Architecture

On Power in Architecture From a Materialistic, Phenomenological, and Post-Structuralist Perspective. Edited By M. Kurir. Routledge, 2025

https://books.google.si/books?id=27obEQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=sl&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false The relationship between architecture and power seems to offer itself in an immediate way. But the question arises: What kind of power do we have in mind when we associate it with architecture? Is it political, religious, economic or some other type of social power? Or should we assume that architecture has to do with an even more primordial power, that of the arche of the world itself? This " arche of the world " is the central theme of phenomenological philosophy, as initiated by Edmund Husserl at the beginning of the 20th century. I will outline a possible phenomenological approach to the problem of "power in architecture". A 'sketch' can be understood as the key element of architectural practice itself. On this basis, we can consider whether and how architectural practice can play a critical role in addressing different positions of social power, rather than finding complacency in being their subservient toy.

2004

This paper will proceed, via a brief discussion of Hans-Georg Gadamer's anti-aesthetics of architecture, to outline why the architectural metaphor in philosophy is never simply a metaphor, using as a guide the critique of origins and sources contained in Jacques Derrida's essay Qual Quelle. The question will be raised as to whether the tools and structures of philosophy, such as the difference between materiality and non-materiality, abstract thought and practice, are entirely adequate to architectural debate; and whether, in questioning these structures, it is possible to address Bataille's critique of architecture (as interpreted in Denis Hollier's Against Architecture) as the expression of pre-existing social order and power. Tim Gough MA(Cantab) DipArch The Paper Itself What is going to happen between us? Is this paper-which has just begun-a textual object to be communicated to you, a receptive subject? Is this "textual object" an expression of the thoughts of another "subject", namely the one who reads it to you now? Is the receptive subject one, or are they many; and if the latter, what of the communication between them? Or shall we regard what happens between us in a different light-taking a different tack? Could we say instead that the avowedly metaphysical presupposition of subject and object, communication and expression, are simply abstractions from a primary reality-a reality which has an entirely different character? Accepting that the conceptual apparatus of subject and object has its place and use, we would nonetheless question-indeed challenge-a philosophy or theory which would give it pride of place or-what's worse-leave it unquestioned.

Architectural Theory Review, 2007

History and Theory, 2006

Architectural history as we know it has been written tacitly adhering to the crudest version of the paradigm of communication: all the attention has been focussed on the design of the new forms, none on their interpretation. It is time to realize, that even within the limits of the paradigm of communication, there should be a history of meaning, not only a history of forms. 2-Juan Pablo Bonta You think philosophy is difficult enough, but I can tell you it is nothing to the difficulty of being a good architect. 3-Ludwig Wittgenstein ABSTRACT Despite growing interest from historians in the built environment, the use of architecture as evidence remains remarkably under-theorized. Where this issue has been discussed, the interpretation of buildings has often been likened to the process of reading, in which architecture can be understood by analogy to language: either as a code capable of use in communicating the architect's intentions or more literally as a spoken or written language in its own right. After a historiographical survey, this essay, by contrast, proposes that the appropriate metaphor is one of translation. More particularly, it draws on the work of Mikhail Bakhtin to suggest that architecture-and the interpretation of architecturecomprises a series of transpositions. As a building is planned, built, inhabited, and interpreted, so its meaning changes. The underlying logic of each medium shapes the way in which its message is created and understood. This suggests that the proper role of the historian is to trace these transpositions. Buildings, then, can be used as a historical source, but only if the historian takes account of the particular problems that they present. In short, architecture should not be studied for its meaning, but for its meanings. As historians we are always translating architecture: not reading its message, but exploring its multiple transpositions. 1. I must thank Elizabeth Emerson, Jane Garnett, Matt Kelly, Zoë Waxman, and Bill Whyte, who very kindly read earlier versions of this essay. I am particularly grateful to Philip Bullock for his invaluable advice on Bakhtin.

2012

Many historical architectural constructions have been recorded and studied, but not all have been theorised. There seems to be a disconnection at several levels between the discourses of architectural history and the history of architectural ideas. The assumption that empirical description of implicit acts of design automatically results in theory also neglects the formative and contextualising role played by ideas, knowledge and interpretation in creative acts of architectural embodiment. Further, both Architectural History and the history of Architectural Ideas seem to be disconnected in the present given the dual dominance of the scientific and the moral-ecological paradigms. This split condition results in the view that theory can only be induced into architectural history from the present, thereby overlooking adjacent histories of ideas and intellectual currents available at the time of making. As temporal displacement and the theoretical reinvention of history increasingly overrule continuity, tradition and translation, architectural knowledge loses sight of its intrinsic transformations. This special edition of SAJAH examines the dialogue between architectural history and the history of architectural ideas.

