In reading this chapter, I found Moholy’s quote about how architecture will soon be understood as “an organic component in living, as a creation in the mastery of space experience,” to be a powerful statement. Special connections can be made by more than just a contained room with four walls and a roof. Instead space can be manipulated and connections can be made even the sides of a contained space are scattered around. This implies that taking apart the structure of a space can still create a “continuum” of space that relates the inside space to the outside space as well as the other way around. To me, this way of thinking creates much more opportunity to create more aesthetically pleasing architecture.
"...and it is to the writersthat one must turn for its origins, and purposes. the german word 'Raum'signifies both a material enclosure, [or] a room, and a philisophical concept." Peter collins then makes the claim that "neither [in] english or french can a material enclosureso easily be linked to to a philosophical construct." in my view this shows that if you do not have to havea material structure to have space. Nature is space, just space undeveloped by man. in all reality, a human body contains a spatial structure that can be studied. for "the entire symbolism of the body is called into play , not [just] the mere symbolismof the lips, face, and speech, but the whole pantimime of dancing, forcing every member into rhythmic movement." creating the sense that just because you are not presently occupying an area, every where a person movesconstitutes negative space, and space occupied by oxygen, and carbon dioxide, and the general necessities of human life. i found the inset block quote by hildebrandto be a moving essay because it was significant to the study of "movement in terms of kinetic bodily experience." the general human thought process assumes space to be that for which is contained in some form of a box. but in all reality it is all around us, and consumes life.
I found Hillier’s quotation that states how in his work in developing this “syntax of space… to find a way of describing and analyzing architecture based upon the phenomenon of architecture itself” to be incredibly relevant to what we have been talking about concerning our vocabulary and the words we use to describe our own work. We all need to work on being able to talk intelligently about architecture and, in a way, defining the space through our words. Also, he states how buildings should be approached as “spatial configurations” instead of physical objects. I see this correlating with the models we finished for the review. It was not in any human scale and only was defined and described by what it was and how it occupied the space that it was in.
“This world: … not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a space that might be ‘empty’ here or there, but rather as force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there.” (550, Nietzsche) Throughout this reading, the way the philosophers and others talk about space is so profound to how us, as students in the profession of creating space, talk about it. This article is very overwhelming in the fact that it makes you see space in such a different light. Space does not have to be contained by walls but is contained in the way you view space. Space can be contained and uncontained. Space can be where you exist, or where an idea exists. I feel that as architecture students, we should be able to describe space or any other concepts or ideas in the way that these philosophers are able to describe space. The way Nietzsche described space, makes it seem like space could be anything your mind wants it to be, which is very inspiring.
The quote, “architects might be said to be fulfilling their traditional role of finding the means to represent what otherwise existed only as ideology” stood out to me as I was thinking about the reading and what it discussed about “space”. I find it interesting how space exists everywhere, throughout nature, in our cities, and really in everything; but it is an architects’ job to help define or represent that space so that everyone can experience it. This made me think about our current models and how the space already exists there and we have to discover the best way to represent it in relation to the form, so that we can fully understand the special qualities that exist within them.
I thought it was interesting that the first emphasized thought of space in architecture originated in Germany. It made me ponder the true definition of space. Whether or not it is a true enclosed space, or a place that encloses space but is not fully enclosed itself. Space could be perceived as internal or external, and could be argued for both. “Building never shapes pure space”, which I believe is true. A building can enclose a space, but it can never hold that space, make it a separate entity from the outside. The unique philosophical and theoretical outlooks upon the true meaning of space were also interesting in how both architects and philosophers perceived the meaning of space. The difference between space and place is also discussed. Place is defined with a body in space, which was Lefebvre’s main theory. The way space changed and was observed completely changed when a person was involved with it, other things had to be taken into consideration.
It is intriguing how well this reading correlates with what we are learning in class. With exploring space in the models we have created, it further exemplifies many of the key points of the exerpt. Space can be defined or implied, open or ideological, nonscaler or void. It is interesting that we initially learn of space as being positive or negative. But through explorations in class and in the reading we, as architecture students, can quickly understand space as more than just a void or absense of physical entities. And with that we will be able to see buildings created as more than physical forms, but rather as movements within both time and space.
When reading this chapter on Space I came upon this quote,” The boundary of an object is, strictly speaking, also the boundary of the air surrounding it.” I thought it was very true; space is already there it is the occupation of the architect to encapsulate this space that is perceived in architecture. I found it intriguing that the concept of space as we define for Architecture was introduced so “recently” by the Germans. The dialogues and essays on space between architects and physiologist brought new views that helped us come to a more clear explanation of what we define as space. Through having a clear understanding of space I feel the architecture being created would show that knowledge making ascetically appealing and successful architecture. Space is and always will be there and I believe that representing the space perceived is one if not the most important tool of a successful architect.
Reading about the transition of concepts or philosophies to another level of comprehension of architecture was intriguing. To me, if you can internalize the characteristics of architecture that makes it unique such as voids, volumes, inanimate/animate objects, space, air, and so forth then one can create architecture to one's own interpretation if achieved correctly. In other words, if one can explain the reasons and purposes of one's design that responds to a consistent concept then it is a successful creation. Several architects and philosophers have developed theories behind architecture in various aspects whether if its an aesthetic purpose, functionality, extension of spatial components within objects or simply defining space itself but as Schmarsow has stated '...the property common to all works is that they are realizations of spatial constructs...' that is the representation of space will always be there but produced in different methods behind different ideas which works in evidences of past and present architectural structures.
