ARCHITECTURE & THE EXPERIENCING HUMAN BODY
EXTRACT

"THE RELATIONSHIP OF MAN TO PLACES AND THROUGH PLACES TO SPACES IS BASED ON HIS DWELLING IN THEM"HEIDEGGER

©2014 BENJE FEEHAN | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




THEORY

INTRODUCTION

     CHAPTER I. A SMALLER PLACE

     CHAPTER 2. HUMAN IDENTITY

     CHAPTER 3.  BOUNDED IDENTITY

     CHAPTER 4.    SCALE AND THE HUMAN BODY

     CHAPTER 5. SEQUENCE


INTRODUCTION

THIS THESIS IS AN EXAMINATION OF THE SCALE OF THE HUMAN BODY AS IT EXPERIENCES ARCHITECTURE. IT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A WORK THAT SKIRTS THE REALMS OF ANTHROPOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY, OR PHENOMENOLOGY MERELY TO ATTEMPT A LEGITIMIZATION OF THE HUMANIZATION OF ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE. ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS A WORK THAT SEEKS A RESPONSE FROM THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT; A WORK THAT IS ROOTED IN UNDERSTANDING A CREATIVE PROCESS AND ITS OUTCOMES. ARCHITECTURE IS INTRINSICALLY INTERTWINED WITH THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE, YET THIS HUMAN EXPERIENCE IS CHALLENGED DAILY BY DESIGN DECISIONS WE MAKE.  ARCHITECTURE HAS CHAMPIONED CAUSES, DEFINED REGIONS, SHAPED CITIES, LIBERATED THE HUMAN CONDITION, AND SIGNIFIED OPPRESSION. THOUGHTFULLY PRACTICED, IT HAS ALSO EVOKED THE HUMAN QUALITIES OF JOY, BEAUTY, COMFORT, AND WELL BEING. IT IS AT THE ESSENCE OF ARCHITECTURE TO SHAPE THE ENVIRONMENTS HUMANS INTERACT WITH AND, BY ITS NATURE, IS A POWERFUL CONTRIBUTOR TO THE INFLUENCING OF EVERYDAY HUMAN EXPERIENCES. 

AS AN ARCHITECT, I HAVE APPROACHED THIS THESIS AS I WOULD ANY DESIGN INQUIRY.  THE PROGRAM OR ISSUE IS A DESIRE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I PERCEIVE TO BE A LACK OF, PERPETUAL DISREGARD FOR, OR MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE PLACES WE CREATE FOR OUR FELLOW CITIZENS. I WILL ADMIT THAT THIS IS BASED ON A SET OF PERSONAL BELIEFS AND BOLSTERED BY A CERTAIN FAITH THAT A HIGHER CONSIDERATION OF OUR FELLOW HUMANS COULD LEAD TO AN ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE THAT PRIORITIZES MEANINGFUL HUMAN EXPERIENCE, SUBSEQUENTLY GIVING MEANING TO SUCH SUBJECTIVE TERMS AS “AUTHENTIC,” OR “HONEST,” ARCHITECTURE.  WHEN DISCUSSING THE CREATION OF MEANINGFUL ENVIRONMENTS FOR PEOPLE, ROBERT SHIBLEY SPEAKS OF “PAYING ATTENTION BECAUSE OF A CORRECT PERCEPTION THAT ATTENTION IS OWED,” AND THAT WITHOUT THIS ATTENTION, “OUR ATTENDING, OUR SUBJECTS, INCLUDING OURSELVES, ARE ENDANGERED.” (SCHNEEEKLOTH 1995, 18) WE ARE IN DANGER OF LOSING OUR SELF IDENTITY, OUR ABILITY TO CLAIM OUR ENVIRONMENTS AS OUR OWN EDEN.

