Specific Expectations Associated with Architecture - Essay Example

? Introduction The ability to predict responses from architecture is one which can be determined by architects. This is specific to the ideal of pleasure and what most in society and culture consider as a pleasurable space. While there are specific components which are able to identify what is pleasurable as well as whether the response will be positive or negative; however, there are also ideals of experimentation and innovation which can’t be predicted. Even though there are acceptable measures for pleasure, there aren’t measures for the innovations often used in architecture which are later determined as pleasurable. Accounting for experimentation while understanding how the acceptance of architecture can be measured is one which balances out the ideal of presenting a building or piece of architecture within society. Predicting Reactions to Architecture There are specific expectations which are associated with architecture and which build an understanding of what will be accepted or rejected. This begins with the ideology of social and cultural acceptance of what is pleasurable and what is rejected within a given society. When looking at Tschumi’s response to architecture, it can be found that he believes there is always an undertone to architecture. In the past, this was based on the concepts of morality and the aesthetics of a design, specific to geometries, use of space and other ideologies of the use of materials for a building (Tschumi, 1977: 214). The same concepts are used for today, specifically with the definition of aesthetic pleasure which is termed by society, culture and the other buildings that have been used within society. Creating a specific atmosphere which is set with the normal ideologies within a society then helps to create a sense of prediction if the architecture is recreated with these elements in mind first (Tschumi, 1977: 214). The concept of pleasure and what is considered as aesthetically acceptable is one which is not only based on the space and relationship to belief systems and social acceptance. This also moves into the ideas of concepts and what the concepts mean. When looking at an architectural space, one identifies and associates with the building by giving it a sense of meaning. The physical base, use of space and the outline of shapes which are used all create a type of significance to a building. This is placed emotionally and cognitively by an individual and the way in which they feel when surrounded in a specific environment. If one uses the space in a way which is considered as acceptable in society, while triggering beliefs, then it will help with the acceptance of the architecture. For instance, if a space uses greenery, flowers and statues around a building, then it may signify peace and tranquility. This automatically allows the architectural space to become acceptable and to have a positive response from any given culture (Brown, Gifford, 2001: 93). Identifying Pleasure The context which is used in architectural space which is known to create a specific reaction is determined by specific definitions of pleasure. The first of these is with the pleasure of space. When building or landscaping, there is a specific amount of space which can be used in between the main construction. Balancing this automatically creates a specific response, specifically with using the symmetry in a way which is pleasing to the eye. This is followed by the pleasure of geometry and order. As one categorizes and defines the order of architecture, there is the ability to alter the pleasure of a room because it creates a cognitive and emotional response as a part of the room. The values of this are furthered by creating practical spaces, not only for enjoyment, but also for social acceptance of what a specific space is used for. If one wants acceptance with architecture, then the space has to create a sense of pleasure with these three aspects to build a social and cultural relationship to the building (Tschumi, 1977: 216). The different concepts which relate to architecture are not only driven by specific responses. These responses are defined first by what is acceptable within society, as well as what is rejected. If one finds pleasure through space, use of the room and other implications, then it is based on definitions and belief systems of the individual which come from society and understanding of the architecture. Furthermore, the aesthetics that are built around the space, geometry and the use of practicality are defined first by society in determining what is beautiful and what is not pleasurable to the eye. For an architect to create a space which is accepted there is the need to also understand the mentality of society and to reflect this in the architecture which is built. By doing this, there is the ability to create elements which are naturally defined as aesthetically pleasing in society. When the spectator looks at or engages with the architecture, there is then the ability to create the emotional and cognitive responses of the pieces while ensuring that the building or space is one which becomes socially acceptable (Buscher et al, 1999: 57). Creating Metaphors and Meaning To create meaning, space, geometry and other physical aspects have to align with metaphors and meaning that are behind the architecture. If there isn’t an association from the geometry and into personal meaning, then there isn’t the ability for the specific space to become acceptable. According to Tschumi, there are ideas of pleasure by using shapes that signify something else. He specifically states that there is a direct relationship to the erotic, such as using erect skyscrapers or curved doorways (217). The space is one which can further be defined with a sense of seduction, such as creating masks in given spaces then revealing these in others. Each of these geometrical components is able to create a subconscious reaction from the spectator which allows them to understand and become a part of the icons presented in the architecture. The experience which is then created is able to provide a different outlook of the buildings and the association which they have with the representation of space (Tschumi, 1977: 215-217). Even though these specific uses of space as metaphor may construct a specific reaction, it doesn’t always determine a positive or negative reaction from the spectator. The architecture is simply a language which is used in providing a metaphor or meaning behind the use of space. The buildings then become a type of language used to present potential meanings and blueprints. However, the ability to accept or reject these comes from those who are looking at the architecture and the association which they carry with them. When moving beyond the erotic or seductive components, are other geometrical associations and patterns