In writing on architecture how does the relative immateriality of text, set against the undeniable material and phenomenal body of architectural work, impede its efficacy? Or how does it, contrarily, improve our experience and understanding of architecture?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It does not impede anything, but is probably under used toward this aim because of the material disparity. However, I think that it has greater potential to improve the experience, understanding and application of architecture. What better way to test conceptual ideas than in the native language of the "conceptual idea?" We are probably too quick to jump into drawing (when infact most of us do this to related ideas that aren't even architecturally related) to express an idea before it is completely formulated.
ReplyDeleteI think that I may be a little on both sides of the fence on this questions. As much as I would like to believe that text can only serve to improve upon the experiential qualities of an Architectural work, I also think that if the text is written poorly it may do more harm than good. For example, if a text is able to capture in a clear and concise way the experiential qualities with such great detail that the reader can feel like he or she can visualize and imagine such a place than the written word can only enhance that work of architecture. On the other hand if the writing is clearly not capturing the experience of the place that may work against that work of architecture. It may start to take away from the greater qualities that should have been brought forth in the writing. A great piece of writing can give a greater understanding of detail and perception to a work of architecture that may not be able to be seen. Sometimes looking through another lens rather than your own can bring to light many new and interesting details.
ReplyDeleteI think architectural concept manifested in a built form is an independent entity that should have the power to speak for itself. Our body is the tool we utilize to understand a piece of architecture. How our body moves through space, react to light and shadow, etc. Spatial understanding of architecture can only achieve through the body physically be presented in the space. The creator of the work loses control over how the architecture is being interpreted by others once the construction drawings are turned into a reality. Tying back to structuralism, the author or the architect in this case is dead, and the building generates lift on its own. I don’t think writing on architecture impedes its efficacy, rather, I think it is more like a companion of the architecture that help to clarify the underlying principles or intentions embedded in the work. It might give a greater sense of appreciation of the architecture by reading the written words about the architecture. Yet it can also create disappointment when the writing doesn’t match our bodily understanding of the work.
ReplyDeleteTo a greater degree, I think some writings depend on a built work to express the architectural concept. Take Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye for example. I think his five points of architecture and buildings as living machines manifested in Villa Savoye allow a greater understanding of his architectural theory. Choosing to use language as a communication tool among two people is based on the premise that there must be a common understanding share between the two. I think Villa Savoye is the common ground that allows Le Corbusier’s theory to communicate with us. I think to understand a piece of writing on architecture and its manifestation in a building is a more direct way to understand the writing.
In sum, my point is architecture and our understanding of the work can exist independently with or without writings to accompany it. On the other hand, a piece of writing on architecture seems to be more meaningful if it is tied to its physical manifestation.
I believe the power of the word to evoke emotion is great and there are intersections of language and experience where one completely and accurately describes the other. But these two forms of communication do not inherently coincide. Especially given the written word is always filtered through another's point of view. In almost every case, experiencing a thing has been a wholly different set of meanings to me than reading about that thing, no matter how detailed the description. This could partially be attributed to the surroundings and situations of experience, but site is an integral part of the art of architecture. This is not to say language cannot add to the quality of architecture, but it describes another place, another time, and another viewpoint. This has the effect of layering meaning which leads to a richer depth of understanding.
ReplyDeleteWhen text is use properly, it has the power to create an imaginary and fantasy world for the readers to visualize and be captured. For example, in the reading “The Cemetery of the Forgotten Books” the text strongly used and had clearly described the characters, settings, and the spatial qualities. It was so captivating that allows the readers to imagine themselves moving through without actually experiencing it. When an individual read a piece of text, they will have their own interpretations just like when a person experience a space, the experience will be very different for each individual. Because they have different lenses on that are influenced by their culture, background, and knowledge of the universe. Text can be a powerful tool when use properly. It will help interpret and translate the experience and enhance our understanding of architecture. But not to say that they contradict and are dependent of one another; they can work independently to strengthen the other and co-exist in harmony.
ReplyDeleteIn order to write about this topic I will have to put the realm of architectural writing into a genre that is more specific. Aside from architectural criticism, writings involving architecture whether they be those of fiction or non-fiction are capable of rendering, in the reader, images which may only be captured in an immaterial way, through the mind. Regardless that the Louvre is a standing building, an author has the power to evoke mental images which cast that setting in multiple lights, such as the murder in the opening of the DaVinci code, or an historical account of the Louvre and its' role during the French monarchy. One doesn't need to be in the physical building to envision these moments, one just needs the text and a little imagination.
ReplyDeleteArchitecture criticism performs in a different way, one that is subjective and telling of that persons own personal experience, rather than being a piece of writing which gives the power to the reader to fill in the details, its' goal is to inform and influence.
In order to interpret something, an objective stance must be taken. Just as a clothing designer does not sew articles of clothing to their own body, the architect can not stand in one place and build the world around them. The immateriality of text allows something so material (such as architecture) to be interpreted in a means completely different from its inherent physicality. Written text is a suitable translator between weightless emotions and massive constructions. Slowing thoughts down to the speed at which we inscribe them also has its value. The nuances of language can help guide design.