ARCHITECTURE IS THE ACTUALIZATION OF A SERIES OF DECISIONS. IT MANIFESTS THE EMBEDDED VALUES OF THOSE THAT COMMISSION IT, THOSE THAT DESIGN IT, THOSE THAT CONSTRUCT IT, AND IS ULTIMATELY TRANSFERRED TO THOSE THAT OCCUPY IT. HENRI LEFEBVRE STATED THAT AN “AUTHENTIC KNOWLEDGE OF SPACE MUST ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF ITS PRODUCTION.” (HAYDEN 1995, 14) AND BY QUESTIONING ITS PRODUCTION WE MUST ADDRESS FACTORS OF INFLUENCE SHAPING OUR BUILT ENVIRONMENT.  TO ASK ARCHITECTURE TO PRIORITIZE POSITIVE HUMAN EXPERIENCE, WE MUST HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE INFLUENCES THAT ARE NOT DOING SO. PALLASMAA EQUATES THE IMPAIRMENT OF OUR SENSE OF LOCALITY AND IDENTITY TO THE “TECHNO RATIONALLY BIASED AND ECONOMY OBSESSED BUILDINGS.”(CANIZARO 2012, 129) ONE NEED LOOK NO FURTHER THAN THE QUALITIES OF OUR AMERICAN CITIES, THE BRANDED CORPORATE LOGOS THAT ADORN CITYSCAPES, THE IMMENSE SPRAWLING CONDITIONS OF THE OUTER RINGS, OR THE BUILDINGS OF TODAY AS ACCELERATORS OF ESTRANGEMENT AND ALIENATION. INSTEAD OF INTEGRATING OUR WORLD-VIEW AND SENSE OF SELF, WE AID IN DISCONNECTING HUMANS FROM THEIR IDENTITY. “SIMPLY, WE HAVE LOST OUR SENSE OF UTOPIA” (CANIZARO 2012, 129)

I AM NOT ALONE IN THESE CONCERNS, NOR AM I THE FIRST TO EXPLORE THEM. IN A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS REGARDING HIS PRACTICE, BRIAN MACKAY-LYONS SHARED THAT “MODERN ARCHITECTURE'S UNDERPINNING MYTH THAT EACH DESIGN SHOULD ARISE DE NOVO WAS NAIVE, AND ITS INFLUENCE LINGERS IN AN OVEREMPHASIS ON AND MISUNDERSTANDING OF ORIGINALITY. STRIVING MERELY TO BE DIFFERENT LEADS TO FREAKISHNESS AND A SENSE OF FORMAL DISCONNECTION, AND SO TO FRAGMENTATION AND LACK OF BELONGING, AS THE CONTEMPORARY BUILT ENVIRONMENT PROVES.”(LYONS 2008, 174) THE BURDEN OF THIS CRITIQUE RESTS ON THE ARCHITECT. WE ARE ALL TOO FAMILIAR WITH THE IDOLATRY ASSOCIATED WITH CELEBRITY BUILDINGS, AND THE DESIGNERS RESPONSIBLE FOR A PERPETUATION OF SHEER ORIGINALITY.

YET THIS THESIS WILL BEGIN WITH THE HUMAN, TAKING THE COMPLEX FRAGILITY OF THE BODY INTO THE WORLD OF CONCRETE, WOOD, STONE, GLASS, AND STEEL; WE CREATE LARGE HARD THINGS, FOR SMALL SOFT PEOPLE. THE ARCHITECTURAL PROCESS PHYSICALLY MANIFESTS A SERIES OF DECISIONS MADE BY ONE OR MORE HUMANS. IT IS THE CREATION OF ENVIRONMENTS ESSENTIAL TO HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: PLACES OF WORK, EDUCATION, WORSHIP, AND DWELLING, WITH BUILDINGS, STREETS, GARDENS, PLAZAS, AND CITIES BECOMING TANGIBLE TO THE HUMAN SENSE OF BEING. HUMANS INTERACT WITH ARCHITECTURE, AND ARE BOUND BY IT SPACE. BESIDES THE PHYSICALITY OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, THERE IS A SEQUENCE OF ACTIONS OR EVENTS HUMANS ENGAGE IN CONCERT WITH THESE CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SHAPING OUR ENVIRONMENT SINCE TIME HAS BEEN RECORDED. SAM JACOBS RECENTLY WROTE THAT “WE HAVE A LONGER RELATIONSHIP WITH OBJECTS THAN ANY OTHER CULTURAL FORM. THINGS EMERGED BEFORE LANGUAGE AND BEFORE IMAGE MAKING.”  THIS STATEMENT, DEFENDED BY THE FACT THAT THESE OBJECTS HAVE SURVIVED IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDS, MEANS WE COULD “CONVINCINGLY ARGUE THAT THE HISTORY OF HUMAN CULTURE IS WRITTEN NOT IN TEXT BUT IN OBJECTS.”(JACOBS 2013) THIS FACT THEREFORE ALLOWS ONE TO SEE THE QUALITIES OF OUR BUILT ENVIRONMENT AS A DIRECT REPRESENTATION OF HOW WE VALUE OUR FELLOW HUMANS.


