|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Nold Egenter
Joined: 31 Dec 2005
Posts: 51
Location: Zurich Switzerland
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:06 am Post subject: HUMAN SPACE part ll |
    |
|
HUMAN SPACE part II
_______________
THE HOUSE AND THE FEELING OF SECURITY
The first main chapter, which deals with the evolution of man's close spatial environment, is rather theoretical. Now Bollnow regains his grip on the same theme in a very concrete sense: the house is discussed; architecture comes in. The titles of the main section are:'The Meaning of the House' / 'The Sacred Space' / 'Cosiness' / 'Door and Window' / 'The Bed' / 'Waking Up and Falling Asleep'.
The house has preserved archetypal values
Bollnow quotes several authors who characterized the house as the centre of the world. This mythical concept of an axis mundi had to be abandoned in exchange for the larger dimensions of space in the sense discussed above, but it was widely preserved on the level of the house. Today modern society will have to realize once more that dwelling is a basic condition of man. It provides much more than mere existence. Bollnow critically refers to the existentialist, who thinks of himself as an eternal foreigner, thrown at random into the world. But dwelling, according to Bollnow, means to be at home, that is to say, in a particular place, and this implies special conditions. Many notions related to the house express a feeling of security and protection.
The anthropological function of the house
Bollnow goes even further, postulating an "anthropological function of the house" within the whole context of human life:a feeling of security is essential for the self-identification of humans. Only as a dweller can he/she find his/her own essence and be fully human. Without his/her dwelling, "the inner destruction of man is unavoidable." (:136) He refers to Goethe, who, in his 'Faust', considered a man deprived of a dwelling to be a "nonhuman being, without purpose or rest." Bollnow indicates that the "anthropological function of the house" has to be rediscovered. After the breakdown of many conventional systems, any allusion to security has become suspicious. Contrary to Schiller, who neglects the house and thinks that man must confront his hostile outside world, Bollnow postulates the polar balance of ex®¢centric tension in the outside world and centric tranquillity in the protected house. According to him, this balance is the prerequisite for human health.
Sacred space
The following paragraphs deal with the close relationship between sacred space and the protected space of the house. Even the profane concept of Le Corbusier's "dwelling machine" could not destroy this sacred meaning, which finds expression in individual and social control with regard to the private sphere. Nobody is allowed to enter a dwelling without the dweller's consent. Private space is legally protected. "House and temple are essentially one" (Van der Leeuv).
Filters for protection
Extremely enriching are Bollnow's descriptions of the objective elements which guarantee the privacy of the house. Any dwelling space requires openings towards the outside, otherwise interior rooms become prison cells. The "semipermeability" of the door allows opening and closing. The one who occupies or owns the dwelling decides when and to whom he opens his door. This provides the personal freedom to retire into one's own domain. The dweller differentiates between friends, who have access, and strangers who are kept out. Essential for this social mechanism are the lock and the key. Further, for such reasons, traditional belief has endowed the threshold with a very high value. Today these values are lost because security is guaranteed at higher social levels (city, state).
The window is not just a device to let in daylight; it is also "the eye of the house", which permits us to observe the outer world. Often this mutual relation is filtered. Curtains allow a view to the outside without the observer being seen. Bollnow also points out the meaning of the window in romanticism and in some writings of Rilke:a frame which gives the outside section a particular meaning.
The bed
An extremely important element in Bollnow's anthropological consideration of the house is the bed. The hearth has lost its meaning as the centre of the house. Later it was partly replaced by the table as the scene of family meals. But even today, the most important centre is the bed. In the morning, it is the starting point for going to work outside and, in the evening, the returning point after a busy day. Further, it is the most intimate domain of the house or of an apartment; in general, it is not accessible to visitors. This daily cycle of going and coming is reproduced at the level of the life cycle:man is usually born in a bed and usually dies in bed.
There is an interesting cultural history of the bed, starting with such simple devices as the primitive hole filled with straw as a place for sleeping to more stable arrangements, e.g., the fourposter bed, a fully fledged house within the house.
The phenomenology of waking up and falling asleep
These furnishings relate to a physical polarity of man which Bollnow describes in great detail and in terms of its complex relations:standing and lying, physical activity and rest, muscular tension and muscular relaxation, conscious perception of the environment and cessation of all sensual relations during sleep. Bollnow attaches great importance to these polar relations and carefully describes transitional stages:waking up and falling asleep. He makes very interesting observations with regard to the daily reconstruction of the personal spatial world and its dissolution in favour of the unconscious state while sleeping at night. Having read all these very plausible descriptions of basic human conditions, the reader will be horrified by the artificiality of modern principles of design and by architecture devoid of all these elementary relations of man and space.
ASPECTS OF SPACE
This main chapter gives a kind of typology of spaces related to particular forms of human behaviour ('hodological space', 'action space', 'present or momentary space', 'human space for living together') or more related to environmental conditions ('day space' and 'night space') or between both ('space of good or bad moods').