ReplyDeleteNo impeding exists, unless the narrator uses a poor choice of words to describe the built or proposed. Words and language give us the ability to distinguish materials and develop opinions over time and interaction. Especially in understanding the concept of a building does language become most important. Concepts act as a basis for physical design, but they need to be communicated to others to reach that level of general understanding so that the project is legitimately and consensually conceived of. The materiality of a building is expected to be interwoven in any developed concept and be present in the experience. At a very early age, we understand the concept of stacking blocks. From this experience we begin to understand bricks as a unit and how brick wall work as a stacked system. Contemporary high rise buildings with brick facades tend to be steel structures, yet we see the brick veneer and still perceive it as a stacking system rather than as a cladding finish.
ReplyDeleteI believe that much like art architecture is interpreted by the observer. It is in the experience of being in the moment that one can feel their connection with the structure. My entire life I read about Macchu Pichu but it was not until I was there and saw the structures, walked through the homes and admired their skills that I actually understood the magic that those structures radiate. Likewise I can read all about venice or the cathedrals of Rome but it is not until I am there and can walk among their structures that I can really understand what it all means to me. It is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I hold that this is true. We all have a different set of criteria for what is amazing in our eyes. While learning about architecture and reading about structures in the world can help us to appreciate more and even understand the architects message we are all going to experience the structure in a different way that it is this that makes the architect so important, that he is able to evoke emotion in humans with the structures he designs.
ReplyDeleteNo form of writing can ever adequately describe a work of architecture. Be it good or bad, the words are merely adjectives - bright, dark, small, large. When we experience a place, we do so with verbs - felt, became, moved. Further, because there is no concrete value system our personal experiences will taint our perception of the descriptive text. How big is big, how light is light. Architecture is like a song, we can read the notes on the page but to truly experience it, we must hear it first hand and let it wash over us and penetrate us to really understand what it is saying to us.
ReplyDeleteI think that the architectural work and the written text are coherently connected, and each mirrors the other in a way. I dare to say that an architectural work without a text to explain its true meaning is prone to have different interpretations. On the other hand, to some degree I agree that a picture can worth a thousand words. An architecture design, good or bad, normally speaks silently enough about its intention, usage, program and purpose. It often has its own signatures that boldly announce its characteristics. For example, the Imperial Palace of China is located at the center of Beijing. It’s a building complex of 7,800,000 sq ft. It had been emperors’ home for many centuries. The palace exemplifies traditional Chinese palatial architecture that reflected the basic philosophy and understanding of the emperor to the world. Without a word, the grand size and it position speaks for itself that it’s the supreme power of the land. But other forms of language, oral, written or whatever, do help shaping our understanding of architecture work. The richness of history and stories that leads to the architectural work of Imperial Palace can only be explored through the written words past down to us. So, architect need to know and understand the differences and strengths of both communication tools and use it properly based on circumstances in his architecture work.
ReplyDeleteTo write about an architecture seems no less different, albeit more complex, than attempting to write about anything materialized in the existing world. The user's real-world experience however, is unique for everyone. Aside from the technical, unyielding facts of building form and details, it is impossible to write about the fundamental emotions a building is meant to instill. We all experience architecture differently and as architects we can only set up the template of a narrative for the user, not create it wholly. Conversely, a text written post-occupancy by a user does have the ability to provoke profound emotions of an architecture that may otherwise have gone unnoticed or undiscovered. An example from my own experience: I was at the Mayan ruins of Uxmal in Mexico slightly bored with the sights of beautiful ruins (they were the fourth ruins I had seen in a week), when my professor mentioned to me that the particular building we were looking at had been identified as the "Pantheon of the Americas". Somebody had written this and it was obviously not the intention of the architect, but at that moment the building had completely transformed from just another ruin to the most profound, canonical building of the Mayan civilization. Written language has this ability to provoke these profound experiences and thoughts of a building. We must, however, digest these thoughts on paper and recognize that they can never be the absolute and singular truths that define a building, and respect that they are merely one person's experience and interpretation fleshed out in text.
ReplyDeleteThe writing of architecture is just another tool to help express its physical nature. How does this translate into the actual physical built environment? Each writer projects his own view and preoccupations on what is being represented. Sometimes this translation comes very close to what we experience personally other times it is far from the realities we hold. I refer to the texts of Peter Zumthor and the imagery created but the richness of his writing and how that correlates to his architecture in an indirect way. Does this help me understand his architecture better? I don’t know, but it does give me another level of meaning of which to interpret his architecture through. The Question would be answered when I am able to physically experience his built creations and put this third quality with the other two. Will the experiential qualities I obtain be as rich as the written or visual queues I have gathered preceding?
ReplyDeleteWritting about architecture is a tool which can help design the poetics of place. I feel that if we write about it first we can live and inhabit the spaces before we begin to design. But, on the other hand it could also hurts where we are not thinking about functionality and other peoples point of view; when we visualize we are only using our own experience and understanding of space.
ReplyDelete