Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Body and Architecture Carlo Scarpa Metonymy PDF

    Uploaded by

    fa_izans
    76 views41 pages

    Original Title

    82595289-Body-and-Architecture-Carlo-Scarpa-Metonymy.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    76 views41 pages

    Body and Architecture Carlo Scarpa Metonymy PDF

    Uploaded by

    fa_izans

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 41
    The body and architecture in the drawings of Carlo Scarpa zest the ed when the teyrated plastic figures tion of spatial nake more sense vmple. the rm an altar icult to route at Varalo, -tectural sional we inexnal and on 35 part ata building, valle and spatial Facades, like MARCO FRASCARI n contemporary architectural drawing, the presence ‘of the human figure, to ive scale, is absolutely indispensable. This has not always been the case. In ‘older cepresentations, the scale relation between drawing and building itself was mediated by 2 design method in which the human figure was incorporated into the elements of architecture by simile and! metaphor. by an organic use of stone and rendering, The goal was the ransubstantiation of architectural artifact into human presence, and vice versa; it was possible because technology was understood as @ productive system that operated simultaneously on two levels. the shetorical and the physical one (Frascari 1985: 4}. The world constructed by this twofold process of view thus became experience translated into 2 visual and tactile manifestation of thinking The theoretical drawings developed by the Tuscan Renaissance architect Francesco di Giorgio Martini 1961) to illustrate his architectural treaties are ideal ‘examples of such an interpretation of the world as a product of the twofold technology resulting from the projection of the human body. A building is as itis because it both constructed by man and interpreted nrough the human form tig, 1), The logic of the Constructive technique is part of the technique of v logic, and vice versa. In this procedure the body is the most yeneral and periect means for arriving at a sizing ff the reality of the architectural world. The body as reality becomes the unit oi architectural production ince it sets brick upon brick, Its also the tora basis ‘or the configuration ftom the elements of construction (0 whole cities tgs. 2, 3 Architectural anthvopomorphism — the ascription oi human characters and attributes to buildings and lfices— has a long tradition in architectural theor Vitruvius. a thapsodic architect from the frst century describes the diverse forms it took in the Hellenisi-Roman tradition of his day. Weivas a practice ‘guested for the determination of both measure and late the imagination of the designer rl the builder. In our own timwe Leon Krier | 984, stessive postmodern architect trom Luxemburg ums to the metaphor and the anthropomorphic tion in his hatte against the deleterious st city ig, Yani patched up as it is by mechanistic and functionalistic protheses and the transplant of organ (0 improper sites The abstracting of architectural representation in the modem movement is required by the alienation of human corporality irom the business of building, 1 the elaborations of modern projec favor a Cartesia rationality: they praduce mathematical constructions but lack human reality. If one compares drawings by Krier with those by Francesco di Giorgio, one can see how the decline in the anthropomorphic construct both has produced, and is produced by, a corresponding eee bared ch ne fe tere che nen to SRE Tek oe eile tere Bas ome Figure 1. Francesco di Giongia Martini Proportion of The body and architecture in the drawings of Carlo Scarpa zed. Ifthe ed when the iegrated plastic figures tion of spatial pake more sense ample, the mm an altar cult to itha route at Varall, itectural >-dimensional se internal and tion as part of 2 building, able and spatial Facades, like J; unlocated arallo presentation of must be seen as considerations very image must SO MARCO FRASCARI In contemporary architectural drawing, the presence of the human figure, to give scale, is absolutely indispensable. This has not always been the case, In colder representations, the scale relation between drawing and building itself was mediated by a design method in which the human figute was incorporated into the elements of architecture by simile and ‘metaphor, by an organic use of stone and rendering, The goal was the transubstantiation of architectural artifact into human presence, and vice versa; it was possible because technology was understood as a Productive system that operated simultaneously on two levels, the rhetorical and the physical one (Frascari 1985: 4). The world constructed by this twotold process fof view thus became experience translated into a visual and tactile manifestation of thinking The theoretical drawings developed by the Tuscan Renaissance architect Francesco di Giorgio Martini (1961) to illustrate his architectural treatises are ideal ‘examples of such an interpretation of the world as a product of the twofold technology resulting from the Projection of the human body. building is asi is because itis both constructed by man and interpreted through the human form (fig. 1). The logic of the Constructive technique is part ofthe technique of verbal logic, and vice versa, In this procedure the body is the most general and perfect means for ariving at a sizing, ‘ofthe cealty ofthe architectural world. The body as ‘ealty becomes the unit of architectural production since it sets brick upon brick. tis also the formal basis ‘or the configuration from the elements of construction to whole cities (figs. 2, 3) Architectural anthropomorphism —the asciption of human characters and attributes to buildings and ecditices—has a long tradition in architectural theory. Vitruvius, a thapsodic architect From the frst century ®.c., describes the diverse forms it took in the Hellenistic-Roman tradition of his day. It was a pra suggested for the determination of both measure and Proportion to stimulate the imagination of the designer and the builder. In our own time Leon Krier (1984), an