Topos in architectural theory.

This body of text represents some initial consideration relating to one of the four architectural theory units me and Paul are currently attending; entitled 'Topos in architectural theory'.

It deals, I think, with how we fundamentally perceive and engage with architecture as well as other 'art' forms such as dance, music, art or drama. Are they more than just objects? How do we define which are beautiful? Also is there a universal method that can be applied in order to understand them collectively?

TOPOS IN ARCHITECTURAL THEORY.

GOETHE ON ARCHITECTURE.

In his 1795 fragment on Baukunst, Goethe wrote. ‘One would think that architecture as a fine art works solely for the eyes. Instead, it should work primarily for the sense of mechanical motion in the human body – something to which scant attention is paid. When in dance we move according to definite rules, we experience a pleasant sensation. A similar sensation should be aroused by someone who is led blindfolded through a well-built house. This involves the difficult and complicated doctrine of proportions, which gives the building and its various parts their character.’

Considerations regarding the similarities and differences between architecture, dance and music.

It is first of all important to establish what Goethe is referring to when he is discussing ‘architecture’. One possible first reaction would be to instantly dismiss architecture as a static and fixed form and therefore in a separate category from music and dance; which can both be seen as fluid and organic and thus more human.

However is it architectural form that Goethe is referring to here? It could be argued that rather than building form instead the concept of moving through, experiencing architecture and engaging with it spatially is being described.

‘A similar sensation should be aroused by someone who is led blindfolded through a well-built house’.

With this in mind it could be possible to start drawing similarities between the three disciplines not least because they offer a fully enveloping experience when both practiced and encountered. However it could be argued that to dismiss the visual element of architecture and focus solely on the spatial experience is to ignore one of the elemental components of architecture.

However if to begin we are to consider architecture an art of movement then it is possible to begin to establish similarities shared between architecture, dance and music based on their common foundation on an established series of rules, for example rhythm and notation in music, step and choreographed moves in dancing and finally form and proportion in architecture. Most people can learn and apply these functionally however what perhaps produces a truly authentic and beautiful ballet, building or fugue cannot be purely defined by rules. It is a sense of emotion and individual expression, which allows something that is apparently defined by strict convention to transcend to the level where it can become classified, often subconsciously, as beautiful.

In order to effectively practice these three artistic disciplines it can therefore be proposed that a series of rules must be understood in the first instance, which when applied with individual and emotive expression can produce work that can be classed as attractive. Interestingly although all of these disciplines can be seen as being defined by rigid framework these are not immediately on view when the work physically manifests itself, as they are subconsciously applied without apparent consideration; thus allowing a spontaneous and free creation to take place.

Another similarity is that could be proposed is that we move through buildings or perform music and dance in a linear way experiencing events, pauses, tempo changes and stops along a prescribed linear framework, However despite this, it could be contested that the actual experience will be different for each individual who engages with or perceives it, that is to say that a route taken through a building is always different and the performance of a symphony will always have individual characteristics; despite being an established work. This diversity or irrationality is typical of humanity and is why we strive to explain and contain our surroundings through rules in the first instance.

Whilst this analogy seems justifiable when applied to movement through a building it doesn’t apply however when we once again replace the experience of moving through buildings with the concept of building form and aesthetics. Buildings can not really be defined as linear, performance events like a piece of music or a dance, as although through their form they can expand and contract in all directions, they are ultimately defined and fixed. This difference is why it is essential to initially clarify the difference between the visual aesthetics and form of buildings in contrast to the psychical act of moving through the space, as it is apparent that both categories are not comparable.

Further differences can be traced when it is considered that music and dance are both disciplines that are expressed at different points by two separate artists; the creator and the performer. For example a dance can be created by a choreographer and then performed by a dancer and the same rule applies to music with composer and performer. This practice is of course negated if the creator is also the performer.

Architecture however is more difficult to clarify in this way. An architect can be defined as the creator of a building but how is it then ‘performed’? Possibly the builders who construct it or the people that use it could be argued as being this secondary artist but really there is no defined performer; except maybe the building itself perhaps. Architecture and the architect can therefore be placed in a category of the arts that is quite dissimilar from dance and music in terms of artistic creation and provision and maybe makes it more akin to painting or sculpture. The work is conceived and created by a singe process, it is then ‘frozen’ and can only be moved through as a static entity; we cannot walk through walls; yet. This is hardly surprising as architecture, painting and sculpture have in the past often been fused together, particularly during the medieval period through to the baroque. For example the architect and artist Michelangelo’s work includes outstanding examples of all three artistic disciplines; all of them static and unyielding.

So it can be speculated that whilst similarities can be defined between architecture, music and dance in terms of movement through space, linking architecture as an aesthetic discipline with a dance routine or a concert is more challenging.

At this point then it also worth attempting to address what we are actually relating too when we perceive a building we find beautiful or when we hear a moving piece of music. Indeed the whole concept of how we emotionally relate to our surroundings whether it is music, a building or a dance is a puzzle. Why for instance do we find a piece of music sad or perhaps a building particularly uplifting? A piece of music is not inherently ‘sad’ in itself as all it fundamentally consists of physically is a linear progression of varying tones; it cannot feel or express emotion as a basic entity. Human expression is needed through the performer for music to transcend to an emotional level. This suggests that our conscious perception is an elementary part of how different art forms or indeed any object are emotionally defined ultimately and again links us back to how established rules are emotionally projected by the creator and then the performer. It can be argued therefore that we are subconsciously programmed to apply different emotions to certain situations, places, movements or sounds. We often find large spaces uplifting and inspiring, whilst small, cramped spaces are often associated with feelings of oppression and depression.

The philosopher Maurice Merleau Ponty has attempted to clarify this concept by suggested that our bodies actually act as a central reference point. The point 0,0 on graph could perhaps be used as a metaphor, from which threads of perception extend out in order to establish and analyse our surroundings through a combination of mind and matter; which Ponty defined as ‘flesh’. Everything around us is therefore ‘non-existent’ without us first existing as the zero point of perception and attributing an emotion or feeling to a situation or object through ourselves. We have the ability to personally inhabit a place, dance or musical performance and attribute a personal meaning to it, which itself can be based on a number of factors such as personal knowledge, situation, emotional state and characteristics in the subject matter.

Therefore the question that can be arrived at here is not so much what we are trying to engage with, as that is a secondary consideration. Instead perhaps we should trying to address how we actually fundamentally engage with and attribute feeling and emotion to our surroundings as a collective whole.