Hodological space
The term 'hodological space' is derived from the Greek word 'hodos' , path, way. In contrast to the mathematical concept of space as presented on maps, plans, etc. 'hodological space' is based on the factual topological, physical, social, and psychological conditions a person is faced with on the way from point A to point B, whether in an open landscape or within urban or architectural conditions. Bollnow gives many interesting observations on the cultural implications of hodological distances as compared and contrasted with geometrical distances (language and culture in mountain valleys; traditional traffic conditions in mountainous regions; the structure of war landscape with its absolute focus on the front). But of particular importance is his description of an apartment and, e.g. its "cave-like character". In the architect's plan of a housing project, two points in two different apartments located side by side may be just some 30 or 40 centimetres apart (separated by a wall). But, what somebody goes through in term of physical and psychological stress, to go from one of these points to the other, this is described very impressively by Bollnow. The vital condition of the hodological relation might be tremendously different from that of the architect! In short, Bollnow presents an important lesson for architects and designers, which should teach them to think a little bit more while drawing with their pencils.
The space of action
In extension of the hodological concept, Bollnow distinguishes and describes 'the space of action' which is a three-dimensional ergological concept of space, structured and organized according to any type of human work (stockroom, warehouse, craft, place of study, library, etc.; see Heidegger's notion of "Zuhandenheit").
Bollnow's genetic observations on this type of space are remarkable:spatial environments are organized by individuals to only a limited extent. We all are born into them, learn to understand the intrinsic values that govern them and adapt to them in terms of 'orderly behaviour'. We all know to some extent the requirements of "good upbringing" (in German:'gute Kinderstube', 'sie ist aus gutem Hause'). Dilthey's suggestion of interpreting such orderly space as an 'objectified mind' in the sense of Hegel is of great significance for architecture, but, - if architecture is taken as a continuum of anthropological dimensions, - it cannot be discussed merely on a philosophical level.
Day space and night space
'Day space' is sight space. 'Night space' is basically touch and hearing space (Sight is ineffective). Within these extremes, Bollnow marvellously describes the very differentiated spectrum of twilight, dusk, and semi-dark spaces:the paradoxical character of the woods, free for walking anywhere but closely limited with regard to sight, like a shade the narrow space accompanies the wanderer. Similarly fog, heavy snowfall, and dusk entirely change the conditions of space. "The night created a thousand monsters" says Goethe.
The space of good and bad moods
The 'space of good or bad moods' relates to various external conditions ('narrowness and expanse', 'the sensual and moral effects of colour', 'interior spaces') and internal conditions ('the stifling space of the fearful heart', 'euphoric space'). Bollnow richly fills these concepts with quotations from literature, scientific discussions (e.g. Binswanger) and his own reflections.
Present space
The section of 'momentary or present space' deals mainly with the phenomenon of dancing and how it relates to spatial experiences.
The space-producing force of love
Very striking is Bollnow's description of 'the space of humans living together'. On one hand, there is the merciless 'fight for living space' which produces clear spatial barriers and creates rivalries among humans. On the other hand, there is the 'creation of space through the force of love' and the strange phenomenon that this 'living together of lovers' does not increase space in terms of quantity:lovers share the same space; they create a home for themselves.
SPATIALITY OF HUMAN LIFE
This fifth main chapter gives a theoretical synthesis of what was found during the preceding chapters. There are three sections ('to be in space and to have space', 'types of individual space', 'summary and prospect'). Initially, Bollnow questions the concept of perceptional psychology (intentional space) and gives his own definition of space as an ambivalent "medium" which is dialectically constructed between subject and environment, between human (physical and psychological) dispositions and environmental conditions.
Against existentialism
The main discussion questions the existentialists' position (Heidegger, Sartre) of being "thrown" into the world. Bollnow summarizes his own findings, maintains that dwelling implies having roots somewhere, means to be at home and protected at a particular place, and that the spatiality of man in general can be interpreted as "dwelling". He then presents his own typology of 'individual space' (Eigenraum) consisting of 'three domains of dwelling' ('body', 'house,' and 'open space') and finds his standpoint supported by behavioural studies of zoology and animal psychology (Uexküll, Hediger, Peters, Portmann; animals do not live freely in a homogeneous space, but have fixed points within defined territories from which they depart and to which they return for rest and protection).
Four modified stages of human spatiality
The summary indicates four modified stages of human spatiality:a primary naive spatial confidence, the feeling of security like that of a child. This is contrasted with the fear of homelessness, which gives the feeling of being lost. This again is countered by the institution of the house to provide protection, but since no protection is absolute, the consciousness of a higher level of security in larger spatial dimensions is of importance.
Obviously, Bollnow's philosophical standpoint opposes ex- istentialism's giving priority to "protecting space". Together with Bachelard he considers the "conscious metaphysics" of the existentialists to be secondary:"The house ... is the primary world of human existence. Before he is 'thrown into the world', .... man is laid into the cradle of the house."
CONCLUSIONS
We have followed the essential lines of Bollnow's study on 'Man and Space', trying to give an impression of his large and profound study as far as this is possible with a book of more than 300 pages. It has been clearly shown that Bollnow's home is philosophy, in particular phenomenology with its admirable curiosity for the many aspects of this important theme. On the other hand, Bollnow does not give the impression that studies of human experience of space is merely a philosophical problem. On the contrary, he extends his research into psychology, into human behaviour and the conventional domains of architecture:dwelling in a building, in an apartment, in a house.