JONATHEN HALE POSITIONS THE WORLD/HUMAN RELATIONSHIP, STATING, “TO BE HUMAN – AND HENCE TO BE EMBODIED – IS TO BE ALREADY EXTENDED INTO THE WORLD…A LIMINAL REALM WHERE IT BECOMES INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO SAY CATEGORICALLY WHAT BELONGS TO THE SELF AND WHAT BELONGS TO THE ENVIRONMENT.” (HALE 2012, 514) FRENCH PHILOSOPHER MERLEAU-PONTY PRESENTS THAT THE INTERTWINING OF THE BODY AND ITS PERCEPTUAL FIELD IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE “PERCEIVE THE WORLD THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF THE EXPERIENCING BODY.” THEREFORE, IT MIGHT ALSO BE SAID THAT HUMANS “EXPERIENCE THE WORLD THROUGH THE ‘TECHNOLOGIES’ OF THE BODY’S SENSORY SYSTEMS...THIS MEANS THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE A MEANINGFUL DISTINCTION BETWEEN OUR EXPERIENCE OF THE OBJECTS AROUND US AND OUR EXPERIENCE OF THE BODY ITSELF IN THE ACT OF EXPERIENCING.” (HALE 2012, 513-14) IT IS THROUGH HUMAN EMBODIMENT, AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMAN COGNITION AND ENVIRONMENTS, THAT I WILL ALIGN THE DISCIPLINE OF ARCHITECTURE WITH THE COMPLEXITIES OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE. THE CAUSE IS NOT SUBJECTIVE, IT IS NOT A QUEST FOR “GOOD DESIGN”. RATHER, IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS THESIS TO CRITICALLY ASSES ARCHITECTURE FOR ATTRIBUTES THAT RECOGNIZE AND PRIORITIZE MORE MEANINGFUL HUMAN EXPERIENCES. 

SO HOW CAN WE UNDERSTAND THE MOST BASIC ELEMENTS OF ARCHITECTURE—SCALE, SPACE, LIGHT, AND MATERIALITY—AS THEY INFLUENCE THE HUMAN CONDITION? WHAT ARE THE ARCHITECTURAL INSTRUMENTS THAT ENABLE DESIGN TO PRIORITIZE OPTIMISTIC HUMAN EXPERIENCE OVER HUMAN PROGRAMMING, AND TO CHAMPION A PROJECT’S LOCALE OVER THE DESIRE TO CREATE CONSTRUCTED ORIGINALITY WITHIN AN ECONOMY DRIVEN MARKET? IT UNDOUBTEDLY ALREADY EXISTS, BUT WHAT ARE THE OPERATIVES, WHAT ARE THE ROOT PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED, AND HOW DO WE TRANSLATE THESE EXAMPLES INTO A BROADER SET OF INSTRUMENTS FOR UNDERSTANDING AND IMPLEMENTATION? 

SCALE AS A KNOWN OPERATIVE HOLDS CONSIDERABLE VALUE IN THESE DISCUSSIONS. WHEN ASSESSING ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTS AT A SMALLER SCALE, WE OFTEN PERCEIVE A GREATER KNOWING OF THE PROJECT’S INHABITANTS AND LOCALE. ARCHITECTURE SEEMS TO BE MORE SUCCESSFUL AND IDENTIFIABLE AT SMALLER SCALES RATHER THAN AT LARGER; CONSIDER THE HOUSE AS THE QUINTESSENTIAL EXAMPLE. WHY ARE WE ABLE TO READ THESE WORKS WITH SUCH CLARITY? ONE GENERALLY KNOWS WHERE THE PROJECT COULD BE LOCATED, WHAT ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ARE CONSIDERED, AND HAS A MORE INTIMATE UNDERSTANDING OF THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE. TO ESTABLISH THIS THESIS, I WILL ALIGN SCALE WITH THE HUMAN BODY, DISCUSSING SCALE AS IT PERTAINS TO THE HUMAN IN SPACE, MOVEMENT OF THE BODY THROUGH SPACE, AND THE ROLE SCALE PLAYS IN HUMAN COGNITION. SCALE IS FUNDAMENTALLY ABOUT THE HUMAN BODY, HUMAN PERCEPTION, AND HUMAN EXPERIENCE. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SCALE, WE RELATE IT BACK TO OUR BODIES AND OUR CENTER. THESE SIMULTANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS OF SCALE ILLUSTRATES HOW THE PRECONCEPTION OF HIERARCHY CAN BE INVERTED WHILE MAINTAINING A COHERENT WHOLE, (ADLER 2012, 11) AND OFFERS AN ALTERNATE GENESIS FOR THE CREATION OF ARCHITECTURE: THE HUMAN FORM.

