Bspace?q=personal+space http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/personal%2Bspace?q=personal+space]

[[Category:Student_architect_essay_competition]]

Phenomenology

2012-11-24T02:29:27Z

Spsls: Created page with " Juhani Pallasmaa (2005, 10) in explaining the aim of his book “The Eyes of the Skin”, emphasizes his intention “to create a conceptual short circuit between the dominant ..."

Juhani Pallasmaa (2005, 10) in explaining the aim of his book “The Eyes of the Skin”, emphasizes his intention “to create a conceptual short circuit between the dominant sense of vision and the suppressed sense modality of touch.” At first glance, Pallasmaa‘s ambition to explore and reveal the forgotten multisensory interaction with the world, appears to be an obvious necessity in our contemporary life. But to what extend is the rediscovery of the multisensory bodily experience essential and applicable in the contemporary world? And furthermore, is that what really defines meaningful architecture or is it just another approach towards this realisation? These questions can only be answered through a review of what the role of bodily interaction is today not just in terms of architecture but also as an influence on our day-to-day social interactions.

It is obvious that our daily lives have been greatly influenced by the applications of modern technology. One of the purposes of modern architectural design and also a measure of our quality of life is comfort. The meaning of comfort is defined by Oxford Dictionaries (2012) as “a state of physical ease”. Technology has provided simplicity making our lives easier. In this context the manual aspect of our daily life has been significantly undermined. Consequently our bodily involvement in our experience of life has been reduced to the senses favoured by technology, predominantly vision.

The need for simplicity and the search for comfort through innovation have largely inspired technology. Today, touch screens have reduced our interaction with our physical environment to a mere touch on a digital surface in places even beyond the domestic context. Similarly our daily wants are often satisfied with the click of a button. Under these conditions how more tactile could the modern world be? The expected outcome seems to be an even further reduction to the haptic aspect of our day to day interaction with the world. Even factors like the spread of viral pandemic diseases in the last decade have favoured this shift away from tactility and technology had already pushed motion sensors in our lives in a constantly growing range of applications. Therefore it is questionable to what extend an enhancement in the role of bodily involvement is possible in the lives of contemporary people.

However this cannot suggest that it is applicable in the architectural practise. Pallasmaa (2009, 16) argues that “the hand grasps the physicality and materiality of thought and turns it into a concrete image”. To Pallasmaa the traditional methods of sketching are more natural and certain. The hand interacting with the paper reveals an almost primitive relation in Luis Kahn’s words in his 1931 writing “The value and aim in sketching”: “I try in all my sketching not to be entirely subservient to my subject, but I have respect for it, and regard it as something tangible – alive – from which to extract my feelings.” (Kahn, 1991, 11)

Comparing the sense of vision to the sense of touch, Rene Descartes suggested that tactility “is more certain and less vulnerable to error” (Pallasmaa, 2005, 19). But to what extend is this applicable anymore? Has it remained true even in the modern world, a world which Pallasmaa (2009, 22) characterised as hedonistic? Is it not our very own skin responsible for our most dangerous desires? Our skin is deeply associated with lust, craving and immorality. Imagine if we were to base many of our decisions according to the appetites of the flesh.

How does such comparison of vision and touch apply in the modern context? Vision is still considered honest in an instinctive way: people have been looking into each other’s eyes for evidence of truth. They are still considered the “mirrors of the soul”. In that sense vision can penetrating but at the same time discreet. When we stare intensely in another person’s eyes, our gazes will instantly look away like two magnets of the same polarity. Vision has therefore boundaries.

Touch on the other hand is still penetrating, looking for truth but in the same way it can be invading and unwelcome. Its boundaries are ambiguous. Today our daily social interactions cannot easily be defined by the tactile sense because of the existence of a strong “personal space”. This is defined by the Oxford Dictionaries (2012) as “the physical space immediately surrounding someone, into which encroachment can feel threatening or uncomfortable”.

Today, misunderstandings are situations which we look to avoid in our daily interactions because of this amplification of our personal space making its dynamics impossible to predict. Under these conditions the intimacy of the tactile sense is not without risks – risks which in the contemporary world we are not prepare to take in our social interactions.

Pallasmaa’s concerns of the way architecture is approached today are centred on the dominance of the visual sense (occulacentrism) and its consequences: “the world becomes a hedonistic but meaningless visual journey” (Pallasmaa, 2005, 22). However modern conditions justify to a great extend the empowerment of the visual sense, in a way that any suggestion to alter or correct this should have an impact not just on architectural thought, but also in areas like the media, marketing and advertisement, urban planning and the internet.

From the Renaissance to Le Corbusier, the hygiene of the visual was encouraged in city planning (Pallasmaa, 2005, 29). In addition, architecture could not be left unaffected from the media frenzy which characterises the last decades and the persuasive power of advertisement and marketing. Under these influences it was unavoidable for architecture to become a field dominated by the visual image.

The outcome of this process was to create a new, commercialised aspect of the architectural practise. According to Vesely (2004, 3), such commercial forces created a “rather narrow contemporary vision of architecture as a discipline that can be treated as an instrument, or as a commodity”.