At the beginning of the present paper, we hinted at the fact that, together with the studies of Mircea Eliade and Dagobert Frey, O.F. Bollnow's study on man and space had entered the realm of architectural theory, Norberg-Schulz being the mediator. Consequently, we want to emphasize here the achievements of Bollnow for architectural research in seven points as follows.
It is in this line close to architectural theory that Bollnow perhaps contributed most by presenting a wide research programme directed towards an 'anthropology of space', towards an 'anthropology of dwelling', an 'anthropology of building'. In the following we try to list his seven main achievements:
1 The archaic concept of space is related to the foundation of dwellings and settlements:based on the German etymology of "Raum" (space) and other related terms, Bollnow plausibly shows that the notion of space was originally closely related to the narrow environment of the foundation of settlements. The conventional use of such terms too, is closely related to dwelling, to constructed objects, to building.
2 Global and cosmological space concepts are a secondary development:The global and cosmologically infinite concept of space is a very late idea in European history: it begins in the 14th century and develops with the modern history of discovery and science. Historically, large spatial origins become fictions. Early ideologies have to be reconstructed in their local environment. Metaphysically founded theories of creation become highly questionable. The study of archaic settlements may thus become extremely important in reconstructing a new non-Eurocentric anthropology.
3 Space in the anthropological sense is not homogenous:Bollnow presents space as a perceptional development between man and environment. Anthropologically, the conventional (deductively postulated) concept of homogenous space becomes a fiction:there are numerous spaces. Bollnow describes a large spectrum of spaces related to resting and dwelling and moving along paths, deals extensively with day and night spaces, euphoric space, momentary space, etc. Thus, Bollnow presents not only an overall system of general reference, but also a rich catalogue of descriptions, problems, assumptions, and hypotheses for research in spatial concepts of man.
4 Space is basically related to dwelling:space shows existential poles. The house or the dwelling is the most important centre of man's daily life, as opposed to the mobile and anonymous exterior. Humans absolutely need this protection provided by their dwelling; they particularly need the place to sleep provided by their dwelling. The place where they dwell forms the fixed point in their more or less stationary existence and is the point of daily return after their daily activities outside the house. Here too, Bollnow presents a whole catalogue of convincing hypotheses about multispatiality of living and dwelling in and around the house.
5 Anthropological space is expressed in polar relations: Bollnow uses a quite surprising new type of thinking, namely relational. He does not clearly define space as this or that, but shows how various domains are related in human existence, that human existence is a kind of rhythm between contrasting poles. He thus constructs a highly complex 'theory of relativity' of polar or complementary relations of spatial activities and experiences. Environmental and human conditions structure space in polar relations. It seems that Bollnow has discovered a very ancient and deeply rooted truth of our spatial existence.
6 Closely related to Mircea Eliade, but in opposition to his religious interpretation, Bollnow maintains that archaic space was centred and that such 'centres of the world' were marked: the historian of religion Mircea Eliade has analyzed structural principles in the world concepts of many archaic religions but interpreted them as based on "revelation" (hierophania) and thus remained in the conventional domains of metaphysics and theology. In sharp contrast to Eliade, Bollnow, following his main thesis of the environmental origins of space concepts, emphasizes the spatial aspects of such religious phenomena and focuses on a wide spectrum of objective and architectural elements related to such "centres of the world" or "axis mundi". He thus provides the fundament for objective or inductive topographical or architectural studies in religion.
7 Space (including dwelling and building) is an important subject of philosophical and anthropological research: Bollnow's rich and detailed study exercises a strong fascination. Absolutely fundamental philosophical and anthropological insights are developed on the basis of observations in our own close environment. And his arguments are absolutely convincing. We realize that the quasi-religious zeal of the historian has prevented us from experiencing and reflecting on one of the most important human conditions: space and dwelling as a worldwide human and cultural reality.
If, in the near future, many will realize the spatially and consequently spiritually 'exploded' fictions of the European humanities, and Bollnow will be honoured as one of the essential founders of a spatially 'imploded' anthropology. Those who realized what richness this book had when it was first published in 1963 will doubtless agree that Bollnow can be considered the father of spatial and architectural anthropology.
_________________
Architectural Anthropology (vol. 1) figures among ca. 200 books under the title
*Theory of the world*
http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~lemelin/bib_pt04.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:56 pm Post subject: Fantastic Article on the Human Experience of Space |
|
|
Fantastic article!
To see PART I --->>
Human Space Part I
Last edited by usarender on Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
block
Joined: 01 Nov 2007
Posts: 10
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Many words and not one about what make it all. True the house can accelerate a deep understanding of yourself aswell as what surround you --- but please don't mistake this for the creation, the item, the systems and logics that accomodate the item ; you has to project and fabricate that, that's all gone when it become an holistic gadged,
The glorious redundance by lattrice wave shadered reflections, was newer there , unless someone added newthinking and plain focused delivery, innovation the very matter reflected by the favour words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Architect
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 184
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think Bollnow must write his stuff for his own muse. His narrow - and may I say his - 'white assed euro' - and somewhat retarded (in the dictionary sense of the word) grasp of architecture and space, seems to omit the native peoples of the world - like the North American Native Indian, like the Inuit, like the nomadic tribes of Central Asia, etc., etc..