which may cause an acceptance or rejection of the architecture. This comes as a language from the architect first then translates into the social and cultural viewpoint of the space which is being used. The interpretation of the metaphor creates more of the acceptance of the architecture, as opposed to the potential understanding and meaning behind specific pieces. While there is always an aspect of emotional and cognitive reactions, the meanings and interpretations may differ according to time frame, social definitions and individual reactions to the specific piece of work (Clerc, Lago, 2007: 37). The Rejection of Architectural Meaning The ability to create meaning to accept an architectural component is one which can only be predicted inasmuch as the architect is aligned with the belief systems within society. If the reactions, definitions and understanding of the overall work are positive, then the architectural piece of work will be accepted. However, there are several limitations in the ability to rationalize and understand the architectural meaning and to accept this. The main problem is associated with what Tschumi calls fragmentation. In this instance, there are several pieces to the architecture, some which are accepted and others which are rejected. This is based on various reactions which occur within the language and interpretation of the architecture, specific to the small pieces which are seen and are interpreted into the whole. “Architecture is not of interest because of its fragments and what they represent or do not represent. Nor does it consist of exteriorizing, through whatever forms, the unconscious desires of society or its architects…. It is only an act as a recipient in which your desires, my desires, can be reflected” (Tschumi, 1977: 218). This quote is the basis of how architectural meaning can shift according to various interpretations. At some points, this is based on the fragments which one sees and interprets or represents. At other times, this is based on reflections from the individual, society and other factors which are acceptable or rejected at a given time. From this point of view, architecture is one which can be accepted or rejected dependent on the social and cultural time period and what is considered as a natural part of the language and aesthetics for the time. More important, there are limitations according to the several elements and dimensions which can change the perception of a viewer. For instance, the wall of a particular building may change the meaning because of the environment which is surrounding this, such as a garden or another wall. The fragments are divided and sorted through the individual and the reflection. This is furthered by the social and cultural acceptance of those fragments taken in. The concept of accepting the architecture is then looked at as a whole and may have acceptance or rejection of parts of the building. These different elements mean that the architect is only responsible for speaking through the use of space and geometry, while allowing the spectator to decide whether this is acceptable. The meaning and satisfaction which occurs from the aesthetics of the building, unless catering to a specific culture or society, is then impossible to fulfill (Groat, 1982: 15). The concept of acceptance or rejection of architecture, as well as the limitations in society and culture are followed by the political meanings and expectations of a given time. For instance, when looking at World War II, it can be seen that several shifts in acceptable architecture were taken in through the Bauhaus movement. To the past, these particular pieces of work were unacceptable, as they were not aesthetically pleasing. The representation from the architects was based on mass production and the ease of placing buildings, making all of the structures square, repetitive and simplistic in nature. Others would have slight geometrical changes; however, most were established based on the political and economic affiliations of the time for convenience. While most wouldn’t look at these as aesthetically pleasing, there was a sense of desire because of the practical use of space related to the political and economic situation. This was furthered by the understanding through the social meaning and use of space and how this intertwined with the architecture. The authority over the architecture became the main component of acceptance, which could be predicted because of the surroundings. However, these same architectural pieces today would no longer be accepted because of the movements in architecture and the changes which have been made through other movements (Goodsell, 1988: 5). From this particular viewpoint, there is the ability to understand how architecture isn’t one which is always accepted within society. This is a dynamic process which is used based on the interpretations and expectations of a given time frame. Social and cultural implications, as well as individual definitions, may describe aesthetic pleasure in one time frame. However, this is limited to the accepted knowledge of the time and is based on definitions from the time frame. In later time periods, the architecture becomes irrelevant and is not longer accepted in society. The dynamic changes made in terms of knowledge, politics, social and cultural beliefs all create an altered interpretation of what is an accepted component of society. From this viewpoint, architecture is only accepted according to knowledge, interpretation and social order. However, when the meaning is lost, the architecture is no longer completely accepted and is interpreted as a part of another language and society (Hersey, 1988: 5). Innovation and Acceptance The dynamic changes which come from interpretation also create a lack of being able to predict reactions to architecture because of the use of innovation. This creates both acceptance and rejection, dependent on how the space is used and what is considered as acceptable. For instance, today’s society is one which is creating new structures based on environmental friendliness and the use of space for sustainability. Each of these tasks is combined with efficiency to create new space. From the political and economic agenda, these will instantly be accepted. However, there is also a level of innovation which may not be accepted by society or culture. While most will accept the environmentally friendly aspect because of knowledge used, there may be rejection of space, misinterpretations of fragments and looks which may not be aesthetically pleasing. These architectural constructions then lead to a different set of dynamics which may both accept and reject the architectural structure, both which the architect can’t predict, even when moving into the political and economic measures of the building (Sager 2009: 81). Another concept which is associated with both the acceptance