In a different aspect, the wide spread influence of the internet has made visual imagery an important tool for people around the globe to “share” their architecture. For Pallasmaa (2005, 46), “the eye is the organ of distance and separation”. But in this case is it not the visual realm as provided by the internet that provides a close up look in architecture around the world despite the physical distance separating the observer? Merleau-Ponty had defined our body as the centre of the experiential world (Pallasmaa, 2005, 40). However today we need to experience architecture without being physically present and essentially without the involvement of senses like touch and smell because of technological restrictions. Pallasmaa (2005, 36) admits that simulations like sound enhanced – animation can offer a more haptic experience despite the fact that they are creations of the visual realm. Progress is still to be made in the future and simulation technology will eventually develop a widely used system of virtual reality which will possibly incorporate all our senses. It should be noted that the outcome would still be a simulation but in a world acting under the forces of globalisation such simulation should be necessary since people want to be involved with architectural issues all over the world even if they are not physically affected by them

Contemporary architectural projects affect millions of people in the highly urbanised world in which we live in. The visual imagery offered by technology, proves to be an absolutely necessary tool through which architectural projects can be globally communicated to the public. This allows for public discussion and critique, greatly improving social contribution to decision making regarding the urban environment.

With the possibilities created for architectural communication, the visual world of technology has created even greater possibilities in the creative process of architectural design through computer aided design software (CAD). But at the same time this can be considered a significant cost to architectural practise as the design process has suddenly shifted away from the traditional methods. It is in this context that Pallasmaa focuses his argument about a distant visual sense in comparison to the traditional haptic approach to design: “The computer creates a distance between the maker and the object, whereas drawing by hand as well as model making put the designer into a haptic contact with the object or space” (Pallasmaa, 2005, 12).

However despite the obvious authenticity of the traditional design method, it seems that the role of the multisensory bodily experience in the design process is still overshadowed by the demand for a more accessible, market oriented and above all, technologically compatible practise. In his interview to Blaine Brownell, Makoto Sei Watanabe who is involved in algorithmic design, is suggesting that the traditional way of design is “arbitrary in nature” (Brownell, 2011, 218). According to Watanabe, this method of design is unfortunately only “the genius of the brain” and not accessible to everyone (Brownell, 2011, 218). So in order to improve the accessibility of the architectural practise and apply it to contemporary demands, he suggests that: “We can instead use software that is accessible to anyone because its rules are transparent” (Brownell, 2011, 218-219).

Is such approach to design then incapable of creating meaningful architecture - as its meaning is to be defined in the criteria set by the age in which it exists? How unnatural and inhuman can it really be considered in comparison to the traditional design method? A look at the example of Mexican modernist architect Juan O'Gorman can light one aspect of the argument. The innovative idea of modernism was not easy to implement in a culture strongly connected with its identity. Working in the context of modernism an era greatly defined by the machine and a shift away from tradition, O'Gorman’s design for the Rivera-Kahlo house is evaluated in the words of Toyo Ito (2011, 134) : “it failed due to a rejection of the body as a strong collective memory of the land."

Is the innovative shift to technology going to have the same results as the modernist example? Japanese architect Toyo Ito whose work is largely based on computer technology, might have the answer for applying these new possibilities in respect of our current context. His approach may be the key in reconfiguring the urban environment towards more human friendly conditions. In the heavy urban landscape, Ito’s “obsession with lightness and his desire to strip away anything that reminds us of gravity” (Worsley, 2002), can be a decisively human approach in an environment dominated by vertical masses. For Ito (2011, 168), the dissection of structural elements such as columns beams and walls offered by computer technology and innovative materials, has revolutionised the way space is conceived through architectural design. Talking about his 2002 Serpentine pavilion – designed in collaboration with structural engineer Cecil Balmond – Ito explains the experience created in the absence of these traditional construction elements: “the experience of being inside the pavilion with no visible columns and beams or windows and doors, none of the usual hierarchy of architectural forms, is that of space itself – an ever-fluctuating, self-recursive abstract space” (Ito, 2011, 169).

If computer technology can inform the design process in a way which can allow for enhanced spatial interaction then how come according to Pallasmaa (2005, 31) “architectural structures become repulsively flat, sharp edged, immaterial and unreal” ? Is it because of “the loss of tactility” as Pallasmaa (2005, 31) suggests, or is the computer eventually to blame for this result? It is quite possible that the answer is hidden deeper in the roots of the architectural practise and that the computer is mistaken to be at fault because of its predominantly visual and not multisensory nature. But this could be a problem that is not necessarily relevant to the sensual spectrum. The problem is rooted in the methods of representation. From a phenomenological point of view, the flat and sharp nature of architecture is considered to be such because it is more acceptable to the visual realm. Is that true however or is it because it is simply easier to craft? Complexity is everywhere in nature and our vision is intrigued by it and not alienated. But it is not easy to physically replicate – craft – nature. It can be therefore argued that hapticity has constraints and computer technology is needed to complement it in order to achieve the high levels of precision required in architectural representation.