Perhaps poor old Bollnow doesn't consider native peoples human (?)... Because of this most glaring omittance - I can't take anything he has written about 'HOUSE' seriously. Unfortunately, he runs the boring and tired game of a typical academic diatribe.
BTW - dwelling does not imply - "having roots". And as for the rest of his 'spin' on space(s), he was refuted by Hawking long ago and most recently by me.
Take care... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I agrea ; there are nothing there to realise a new orientation ,there are nothing extraordanary described only limitations and borders ,our world our minds are put into a catalog ; 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9 ---- now try adding newthinking and innovation to that cocktail and the bundle will explode. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:45 pm Post subject: Quite Relevant! |
|
|
Excellent points brought up in this book and it's review -->>
He makes very interesting observations with regard to the daily reconstruction of the personal spatial world and its dissolution in favour of the unconscious state while sleeping at night. Having read all these very plausible descriptions of basic human conditions, the reader will be horrified by the artificiality of modern principles of design and by architecture devoid of all these elementary relations of man and space.
Hodological space
The term 'hodological space' is derived from the Greek word 'hodos' , path, way. In contrast to the mathematical concept of space as presented on maps, plans, etc. 'hodological space' is based on the factual topological, physical, social, and psychological conditions a person is faced with on the way from point A to point B, whether in an open landscape or within urban or architectural conditions. Bollnow gives many interesting observations on the cultural implications of hodological distances as compared and contrasted with geometrical distances (language and culture in mountain valleys; traditional traffic conditions in mountainous regions; the structure of war landscape with its absolute focus on the front). But of particular importance is his description of an apartment and, e.g. its "cave-like character". In the architect's plan of a housing project, two points in two different apartments located side by side may be just some 30 or 40 centimetres apart (separated by a wall). But, what somebody goes through in term of physical and psychological stress, to go from one of these points to the other, this is described very impressively by Bollnow. The vital condition of the hodological relation might be tremendously different from that of the architect! In short, Bollnow presents an important lesson for architects and designers, which should teach them to think a little bit more while drawing with their pencils.
The space-producing force of love
Very striking is Bollnow's description of 'the space of humans living together'. On one hand, there is the merciless 'fight for living space' which produces clear spatial barriers and creates rivalries among humans. On the other hand, there is the 'creation of space through the force of love' and the strange phenomenon that this 'living together of lovers' does not increase space in terms of quantity:lovers share the same space; they create a home for themselves.
On the other hand, Bollnow does not give the impression that studies of human experience of space is merely a philosophical problem. On the contrary, he extends his research into psychology, into human behaviour and the conventional domains of architecture: dwelling in a building, in an apartment, in a house.
Space in the anthropological sense is not homogenous:Bollnow presents space as a perceptional development between man and environment. Anthropologically, the conventional (deductively postulated) concept of homogenous space becomes a fiction:there are numerous spaces. Bollnow describes a large spectrum of spaces related to resting and dwelling and moving along paths, deals extensively with day and night spaces, euphoric space, momentary space, etc. Thus, Bollnow presents not only an overall system of general reference, but also a rich catalogue of descriptions, problems, assumptions, and hypotheses for research in spatial concepts of man.
Environmental and human conditions structure space in polar relations. It seems that Bollnow has discovered a very ancient and deeply rooted truth of our spatial existence.
In sharp contrast to Eliade, Bollnow, following his main thesis of the environmental origins of space concepts, emphasizes the spatial aspects of such religious phenomena and focuses on a wide spectrum of objective and architectural elements related to such "centres of the world" or "axis mundi". He thus provides the fundament for objective or inductive topographical or architectural studies in religion.
We realize that the quasi-religious zeal of the historian has prevented us from experiencing and reflecting on one of the most important human conditions: space and dwelling as a worldwide human and cultural reality.
If, in the near future, many will realize the spatially and consequently spiritually 'exploded' fictions of the European humanities, and Bollnow will be honoured as one of the essential founders of a spatially 'imploded' anthropology. Those who realized what richness this book had when it was first published in 1963 will doubtless agree that Bollnow can be considered the father of spatial and architectural anthropology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:54 pm Post subject: Fantastic Ideas on Space in Architecture! |
|
|
The article by Bollnow illucidates well some of the ideas as posted by Erickson, with respect to SPACE in architecture.
It offers a true deconstruction of modern notions and is a deeper treatise on the modern concepts we have in architecture, related to space.
It is an excellent article.
Some of the topics, high-lighted -->>
" in fact, Bollnow, by describing space in close relation to human behaviour and environmental conditions, seems to have discovered the essential structure of space.
In a stark contrast to Norberg Schulz's concept, which is to some extent still anchored in conventional architectural rationalism, Bollnow's outlook is deeply humanistic in that it places man and his immediate environment at the centre of everything he describes. He thus manages to present an enormous variety of new insights which contrast greatly with the poverty of the spatial concepts of present architectural design. In fact, one is tempted to imagine how much different architecture would be today, if, instead of postmodernism, Bollnow's concept of anthropological space had become the basis for architectural reasoning of the last three decades.
