CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.7 CONCLUSION
Jencks’s work on the semiology of architecture substantiates the use of both natural and arbitrary meaning. This is presented through his belief that arbitrary meaning in architecture is exposed through ‘iconic’ and ‘actual function’
signs, while indexical signs expose the associated natural meaning (Jencks, 1980).
“It is the relation between these three entities which is important for establishing the type of architectural sign, whether it is mostly indexical, iconic or ‘actual function’ in architecture” (Jencks, 1980: 8)
In conclusion the physical forms or the parts that make up architecture reveal signs that are influenced by the natural signification of its physical form and the distanciation of both the social context in which the object exists and the idiosyncrasies of the observer. Meaning as ‘truth’ is therefore unattainable, however when related within a context and particular time, the ‘truth’ of meaning finds refuge in convention.
2.7.2 Analysis Macro
Despite the historical and cultural understanding that is achieved, in regards to a particular location and situation, through the foundation of hermeneutics, the suggestion that a chair or any kind of ‘ready to hand’ object is sufficient for the process of abstraction is naïve. As in literature, a language of the built environment must be established.
This was achieved by understanding the parts and the relationships between them in accordance to the work of Norberg-Schultz, Thiis-Evensen, Christopher Alexander, Rumiko Handa, Charles Jencks and Kevin Lynch. By utilising the previous investigation to an insight to how the inhabitants of an area understand their specific environment, the researcher will in turn nullify any of the negative results that may occur through the lack of subjectivity within a universally applicable language.
Through this research two primary or ‘Macro’ relationships of architecture were identified. Both Norberg-Schultz, Thiis- Evensen agree, that in order to create meaningful buildings, architecture must reflect both its natural environment and its urban environment:
• Natural Environment: The natural environment earth, heaven and optic array. Heaven is defined by climate and lighting, the ground by its horizontal and vertical overtones and the optic array by the artefacts that constitute it. The effect of these defining factors establishes a natural setting as being classical, romantic or cosmological.
• Urban Environment : Taking its cue from earth, heaven and optic array, the Urban environment is primarily defined by the notions of ground, roof and surrounding urban structures, which are in turned defined by their relationship with the environment through the horizontal and vertical overtones they evoke.
The above definition of the urban environment is too vague for any real understanding to be achieved. A more direct relationship has to be established between the urban environment and its meaning must be established. This was achieved through the work of Norberg-Schulz and Kevin Lynch. By referring to the universally acceptable aspects of psychoanalysis and how people identify with cities, Norberg-Schulz was able to establish links to the relevant aspects of Lynch’s work.
• Orientation: In order for a person to be able to use a city as it was meant they must be able to orientate themselves. This is achieved through lynch’s concept of node path and district, however Norberg-Schulz’s choice of neighbourhood will take preference over Lynch’s notion of district.
• Identification: Identification occurs when the user is able to relate culturally with aspects of the city and feel at home. Norberg-Shultz does establish this knowledge beyond the basic notion of ‘dwelling’. The initial Hermeneutic investigation shall provide the necessary knowledge for this task (Norberg-Shultz, 1976).
2.7.3 Analysis Micro
The meaningful quality of individual buildings can be understood, according to Norberg- Schulz, through their relationship to inside and outside. Thiis-Evensen’s ‘Archetypes in Architecture’ allows architecture to be broken down to the smallest parts. These parts or archetypes of architecture establish meaningful indicators by which the built environment can be better understood, they are essentially the words of an architectural language.
Once again taking its cue from earth, heaven and optic array, Individual buildings are defined by three factors:
• The floor: above and beneath.
• The wall: within and around.
• The roof: over and below
These factors are then redefined in accordance to the three ‘existential expressions of architecture, motion, weight, and substance, establishing a complex series of tensions between the physical elements of architecture and the existential properties of experience (Thiis-Evensen, 1987).
Thiis-Evensen’s ‘Archetypes in Architecture’ becomes a reference tool for the ‘parts’ of architecture that constitute a meaningful ‘whole’ or genius loci of place. If Thiis-Evensen’s work is considered to be a sort of architectural
‘dictionary’, it cannot be utilised in a meaningful way without some predetermined structure or ‘grammar’.
While both Norberg-Schulz and Thiis-Evensen’s provided a structure whereby the ‘parts’ of the built environment may be defined in accordance with the above examples, a true language of architecture must also subscribe to a structure determined by the relationship of the ‘parts’ to each other. This is achieved through Christopher Alexander’s ‘Pattern Language’, in which he attempts to establish how architectural parts belong together in a larger environmental whole (Alexander, 1979-1993).
The work of Alexander and Thiis-Evensen will be predominantly used as reference material in relation to the physical aspects of place described by Norberg Shultz. Hermeneutics will contend with the problems of subjectivity in terms of understanding architectural meaning within a particular community while semiotics will establish how this meaning can be reinterpreted and conveyed more universally.
2.7.4 Synopsis
By designing architecture in accordance to its relationship to the environmental, urban and cultural context that surrounds it, the designer can help to heal the surrounding built environment. By creating a continuous structure between the new architecture and the ‘parts’ around it, in accordance with the meaningful ‘whole’, an architect of any background can create meaningful architecture in any context.
The basic act of architecture is therefore to understand the "vocation" of the place. In this way we protect the earth and become ourselves part of a comprehensive totality. Man is an integral part of the environment, and that it can only lead to human alienation and environmental disruption if he forgets that. To belong to a place means to have an existential foothold, in a concrete everyday sense” (Norberg-Shultz, 1976).
Figure 21:Breakdown of Theoretical Process (Author 2011)