South African Journal of Art History, Vol 27, no 1 , 2012

Many historical architectural constructions have been recorded and studied, but not all have been theorised. There seems to be a disconnection at several levels between the discourses of architectural history and the history of architectural ideas. The assumption that empirical description of implicit acts of design automatically results in theory also neglects the formative and contextualising role played by ideas, knowledge and interpretation in creative acts of architectural embodiment. Further, both Architectural History and the history of Architectural Ideas seem to be disconnected in the present given the dual dominance of the scientific and the moral-ecological paradigms. This split condition results in the view that theory can only be induced into architectural history from the present, thereby overlooking adjacent histories of ideas and intellectual currents available at the time of making. As temporal displacement and the theoretical reinvention of history increasingly overrule continuity, tradition and translation, architectural knowledge loses sight of its intrinsic transformations. This special edition of SAJAH examines the dialogue between architectural history and the history of architectural ideas.

JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 2018

JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS showcasing the changes which human race has faced. Since, decade architecture is relatively ignored by philosophers and is largely unsuccessful to draw persistent, detailed attention when compared with other art forms such as film or comic. Even today, principally ancient art forms are livelier and have philosophers focus them rather than architecture. Further, some philosophers have even dabbled in architectural projects: Dewey worked on the Chicago Laboratory School, Wittgenstein took part in designing a house for his sister, and Bentham sketched the Panoptic on design as a plan for prison reform. Architecture has existed since the recognition of civilization with its language analogy being as old as Vitruvius has flourished through the stages of development of human ABSTRACT : Architecture has existed since the recognition of civilization and its language analogy is at least as old as Vitruvius. Architecture and the human sciences such as philosophy, psychology, sociology etc. have always shared common interfaces leaving significant impersonation on each other. Architecture is not just an art but it is the reflection of social and cultural values of a society. Thus, through architecture philosophy is represented whereas philosophy is adopted by architecture for creating an edifice which showcases the prevailing human nature and need. This article offers an overview of concerns in the philosophy of architecture. Essential issues include introductory matters regarding the nature of architecture i.e. a. What kinds of objects are architectural, and what is it defined domain. b. Three Aspects-Beauty, structure and utility defining architecture and further dimensions may include space, sustainability, psychological or social features. Through this article, architectural status of various civilisations is discussed keeping in mind the philosophy and vocabulary of architecture. Renaissance enhanced the status of man in society and introduced Anthropometry in architecture. The Industrial Revolution was another of those extraordinary jumps which aid in erecting the high rise steel structure by using new building materials like cast iron, steel, glass, etc. Further, in the late of 1950s, boredom in architectural structure and look provokes distortion of regular architectural elements and objects calling this style deconstructivism. 'Mankind living and interacting with our environment in a way that can continue' lead to the evolution of a new but established thought viewed as Sustainable Architecture. In short, the paper is an approach to discuss about the philosophy and terms used by architects through their expedition from prehistoric times to the sustainability era.

ABSTRACTDespite growing interest from historians in the built environment, the use of architecture as evidence remains remarkably under-theorized. Where this issue has been discussed, the interpretation of buildings has often been likened to the process of reading, in which architecture can be understood by analogy to language: either as a code capable of use in communicating the architect's intentions or more literally as a spoken or written language in its own right. After a historiographical survey, this essay, by contrast, proposes that the appropriate metaphor is one of translation. More particularly, it draws on the work of Mikhail Bakhtin to suggest that architecture—and the interpretation of architecture— comprises a series of transpositions. As a building is planned, built, inhabited, and interpreted, so its meaning changes. The underlying logic of each medium shapes the way in which its message is created and understood. This suggests that the proper role of the historian is to trace these transpositions. Buildings, then, can be used as a historical source, but only if the historian takes account of the particular problems that they present. In short, architecture should not be studied for its meaning, but for its meanings. As historians we are always translating architecture: not reading its message, but exploring its multiple transpositions.Despite growing interest from historians in the built environment, the use of architecture as evidence remains remarkably under-theorized. Where this issue has been discussed, the interpretation of buildings has often been likened to the process of reading, in which architecture can be understood by analogy to language: either as a code capable of use in communicating the architect's intentions or more literally as a spoken or written language in its own right. After a historiographical survey, this essay, by contrast, proposes that the appropriate metaphor is one of translation. More particularly, it draws on the work of Mikhail Bakhtin to suggest that architecture—and the interpretation of architecture— comprises a series of transpositions. As a building is planned, built, inhabited, and interpreted, so its meaning changes. The underlying logic of each medium shapes the way in which its message is created and understood. This suggests that the proper role of the historian is to trace these transpositions. Buildings, then, can be used as a historical source, but only if the historian takes account of the particular problems that they present. In short, architecture should not be studied for its meaning, but for its meanings. As historians we are always translating architecture: not reading its message, but exploring its multiple transpositions.

Academics and theory around architecture is built on shallow foundations and in terms of the human story is most recent. The failure of logical definitions and fallacies like Form vs Function have led to the decay of this great discipline. It is time to define architecture - as the articulation of meaning. Time to define the new city - "the knowledge city" , the Amer Principle. and more. From CTAL at the thought studio.