....and, thus, Bollnow manages to respond to the factual complexity of space"
Obviously, Bollnow has received great impulses from the structure of the German language. In contrast to the more rationalistic traditions, e.g. those of the Romance languages - in particular French - the German language has not lost many of its primitive roots. Thus, it has preserved many terms related to original conditions of space, words which imply meanings very different from their Romance counterparts (e.g. 'Platz' (place) versus 'Ort', 'Stelle', 'Heim' etc.). Consequently, important parts of Bollnow's discussions are based on the history of words, language, and thought as expressed in literature. In this sense particularly, etymology could become an important source for research into human space concepts and architecture.
The book is divided into five main chapters entitled: 'The Elementary Articulation of Space' / 'The Wide World' / 'The House and the Feeling of Security' / 'Aspects of Space' / 'The Spatiality of Human Life'.
THE ELEMENTARY ARTICULATION OF SPACE
In his first main chapter, Bollnow usesvarious sources to show that, in its origins, space was not a boundless concept, but on the contrary, was more or less clearly limited, defined, rather environmental and closely related to the history of human settlements.
History
Space is not homogeneous, but articulated. There is a suggestion of this in Aristotle's puzzling discussion in the fourth book of his 'Physics', the first treatise on spatial problems in the occidental tradition of thought. Relating it to the four elements (fire, air, water, earth), he teaches the "natural articulation" of space, that each of these elements show a natural directionality, e.g., upwards in the case of fire and light things, and downwards with regard to earth or heavy things. Bollnow emphasizes that this concept differs essentially from our modern view of space. There is another puzzling aspect in the Aristotelian notion of space: what we would consider as "place" (topos, 'Ort' in German) somehow appears to be hierarchically projected from a local to a cosmic dimension and thus shows extension, which Bollnow compares to a container. Conclusion: Aristotle's view is never one of endless mathematical space but is limited in its utmost extension to "the void delimited by the heaven's vault."(:30)
This extremely convincing emphasis on the environmental origins of the notion of space has far-reaching consequences, not only for architectural research and architectural theory, but also for our whole concept of man, in so far as our ontology, our metaphysics are based on primary cosmologies. In other words, Bollnow advocates a dramatic reversion, an "implosion" of our modern space concepts, an implosion which, by the way, is already well established in ecology and animal behaviour studies (Uexküll), but not at all in architecture and urbanism.
Directional elements and axiality
Bollnow's following sections deal with directional elements of space. Here too, he ingeniously "deconstructs" established systems, e.g., axiality.
In their intrinsic relation with ideology and moral values, the two pairs, 'front and back' and 'right and left', clearly show their close relation to cultural history, but obviously not in the anthropomorphous sense, as generally thought, but rather in relation to the spatial organization of the environment.
Fixed points
Particularly important is Bollnow's statement that there are zero or fixed points in his humane concept of space.
The overall conclusion: space is not at all homogeneous in its primary structure. Bollnow's arguments for the environmental origins of space conceptions are absolutely convincing. This becomes very important with regard to the second main chapter.
There is an additional revolutionary concept in Bollnow's work. Space was not there from the beginning, as we assume with the Euclidian concept. Space in the human sense has evolved. As a concept related to human perception and culture, it was originally closely related to dwelling and settlement and subsequently developed by extension of the spatial perception of man.
But the fundamental insight that Bollnow presents to us here is the following: he describes how networks for mobility influence our experience of space. The streets of a city acquire a certain autonomy, create their own spatial conditions, engender a homogeneous landscape of their own. Linschoten also characterized the space of pathway as "non-cultivated space",
"All roads lead to the end of the world." According to Linschoten, the street is ex-centrically related to dwelling space." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:56 pm Post subject: Bollnow Vrs Arthur Erickson Article |
|
|
In this scenario, the ideas of the free flow of continuous space becomes redundant. In doing this, we in effect are opening our architecture to a lack of true spatial definition, instead of defining and containing the space we design. Space and form as a simultaneity of the space/time continuum thus become void of meaning, and further, with the age of the machine, de-humanizing.
Arthur Erickson Article
This lack of vision on the part of the modernists, accompanied by the distorted perspective of space lead to the inevitable decline of architecture character and definition of space, and it's being completely ignored since the 80's, when Po Mo took over, and further aggravated our notions of space, by shifting to a surface treatment of space. The boxes thus lacked the content and meaning we as architects have the highest vocation to inspire and create. We have, in doing this, resigned ourselves to the plastic superficial society of mass consumerism, where the corporate and business dictates become more powerful then the persuasion of our convictions. In essence, we have began to produce " classless " architecture of the masses, of an even greater de-humanizing character.