IN THE DIALOGUE SURROUNDING THE EMBODIMENT OF MAN IN SPACE, I WOULD BE AMISS TO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE CONCEPT OF PLACE, FOR IT IS IN PLACE THAT MAN FINDS HIMSELF, AND TO WHICH ARCHITECTS ARE ULTIMATELY IN SERVICE. EXAMPLES OF COMMON PLACE LANGUAGE CAN BE FOUND IN A SEA OF ARCHITECTURAL TEXTS. BRIAN MACKAY-LYONS SPEAKS OF THE NOVA SCOTIA HE KNOWS AS  “THE PATTERN LAID DOWN BY THE GLACIERS [AS] A MUSICAL STAFF OVER WHICH THE MELODY OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN LAID, ULTIMATELY PRODUCING THE GENIUS LOCI, OR PARTICULAR SENSE OF PLACE…FROM THE SCALE OF THE LANDSCAPE TO THE SCALE OF POTS AND PANS, FROM ARCHITECTURAL TIME TO GEOLOGICAL TIME.” (LYONS, 2008, 35) AS EVIDENT IN THIS QUOTE, PLACE IS MOST OFTEN THOUGHT OF AS THE ENVIRONMENT HUMAN EXIST IN; PLACE IS COMPLEX AND CLOUDY. THE INSTABILITY OF THE PLACE CONCEPT IS INADEQUATE WHEN ATTEMPTING TO UNDERSTAND THE HUMAN KNOWLEDGE OF SPACE AND LOCATION THROUGH EMBODIMENT. 

ONE MUST ASSESS PLACE IN A MANNER THAT DISTILLS IT DOWN TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF HUMAN EMBODIMENT IN A LOCATION, GIVEN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HUMAN BODY IN SPACE AND THE ELEMENTS THAT DEFINE THAT SPACE. THIS ARGUMENT PARALLELS THE ARISTOTELIAN THEORY THAT PLACE IS THE “FIRST OF ALL THINGS,” BUT RATHER THAN POSITIONING PLACE THROUGH A UNIVERSAL UNDERSTANDING, IT MUST BE POSITIONED VIA HUMAN EMBODIMENT. POSITIONING THE HUMAN PROJECTION OF IDENTITY AND KNOWLEDGE THROUGH SENSORY INTERPRETATION AS A MORE APPROPRIATE MECHANISM TO DISCUSS “PLACE,” EMBODIMENT WILL BE ADDRESSED BY EXPLORING THE HUMAN FUNCTION OF SENSING, AND WILL PRIMARILY DEAL WITH THE SEQUENCE OF HUMAN ACTIONS AND THE ACT OF INTERPRETATION. THE TRUE VALUE OF ARCHITECTURE MUST COME FROM OUR ABILITY TO GRASP THE FACT THAT WE CREATE THESE OBJECTS, SPACES, AND ENVIRONMENTS FOR HUMANS.

TO ADVOCATE FOR A HUMAN-CENTRIC ARCHITECTURE IT WILL REQUIRE MOVING AWAY FROM THE TERM PLACE QUICKLY, POSITIONING AN ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT TO OPERATIONALIZE HUMAN EMBODIMENT. HUMANS AS THE GENESIS OF PLACE WILL BE DEFENDED BY WAY OF PERCEPTION AND INTERPRETATION, FOR THESE ARE THE HUMAN MECHANISMS FOR CONNECTING THE PARTS OF A WHOLE. HUMAN IDENTITY WILL BE EXPLORED THROUGH THE SCALE RELATIONSHIP OF THE HUMAN BODY TO IT’S ENVIRONMENT, BOUNDED SPACES, AND MOVEMENT OR THE SEQUENTIAL PROCESSION, REVEALING THE INSEPARABLE COGNITIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMAN EXPERIENCE AND THE PLACES CREATED BY ARCHITECTS. ONCE THIS FRAMEWORK HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, A CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY WILL BE DEVELOPED TO TEST THIS HYPOTHESIS. 


END OF INTRODUCTION