Architecture is created space. It is something that has been constructed in order to make a place or environment for the human body to experience.
What does “created space” mean? It does not destroy; it creates. It brings to fruition ideas for space whether this means a building, landscape, cityscape, or a simple enclosure. It delineates the void with physical walls or implied direction.
“Something that has been constructed.” Once again, it is something created and built upwards, downwards, outwards or inwards. It can be developed on thoughts that dwell on context or those that desire a perceived space based on form. It is something built that struggles to be pure in its realization, yet is only attains the aim of pure thought.
Architecture is constructed to “make a place or environment.” This is a place or environment defined by the architecture; its parameters, form and concept. The place created could have the potential to become a destination, icon, or place of curiosity. Also, no matter what the place or environment becomes, movement, whether static or active, is an instance in the creation of place. Movement develops out of the integration of the living into the space.
“For the human body to experience.” The experience is both physical and emotional. Every sense of the human body is engaged in architecture. Architecture can create a feeling or perception. It can bring comfort or make uncomfortable. It can try to ignore the human body but will always have an effect on the experience and movement of the individual regardless. This last piece of the definition is what architecture is about. Without the human body architecture would be lost. It would simply be a thing rather than a creation with purpose.
Your definition of architecture focuses a lot on the fact that, simply, without people, there is no architecture- yet the graphic begins to speak to the relationship between the built and 'natural' (maybe grown?) environments. I point this out because I don't think these ideas are mutually exclusive. Architecture in many a sense is how humans situate themselves in the world they live in- in speaking to the human scale and sensory/kinesthetic experience you are getting at this topic from one direction, while the thesis topic you presented a week or so ago begins to look at how this man-made 'situation' (architecture) fits into the larger context of the world. Do you see some sort of relationship between these two interests? They both seem to have a dynamic or changing element involved- movement sensorially or perspectivally, and with growth, seasonal or just change in age. Its possible you didn't intend a link between the two and I'm just reading into it, but both begin to frame architecture as a non-static entity, even after its final built form- its interesting that your definitions of architecture are about the act of making- suggesting a stasis after the completion of the act- while your interests point to a more dynamic interpretation.
ReplyDelete