and rejection of the architecture is based on the avant-garde expressions and movements that are associated with creating a new language from the old buildings. From some concepts, there is the ability to produce and reproduce the same architecture, specifically because the recreation of the same building produces a similar response from spectators and users. This is a safer means of creating the architectural structures. However, the dynamics of architecture are always pushing to create and provide innovative, new structures while changing the geometries for a different use of space. The avant – garde exemplifies what new innovations mean and how it changes the aesthetics and acceptance within society. “The avant – garde has endlessly debated oppositions that are most complementary: order and disorder, structure and chaos, ornament and purity, rationality and sensuality. And these simple dialects have pervaded architectural theory to such an extent that architectural criticism reflected similar attitudes… Often these oppositions have been loaded with moral overtones” (Tschumi, 1977: 214). When looking at this concept, it can be seen that the main ideology is based on creating something new and innovative and pushing the ideologies of space forward within the architectural structure. The avant – garde new that the acceptance of an architectural piece wasn’t based on the user, but instead the associations and changes which could be used to move architecture forward into new acceptance. The main association with innovation and experimentation is one which doesn’t account for one structure or sense of pleasure being able to be aesthetically pleasing. Instead, there are several dimensions which create a response from the user. Knowing whether this will be accepted or rejected is one which can only be based on the experience and knowledge of the user as well as the trends at the time. However, this changes according to the dynamics of time and evolution, meaning that an architectural structure changes in the reactions and outcomes of the building. This creates a sense of polyphony within the structures while allowing the information communicated through the structure to be a contrast to what is already known. At this point, the architect can’t determine how spectators and users will respond to architecture or what the amount of pleasure will be in the responses. The rejection of older definitions of pleasure and acceptance then lead to the notion of creating something in the unknown and questioning the responses which may be held within society (Raadt, Perdeck, 2004: 31). The question which arises with innovation is based on how much innovation to include as well as how to predict the outcomes of users by defining the dynamic elements in society which are considered as acceptable. The main language which the architect has to create is based on combining the avant – garde aspects with the acceptance within society. If the innovations don’t take this balance, then the architect can predict that the architecture won’t be considered as acceptable or pleasurable but instead will amount to resistance of the various fragments of the new building. While some fragments may be accepted, most of the building will be considered as one which is not acceptable and which is defined by society as aesthetically unpleasing. Interchanging with metaphors and other aspects which are considered morally acceptable will help to balance the ideals of innovation and acceptance while predicting the outcome within newer pieces of architectural landscapes. The concept of architecture, when looking at innovation, new movements and the dynamics of society, then become a type of evolutionary process. The architect may be able to determine the outcomes from users at a specific level, all which is defined by the known use of space. However, innovations, desires to create something outside of the normatives and the changing expectations and dynamics of architectural forms all present a controversy with the accepted perspectives of architecture. The concept of architecture becomes one which is ever evolving. When the evolution first begins, it may be rejected or accepted by society; however, these elements later change into knowledge and processes which are accepted within society. The architect can then never determine what is acceptable or rejected by users. Instead, there is only the question of the evolution of those interested in a specific use of space and whether the new approach to the architecture will change these definitions (Stabile, 2000: 17). Conclusion The concept of architectural pleasure is one which theoretically allows the architect to predict the users reaction to the architecture. However, this doesn’t define the other elements which may change the perspective and reactions which occur. Definitions in society, culture, political situations and economics all help to create the specific and expected reaction. However, there are also alternatives which may create a sense of rejection to the architecture and which don’t define the various elements as pleasurable. The changes of fragments through various geometrical forms, dynamic changes from past and present acceptance and the use of innovation in the various forms of architecture all change the amount of acceptance a user has. When looking at the language of architecture from this viewpoint, it is one which is not based on acceptance or rejection, but instead by the interpretation and dynamics that are evolving within the field of architecture. References Brown, Graham, Robert Gifford. (2001). “Architects Predict Lay Evaluations of Large Contemporary Buildings: Whose Conceptual Properties?” Journal of Environmental Psychology 21 (1). Buscher, M, M Kompast, R Lainer. (1999). “The Architect’s Wunderkammer: Aesthetic Pleasure and Engagement in Electronic Spaces.” Digital Creativity 57 (4). Clerc, V, P Lago. (2007). ‘The Architect’s Mindset.” Architecture, Components and Practice. 57 (2). Goodsell, CT. (1988). The Social Meaning of Civic Space: Studying Political Authority Through Architecture Kansas: University Press of Kansas. Groat, L. (1982). “Meaning in Post – Modern Architecture: An Examination Using the Multiple Sorting Task.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 57 (6). Hersey, GL. (1988). The Lost Meaning of Classical Architecture: Speculations on Ornament from Vitruvius to Venturi. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Raadt, B, M Perdeck. (2004). “Polyphony in Architecture.” Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Architecture. Sager, C. (2009). “Innovation and Architecture.” Center for Transatlantic Relations. Stabile, D. (2000). Community Associations: The Emergence and Acceptance of a Quiet Innovation in Housing. Routledge: New York. Tschumi, Bernard. (1977). “The Pleasure of Architecture.” Architectural Design 47 (3). Read More