As Mr. Arthur Erickson states -->>
"Over time architects and builders misinterpreted simplicity as plainness, lack of detail for crudity, modesty for cheapness, structural veracity as a boring "grid". Builders eventually took advantage of the look of modernism to build cheaply and carelessly, exhibiting their cynical view of a passing fashion."
and -->>
"So it was no surprise that the reaction to the bareness of ill conceived modernist buildings was to revert in the 80's to a revival of historicism in the guise of "post-modernism". That sad caper influenced nearly everyone in the building trade because it appealed to the public taste for antique references. That Dark Age is thankfully over but cultural insecurity is always there, hidden in the basement of our psyches - ready to spring out whenever brave confidence falters. It lingers in the gated communities where make-believe has become an adult panacea. It lingers with the developers who promote kitsch because it sells. It lingers with the newly rich and the establishment who need to consolidate social standing with class accepted standards. It lingers in every shopping centre, multiplex, restaurant, Vegas casino where illusion is needed to disguise the emptiness within."
This denial of the present and escape into the forms and history of the past has created a dis-connected society that has lost it references, that is wandering freely at high speeds no where.
Further, the quest for entertainment, rather then cultural value, is further degrading architecture and creating spaces that have lost any cultural and historical reference. They become chaotic dis jointed fantasy illusions in a material society that is devoid of identity.
....further -->>
"The obsession with performance left no room for the development of the intuitive or spiritual impact of space and form other than the aesthetic of the machine itself."
and
"Practicality, the elimination of the "non essentials" began the long descent of art and architecture into bottom line management. Materialism has never been so ominous as now in North America as management and not the artist takes over."
----->>
"In the Po Mo period, a change that signaled the questionable new direction to architecture was the shift from the modernist concern with space to the preoccupation with surface. Space is and has always been the spiritual dimension of architecture. It is not the physical statement of the structure so much as what it contains that moves us. Modernism released us from the constraints of everything that had gone before with a euphoric sense of freedom. Post- Modernism reverted to surface, the face of the container, the palette for the decorator. After 1980, you never heard reference to space again. Surface, the most convincing evidence of the descent into materialism became the focus of design, space the essence of architectural expression at its highest level, disappeared."
and -->>
"Whenever we witness art in a building, we are aware of an energy contained by it. The intensity of that energy reflects the intensity of the creative act, the degree of devotion invested in the work, that is communicated immediately to the viewer. Creation is the bestower of life."
and finally -->>
"We seem today to have lost sight of the original goal of architecture that is - to ennoble the place and the people who use it. It is a gift we have as architects to be able to do that. Architecture, today is only tentatively expressive of the human spirit, having been tempted from its mission by the love of mechanization - the obsession with the machine aesthetic in Europe, or the influence in America of Disney through the reduction of architecture to entertainment." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:59 pm Post subject: A Loss of Human Perceptions of Space |
|
|
We have, in effect, lost the intuitive " spiritual " notions and elements of space and form, the vocation to ennoble the place and people who occupy our buildings, and have completely detached ourselves from the notion that architecture must deal with space at it's core. We are thus completely confused in our definitions of space. Our buildings should irradiate this energy in the local spatial experiences we produce. When we become overly obsessed with form follows function, the inevitable result, in this fruit salad of confusion, are the highly mechanized spiritually void buildings we have seen in recent history.
HUMAN PERCEPTIONS OF SPACE and the creation of Architectural Theory and it's relation to design practice.
We need new architectural theory and ways to design our environment, based on the human experience of space.
In our architecture, we must create a humanizing implant of forms that allow the space to be bound by the human experience.
Thus, we see the role of architecture in the ordering and articulation of space.
The Po MO plastic surface architecture we see in many of our cities is ordered by developers rather then by a true architectural sense of spatial responsibility and human experience. Thus, we must lay for the future a new path, one of the destruction of the old cold de-humanizing space, and for a re-creation of architecture according to the relationship it has to space and the experiencing of space. So, when we speak of culturally and humanly relevant architecture, rather then speak of "Experiencing Architecture", we must speak of "Experiencing Architecturally Humanizing Space".
Some Important spatial concepts we must consider are -->>
1. The importance of Localized spaces.
2. The ideas of Spatial extension and movement.
3. Articulate human space versus the space of movement.
4. The Ecstasy of Infinity.
5. Vastness and narrowness in architectural definition.
6. How networks of mobility influence our perceptions of space.
7. The road and movement of cars leads to a defacing of the cities, and lack of local spatial definition!
8. The street is ex-centrically related to dwelling space.
So in architecture, how we articulate our space becomes important.
Thus, how we create a sense of community in contrast to the path of the vehicle, which exerts a dehumanizing experience of space. Architecture thus also becomes culturally influenced by the cosmic connection or lack of cosmic connection to the universe around us. Thus, the practice of architects outside the confines of their own culture can be a risky business, in other words. The cultural values placed on different conceptions of space becomes thus relevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:03 pm Post subject: Space in Architecture Part I & II Summary |
|
|
In architecture, we dehumanize our spaces when the same lack humanizing spatial qualities in both our urban spaces as well as in the architecture of our buildings.
In architecture, nothing can be a " natural fact". There is no use in celebrating the decoration, if the architecture, in it's " functional aesthetics" has not understood it role to develop a more organic connection with nature. In nature, we see a natural progression and a connection and spiritual unity in form and function. But in architecture, this must be artificially created, otherwise it is not present in any form. Thus, to say this immutable law of nature automatically applies to architecture does not make sense. Further, in nature, there is no sequential relationship of elements between form and function, as this assumes. There is a unity between the two. In architecture, this unity is not always present and depends on the designer, in his ability to unite form and function into an integrated solution. Many times, architects can create forms that somewhat deviate from their function, and thus there is no inherent " natural " connection between ideas, unless a designer knows how to produce this connection and translate it into his architecture into a beautiful union of form and function.