To better understand the role of technology and that of bodily involvement, consider the following example: Imagine that you need to design a tree. You can mould it in your mind, colour it and let it interact with the wind. But in order to construct it you need to represent it in two dimensions as well. Specifically you need to take a section out of your tree. You can still imagine this section and actually cut the tree in half and look inside. You can sense in your mind that you touch it and even feel the verticality of the section plane! But can you guarantee that you can represent the flatness of the section with the required precision either on paper or with a section model? You wouldn’t ever be able to predict precisely the position of thousands of branches in terms of the section cut with the traditional methods of the practise.

So the visual dominance of our times may not be the reason why today’s architecture is so simple and flat. It is the restraints in the representation – the actual crafting of such organic forms – and not the constraints in their conceptual creation. It is eventually a problem which tactility is unable to solve. In a drawing such as the orthographic, precision is elemental. In order to rationalise the complexity of organic forms you need the help of CAD.

Out of this situation we can see that in the contemporary world the influence of the body and its senses on architecture is not as clear as one would think: it is evident that there is a distinguishable division between on one hand the design process: Here multisensory involvement and the reconsideration of the visual dominance are desirable. On the other hand is architectural representation, where the visual realm empowered by technology is vital for the current context. The rest of our senses have yet little to offer in this field but technological progress may change the situation in the future.

This distinction is evident in Vesely’s words: “The distance separating the instrumental and the communicative understanding of architecture represents a wide gap in our contemporary culture” (Vesely, 2004, 4). But Vesely does not look at this issue lightly. He goes on to suggest that despite our era calls for a reinforcement of the visual realm, this is not without costs. The risk lays in “issues pertaining to the truth of representation” (Vesely, 2004, 44). To him – as for Pallasmaa – the aim of our practise is human life (Vesely, 2004, 5). In these words the meaning of architecture is immediately defined even in the contemporary context. He comments that trying to achieve humanity with inhuman means such as computer technology is indeed paradoxical (Vesely, 2004, 5).

“Architecture has probably never abandoned completely its humanistic role; though in modern times this role has mostly been improvised” (Vesely, 2004, 5). Therefore essentially, the goal of architecture has not significantly changed, only the tools to realise it. From this assumption it is evident that architects of today are still capable of meaningful architecture despite the substantial reduction of bodily involvement.

'''BIBLIOGRAPHY'''

Brownell, B., 2011. ''Matter in the floating world : conversations with leading Japanese architects and designers. ''New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Cataluña, C. d. A. d., 2006. ''EMBT - Enric Miralles, Benedetta Tagliabue : work in progress. ''Barcelona: Col.legi d'Arquitectes de Catalunya .

Gomez, A. P., 1983. ''Architecture and the crisis of modern science. ''Cambridge, Mass. ; London: MIT Press.

Ito, T., 2011. ''Tarzans in the media forest. ''London: Architectural Association.

Jenks, C. & Baird, G., 1969. ''Meaning in architecture. ''London: Barrie & Rockliff .

Kahn, L. I., 1991. ''Louis I. Kahn: Writings, Lectures, Interviews. ''New York: Rizzoli International publications, Inc.

Pallasmaa, J., 2005. ''The Eyes of the Skin. ''Chichester: John Wley & Sons Ltd.

Pallasmaa, J., 2009. ''The Thinking Hand: Existential and embodied wisdom in architecture. ''Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Psathas, G., 1990. ''Phenomenology and sociology : theory and research. ''Lanham ; London: Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology & University Press of America .

Schulz, C. N., 1971. ''Existence, space & architecture. ''London: Studio Vista.

Vesely, D., 2004. ''Architecture in the age of divided representation : the question of creativity in the shadow of production. ''Massachusett: MIT Press.

Zumthor, P., 2006. ''Atmospheres: architectural environments, surrounding objects. ''Basel: Birkhäuser.

'''WEBSITES'''

Worsley, G., 2002. ''The Telegraph. ''[Online] Accessed 16 December 2011, Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/3580220/Opening-up-a-box-of-delights.html 

2009. ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ''[Online] Accessed 12 January 2012, Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=phenomenology 

Holl, S., 2012. ''Architectural Record. ''[Online] Accessed 28 December 2011, Available at: http://archrecord.construction.com/community/letters/steven_holl.asp 

Curtis, W. J., 2012. ''Architectural Record. ''[Online] Accessed 28 December 2011, Available at: http://archrecord.construction.com/features/critique/2011/1102commentary.asp 

“comfort”, 2012. ''Oxford Dictionaries. ''[Online] Accessed 8 January 2012, Available at: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/comfort?q=comfort 
“personal space”, 2012. ''Oxford Dictionaries. ''[Online] Accessed 27 December 2011, Available at: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/personal%2Bspace?q=personal+space

User:Spsls

2012-11-24T02:16:53Z

Spsls:

Stefanos Theodotou

B(Arch) Architecture

Nottingham Trent University

stephos.th@hotmail.com

User:Spsls

2012-11-24T02:15:53Z

Spsls: Created page with " Stefanos Theodotou B(Arch) Architecture Nottingham Trent University"

Stefanos Theodotou

B(Arch) Architecture

Nottingham Trent University