angressive postmadern architect from Luxemburg, ‘etuins to the metaphor and the anthropomorphic Conception in his battle against the deleterious "modernist city (fig. 4) and its poorly organized body, patched up as its by mechanistic and functionalistic Drotheses and the transplant of organs ta improper sites (fig, 5, The abstracting of architectural representation in the modern movement is required by the alienation of human corporality from the business of building. Thus the elaborations of modern projects favor a Cartesian rationality; they produce mathematical constructions but lack human reality. If one compares drawings by Krier with those by Francesco di Giorgio, one can see how the decline in the anthropomorphic construct both has produced, and is produced by, a corresponding seis [Ayo rene Rthireymecte Teams oor te snalegne ponent RODE SS Sent = ake ar ea ae pip i I ait ean t Perecenisnten A eam Hi Figuee 1. Francesco di Giorgio Martini, Proportion of columns, Trattat Figure 2. Francesco di Giorgio Matin. Proportion of capitals, Tata change in human sel-dentification. in antiquity, man Could represent his universe through topological projection of his own body, and understand his body in this projection, Contemporary architecture, however, is constructed according ta the dictates of modern rationalism, and therefore no longer adheres to this topology. Figures and anthropomettc sections used by architects in their drawings are the last— and least —of the approaches to the reintegration of human presence into the architectonic aritact, The figures in the drawings of the madiem architects ‘can be grouped into three categories. The firs includes all the possible naturalistic representations of the human figure and all anifacts that can help the ‘nonarchitect imagine a thiee-dimensional future eeality in a two-dimensional rendering — that is, 0 understand the project on paper, within the context of presentation Grawings for clients. The second category includ the abstract representations used to verily the anthropometry, a graphic process that eliminates errors of dimension during the project’s formulation. The third Category isa result ofthe interaction of the first two, with representations of the human figure based on Pseudoformal abstractions generally favored by architecture students. Men, women, and children become biped balloons with pointed feet an’ floating heads, sometimes with a bow tie below the head of the largest figure to distinguish it as male (ig, 6) In any Case, these three categories present only stereotypes that have lost any ontological dimension; they are simply a form of communication oriented to the ‘Common man and to the technician, oF a forma representation to other architects of the possible problems of scale and dimension Despite the present limitations of the role of the body in architectural drawing, | would like to suggest that architects cannot do without the anthropomorphic Practice of identification of the human body and its felements in the architectural body. A new practice of bbodyibuilding topology is now required —one that avoids the al 100 simple road of isomorphism, isotopy. and the metaphoric analogies of the architecture of the ast, but will, instead, use the body as the element of Feference for architectural metonymy In rhetorical usage, metonymy is a semantic shi based on a relationship of logical and material Contiguity between literal and figurative terms. While in ‘metaphor the relationship established is pragmatic and extrinsic (cily = body, head = seat of government, stomach = market, church = heart, and so on), in the :metonymy the relationship is syntagmatic and intrinsic: effects substitute for causes, materials for objects, the Contained forthe container, the abstract for the concrete, oF vice versa. In architecture, vision is dominant its morphological characteristics are perceived as nonvisual qualities that give privileged Salus to various forms of perception. A sound is grave OF acute; a tactile sensation is soft or cold. The ietonymy works throw perception, while the n fn judgment, which de knowledge. In a meton a handle results from a asp, rather than iron hand itself. Another me is exempliied by an his weatise on fositicai rampan, the architect into a head, based on t rather than on the meta 2 bastion fg. 7) The drawings and an Carlo Scarpa (1906~19 characterizing the meth this practice of architec Dilewante Veneto, was of Italian contemporary almost complete isola Venetian mixture of ot extraordinary vocation, Scarpa’s architectural p cosmological isomorph the metaphoric imagery understanding of the hu Scarpa’s architecture, th subject that preduces th and the object stating f made. As Hubert Dams 1984: 210), Scarpa’ de they are dynamic demo that has the world-cons design development dra representations of huma recount the story of the project, The images oft are at once abstract and Specific. They act withi the semantic transfer thr ‘connection between hur specifications required t work as transfered in th One of Scarpa’s favo ull dies sine linea. O: was an invitation to the his aporopriation of the before him ‘e.g, Violle Dessinateur, Paris, 1875 line," extending the se Figure 2. Francesco di Giorgio Manni, Proportion of capitals, Tata change in human sel-identifcation. In antiquity, man could represent his universe through topological projection of his own body, and understand his body in this projection. Contemporary architecture, however, is consiructed according to the dictates of modern Fationalism, and therefore no longer adheres to this topoiogy. Figures and anthropomettic sections used by architects in their drawings are the last — and least—of the approaches to the reintegration of human presence: into the architectonic artifact. The figures in the drawings of the modern architects ‘can be grouped! into three categories, The frst includes all the possible naturalistic representations of the jure and all aifacts that can help the ‘Nonarchitect imagine a three-dimensional future reality na two-dimensional rendering —that is, to understand the project on paper, within the context of presentation

    You might also like