Now, we have a completely new formulation and variety of spaces to deal with in architecture -->>
Stationary space, spaces in movement, articulated spaces, vast spaces, narrow spaces, spaces in networks of mobility, ex-centric spaces, home based centralized referential spaces, localized space, defined space, undefined space, community spaces, infinite space, vehicular spaces, ground space, elevated space, horizontal space, vertical space, ceiling space, pathway space, enclosed space, open space, directional space, fluid space, contemplative space, transitional space and on. The list becomes endless, according to the human experience. Space is no longer an infinite fluid undefined element that we allow to simply " flow " through our architecture.
Space thus becomes relevant to the human experience in a beautiful way. We can allow this way for a greater connection between our spatial conceptions and our cultural heritage. This also can influence our zoning laws as perceived by our cultural values. By taking artistic and cultural values of a particular society into account, we can create a relevant spatial language and thus implement this in a practical way into our ordinances in such a way that we preserve our artistic and cultural history, by our conception and perception of space. (Public, private, transitional spaces particularly).
No longer do we need to order our architecture according to classic ordering principles. Those, of romantic or ancient times, become substituted for a new language and vocabulary of architecture that frees itself from the traditions of the past.
We thus discover, moreover, that by allowing our architecture to maintain a greater sense of spatial vocabulary, we also develop a more intimate connection to the human experience of the world around us.
Further, our architecture can define whichever conception of space we wish to project. Our architecture can thus better relate to how we define, experience and view the space around us. In a localized statement, there is thus room for architecture to create a human mood definition of how to relate to space. In creating an architectural mood, and a connection to various conceptions and human experiences of space, our architectural space can be thus treated in a multitude of ways, depending on the spatial relationship and experience we wish to high-light, as defined by a program of spaces. Thus, our architecture can be treated as "ground space", elevated or suspended space, floating space, ceiling space, pathway space, enclosed space, open space, directional space, fluid space, articulated space with open and closed voids, which define the human experience as localized spatial experiences. Thus, our buildings can open up to the cosmic space at times, to create a sense of insecurity, or even of ecstasy of infinity, or feeling of vastness, or can close into personalized space at times, to allow for a feeling of definition. Our architecture can be "floating" and create a sense of fluid light spaces, or can be, according to the hierarchy of architectural spaces, be created as primary or secondary space.
We can use the concept of ground space to relate to the home, and elevated space, in connection to the sky, as the place to dream and view the world below. We thus have a new sense and meaning to the exploration of space, and to the idea of building cities in space, as we will be experience the cosmos and world around us in a completely new way.
We can thus formulate a new vocabulary and language of architecture, using this new conception of space. Space no longer is universal, endless, it becomes defined by the human experience! Thus, we can create buildings or spaces as pathways, such as museums, or as fluid space, where the changing nature of the functions allows for a fluidity of definition. We can thus associate this fluidity of space with a fluid, movement oriented architecture and translate this into fluid forms.
We can design our architecture along new networks of mobility and allow it in a sense to communicate in a different way from localized architecture which maintains a greater connection to the community. Thus, the future networks of mobility, both earth-bound, and celestial bound, become the new ordering and organizing elements, as they create new ways to perceive space around us, and thus will directly influence our views of the city, of civilization, of how to live in the cosmos and planet earth. The degree or facility of our mobility in these systems will determine also how we value our spatial experiences and thus also call for a new architecture.
In the community sense, we can re-design our ordinances in such a way that we take into account the spatial definitions in the ordering of space. Thus, when we see our cities by following old traditional zoning laws, create a narrowness of space and do not allow man to expand into space as they should, we end up with new zoning laws that call for new ordering principles. Thus, in some cases, more stepping back of buildings, for example. This implies organizing our architecture according to the governing predominant beneficial spatial definitions that exist in the cities. Thus, culturally relevant landmarks become important in establishing zoning laws, points of reference, axial transitions, the relationships of volumes becomes important, as well as the architecture to be defined along paths of movement. The zoning laws can call for a different architecture along zones of movement, where the spatial perception is modified, versus localized neighborhood architecture. Both in essence call for a more localized humanizing spatial experience. Further, all these principles of space call for new urban re-development efforts, new city designs, and new ways to view the interplay of spatial definitions in our architecture.
Further, an "anthromorphic" view of space defines that man in essence creates and defines his own conception of space, based on his localized experience. So taking this into account, we now realize the modern call to allow space, of infinite quality, to simply flow through our architecture is completely wrong. In doing this, we end up with architecture that lacks in spatial quality. Thus, our new architecture should deal with every aspect of space and our experience of space, and not organize itself based on external organizational principles, but based on the human experience of space as defined by a local context of our architecture. There is no more room, in this vision, for badly articulated space, for geometries and shapes which do not enhance the human experience. In effect, we learn how to better rid ourselves of the architectural trash of geometric spaces and shapes that maintain no relevancy to an experience of space. If the geometry and shapes create a human addition to space and help us better to create a mood of spatial experience, they become justified. If they do not, they are destroying and de-humanizing our spatial experience. We thus have a filter to use in our design practice.