In reading this chapter, I found Moholy’s quote about how architecture will soon be understood as “an organic component in living, as a creation in the mastery of space experience,” to be a powerful statement. Special connections can be made by more than just a contained room with four walls and a roof. Instead space can be manipulated and connections can be made even the sides of a contained space are scattered around. This implies that taking apart the structure of a space can still create a “continuum” of space that relates the inside space to the outside space as well as the other way around. To me, this way of thinking creates much more opportunity to create more aesthetically pleasing architecture.
ReplyDelete"...and it is to the writersthat one must turn for its origins, and purposes. the german word 'Raum'signifies both a material enclosure, [or] a room, and a philisophical concept." Peter collins then makes the claim that "neither [in] english or french can a material enclosureso easily be linked to to a philosophical construct." in my view this shows that if you do not have to havea material structure to have space. Nature is space, just space undeveloped by man. in all reality, a human body contains a spatial structure that can be studied. for "the entire symbolism of the body is called into play , not [just] the mere symbolismof the lips, face, and speech, but the whole pantimime of dancing, forcing every member into rhythmic movement." creating the sense that just because you are not presently occupying an area, every where a person movesconstitutes negative space, and space occupied by oxygen, and carbon dioxide, and the general necessities of human life. i found the inset block quote by hildebrandto be a moving essay because it was significant to the study of "movement in terms of kinetic bodily experience." the general human thought process assumes space to be that for which is contained in some form of a box. but in all reality it is all around us, and consumes life.
ReplyDeleteI found Hillier’s quotation that states how in his work in developing this “syntax of space… to find a way of describing and analyzing architecture based upon the phenomenon of architecture itself” to be incredibly relevant to what we have been talking about concerning our vocabulary and the words we use to describe our own work. We all need to work on being able to talk intelligently about architecture and, in a way, defining the space through our words.
ReplyDeleteAlso, he states how buildings should be approached as “spatial configurations” instead of physical objects. I see this correlating with the models we finished for the review. It was not in any human scale and only was defined and described by what it was and how it occupied the space that it was in.
“This world: … not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a space that might be ‘empty’ here or there, but rather as force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there.” (550, Nietzsche) Throughout this reading, the way the philosophers and others talk about space is so profound to how us, as students in the profession of creating space, talk about it. This article is very overwhelming in the fact that it makes you see space in such a different light. Space does not have to be contained by walls but is contained in the way you view space. Space can be contained and uncontained. Space can be where you exist, or where an idea exists. I feel that as architecture students, we should be able to describe space or any other concepts or ideas in the way that these philosophers are able to describe space. The way Nietzsche described space, makes it seem like space could be anything your mind wants it to be, which is very inspiring.
ReplyDeleteThe quote, “architects might be said to be fulfilling their traditional role of finding the means to represent what otherwise existed only as ideology” stood out to me as I was thinking about the reading and what it discussed about “space”. I find it interesting how space exists everywhere, throughout nature, in our cities, and really in everything; but it is an architects’ job to help define or represent that space so that everyone can experience it. This made me think about our current models and how the space already exists there and we have to discover the best way to represent it in relation to the form, so that we can fully understand the special qualities that exist within them.
ReplyDeleteTyser
I thought it was interesting that the first emphasized thought of space in architecture originated in Germany. It made me ponder the true definition of space. Whether or not it is a true enclosed space, or a place that encloses space but is not fully enclosed itself. Space could be perceived as internal or external, and could be argued for both. “Building never shapes pure space”, which I believe is true. A building can enclose a space, but it can never hold that space, make it a separate entity from the outside. The unique philosophical and theoretical outlooks upon the true meaning of space were also interesting in how both architects and philosophers perceived the meaning of space. The difference between space and place is also discussed. Place is defined with a body in space, which was Lefebvre’s main theory. The way space changed and was observed completely changed when a person was involved with it, other things had to be taken into consideration.
ReplyDelete-Mane
It is intriguing how well this reading correlates with what we are learning in class. With exploring space in the models we have created, it further exemplifies many of the key points of the exerpt. Space can be defined or implied, open or ideological, nonscaler or void. It is interesting that we initially learn of space as being positive or negative. But through explorations in class and in the reading we, as architecture students, can quickly understand space as more than just a void or absense of physical entities. And with that we will be able to see buildings created as more than physical forms, but rather as movements within both time and space.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading this chapter on Space I came upon this quote,” The boundary of an object is, strictly speaking, also the boundary of the air surrounding it.” I thought it was very true; space is already there it is the occupation of the architect to encapsulate this space that is perceived in architecture. I found it intriguing that the concept of space as we define for Architecture was introduced so “recently” by the Germans. The dialogues and essays on space between architects and physiologist brought new views that helped us come to a more clear explanation of what we define as space. Through having a clear understanding of space I feel the architecture being created would show that knowledge making ascetically appealing and successful architecture. Space is and always will be there and I believe that representing the space perceived is one if not the most important tool of a successful architect.
ReplyDeleteReading about the transition of concepts or philosophies to another level of comprehension of architecture was intriguing. To me, if you can internalize the characteristics of architecture that makes it unique such as voids, volumes, inanimate/animate objects, space, air, and so forth then one can create architecture to one's own interpretation if achieved correctly. In other words, if one can explain the reasons and purposes of one's design that responds to a consistent concept then it is a successful creation. Several architects and philosophers have developed theories behind architecture in various aspects whether if its an aesthetic purpose, functionality, extension of spatial components within objects or simply defining space itself but as Schmarsow has stated '...the property common to all works is that they are realizations of spatial constructs...' that is the representation of space will always be there but produced in different methods behind different ideas which works in evidences of past and present architectural structures.
ReplyDelete