In Summary, we end up with a new vocabulary for architecture, a new vocabulary for the cities of the future and a new vision on how we perceive and influence the space around us, as Architects.
Our buildings then can become more organic, more related to man and nature when we truly capture the human experience of space in all its multi faceted forms of human experience, from the contemplation of a flower, to the vastness of the expanse of the cosmic container of perception. When we understand how we as humans perceive space, we can thus establish a greater connection to nature and the cosmos as well. Truly, by relating our architecture to nature, as Wright did, to natural forms, to mountains, to rocks, to water, to lakes, to rivers, to plants, to air, to wind, to fire, to the earth, to the heavens, we create an articulated architecture that in essence becomes one with nature and embodies a deeper connection to the functions of nature, versus the merely the simple human functions. Our architecture, in being more connected thus to the world around us, will serve us better, will be more organically connected and will serve a greater function. This implies also on more organic forms in architecture, if architecture is called to respond to nature in such a direct way. Now what these organic forms be we can but only allow the site, local determinants (the context), technology, practicality and social acceptance to determine.
We must thus learn to establish a connection between our architecture and the environment around us, and it's temporal qualities, such as Mr. Wright did in "Falling Water" and many great architects have done in contextualizing their architecture to the flow of energy, time, matter and the natural surroundings. Architecture that is immortal maintains a balance in it's connection to these elements, establishing a harmonious design that is in intricate connection to the world around us, and thus becomes the true "Timeless Way" of designing architecture."
Down with dehumanizing versions of FFF architecture, and those that do not maintain a broader understanding and spatial vocabulary of architecture.
Now, how can one argue FFF is an "immutable law of nature"?
It was coined in architecture to express the modernist cry, and cannot be considered an "immutable law of nature" in any sense.
In nature, it can be clearly seen, but not always in the architecture that has been produced over the course of time, since this modernist cry first arose into view. At times, the result has been such rigid control and application of FFF, that the buildings resulted in the application of narrow spatial understandings that led to cold, sterile, dehumanizing buildings that lacked a greater spatial definition and understanding.
It can be seen clearly that those who are opposing these ideas are obviously the ones supporting the direct FFF cry in architecture, rather then the ideas as best expressed by FLW.
An adequately elaborated spatial reference in architecture must go beyond the simplistic notions of form, shape and the ordering of mass.
A relevant spatial reference should property manipulate the elements of light, shape, form and illusion to the sense that this interplay contributes to a greater human spatial experience.
It is this humanizing quality of spatial contemplation and framing that enables architecture to deal with the lost element of space and embody the same in a humanizing form.
As demonstrated previously, we need new architectural theory and ways to design our environment, based on the human experience of space.
In our architecture, we must create a humanizing implant of forms that allow the space to be bound by the human experience.
Thus, we see the role of architecture in the ordering and articulation of space. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Architect
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 184
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | usarender
"Thus, we see the role of architecture in the ordering and articulation of space." |
Umm ...NO!!
I have a little project for you usarender... [I am assuming you own and know how to use a design app.]
Head over to google images and grab an image of a wide open field. Copy that image and paste it into whatever design app you can use. On a seperate layer above the image draw some guides to indicate a generous area.
Create two more layers in between the image layer and your guides layer. On one layer design a residence within the area outlined by the guides. Hide that layer, and on the other layer design a church within the same guides.
Now you should have two architectural designs, each within the guides in a vast open field. Note that the Space is the same for each design, what differentiates the two designs IS NOT THE SPACE - it is the MASSES of the Architecture. Ok???
Architecture does NOT define Space - Architecture defines itself!!
Go back to the layer with the residence and hide the church layer. Is this now residential space? Now hide that layer and reveal the church layer. Is that very SAME space now religious space? Umm ...NO!! It is the same exact same space for both the residence and the church. What changed was the Mass, the architecture changed - not the Space.
Stop trying to romanticise Space! And let Space be itself, ok? Stop trying to impose your will on Space! Let Architecture be itself too, stop trying to romanticise it also!
Architecture does not define Space - it defines itself!!
Space is Space - Mass is Mass. One DOES NOT define the other.
Architecture IS NOT both. When we build Architecture we are NOT building Space. We are building Masses that play off one another - and that usarender is very groovy thing indeed.
You can now close the design app.
Take care... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thank you ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:30 am Post subject: Thank you |
|
|
| To each his own. Some accept these ideas on space and others do not. I can see pc and the Architect are two friends on this issue. There are others who disagree and thank you for agreeing or disagreeing. This is what makes these discussions interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lekizz
millennium club
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 1212
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Space is Space - Mass is Mass. |
It is a bit of a grand statement to say that everyone should accept your own understanding of the world, isn't it? Though obviously, in the West, we take for granted the concept of 'space', in reality it means different things to different cultures, sometimes it means nothing at all. 'Space' is a construct created by human beings to help them understand, explain and measure their surroundings, I thought.
Argh, my head hurts! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
