Thomas Thiis-Evensen ARCHETYPES IN ARCHITECTURE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY PRESSNorwegian University Press (Universitetsforlaget AS), 0608 Oslo 6 Distributed world-wide excluding Scandinovie by (Oxford University Press, Walton Street, Oxtord OX2 60? londen New York Toronto Delhi Bombay Colcutta Madras Karachi Kuala lumpur Singapore HongKong Tokyo Noirobi Dor es Salaam Cope Town Melbourne Auckland ‘ond associated companies in Beirut Berlin Ibadan Mexico City Nicosia © Universtetsforloget AS 1987 Reprinted 1989, 1991 Tronslated by Ruth Waaler (The Floor, The Wall, The Roof} and Scott Campbell Cover design by the author Published with o grant from the Norwegian Research Council for Science and the Humanities All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored ino retival sytem, or transmitted in any form ox by ony means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or other Wwse, without the prior permission of Norwegion Univesity ress {Uriverstetsorloget AS) ISBN 82-00-07700-4 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Dato This-Evensen, Thomos, 1946~ ‘Archetypes in architecture. 1 Architecture ~Details.2. Floors. 3. Walls 4. Rools |. Tile. NA2B40.147, 1990 721_ 89-2544 ISBN 0-19-520819-6 (USA) Typeset by Reclamo Grensen os, Oslo, Paste-up: BK Gratiske, Oslo Printed in Norway by lie & Co, OsloCONTENTS PREFACE 7 INTRODUCTION. 13 THEFIOOR 35 What the Floor does 36 Noture's Floor 37 The Directional Theme 43 The Delimiting Theme 47 The Supporting Theme 49 The Attached Floor 51 The Detached Floor 57 The Open Floor 63 The layered Floor 69 The Sunken Floor 75 The Rising Floor 83, The Directional Floor 87 Stairs 89 THE WALL 115 Whot the Wall Does 116 The Woll Themes 117 The Breadth Theme 119 The Height Theme 129 The Depth Theme 140 Main Forms 143 Building Systems 153, The lafil System and the layer System 157 The Massive System and the Skeleton System 163 The Mossive System 167 The Moulded Well. 171 The Masonry Wall 183, The Glass Wall 189The Skeleton System 193 The Column 195 The Frome 221 The Beam 223 The Colours 240 Openings 251 The Window 251 The Entronce 283 THE ROOF 299 What the Roof Does 30! The Root Themes 303 The Dome 305 The Boreel Vault 327 The Gable Roof 333 The Shed Roof 363 The Flat Root 371 CONCLUSION. 381 Design and the Theory of Archetypes 387 ‘Analysis ond the Theory of Archetypes 395 Final Word 405 NOTES 407 REFERENCES 419 DIAGRAMS 433, INDEX OF NAMES 453 DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS 458PREFACETHE SCOPE OF THE BOOK ‘Asregards the question of architectural experience, post-war edvcationin crchitecture seems to be characterized by a contrast between two ex trees, The fist is the belief in rational technology and the expressiveness thats inherentin prefabrication ond standardization. The seconds the be- lef in a subjective creativity which manifests itself in an ‘ant-pedagogy’ with is attending individvaliies. The former has led to a dstrbingly schematic orchitectute which has to a great extent dominated new hous ing; the later has ed to.a subjectivity thats especially typical of many ‘ex: pressive’ monumental constructions, and just os disturbing, These two extremes, however, represent a well-known dilemma found in both architects’ and users relationship to architecture. On the one hand, we have the need for something stable and universal —a bosis or predic- tion and recognition — and, on the other, the need for personal and emo- ional identification, The question isedin this bookis whether or nots possible to establish theory based not on technology alone but onthe entre phenomenon of crchitecture tel. Such o study is quite relevant in relationship to the con- temporary orchitecturol debate concerning postmodemism and its use of, ‘among other things, metophors ond historical motifs as experiential ele iments. This debote i the resuit of tradition that began os early os the 1960s. Two books ore central to this development: intentions in Architec- ture by Chr. Norberg, Schulz (1963) and Complexity and Contradiction in ‘Architecture by . Venturi (1966). The former provided an important contr- bution tothe understanding of architecture os o psychological phenome- non, the later established a theory of concepts and categories pertaining to architecturl form, THE GRAMMAR The following study ottempls to continue ths tradition, whichis concemed with the subject of form and its expression. We will ty to classify 0 set of orfclor orchetypes wich can conkibute fo on undecsionding of the Universality of architectural expression. This willbe done by constructing o {grommor comprising the most basic elements of architecture, which ore the floor, the wall, ond the of. This system of archetypes on which variations care composed willbe illustrated by examples rom architectural history,THE EFFECTS OF THE GRAMMAR ‘The archetypes can be discussed from various points of view. The present works limited tothe question of how the archetypes affect us psychologi- cally. We will show that hese effects are dependent both on the conditions which have dictated an architectural frm and on hose associations which ore the beholder’s. An architectural form can in this way be determined by technical, economic and functional os wel by stylistic prerequisites. Simi- larly, associations can be contingent upon personal and social as well os upon cultural circumstances. Intelationto this, the book will concem itself withthe constant phenome: na on which these prerequisites ore based. In terms of architecture, itis 0 question ofthe relationship between inside and outside ond the role of ‘orchetypes in such a context, This relationship is described as a dynamic diclogue between exterior ond interior spaces and represents a problem that will ohvays exist no matter what the projec, time or place. Additionol- ly, we will concentrate on the commonaites in our architectural ex: periences. We wishto show thot these things are based on our physicalex- periences, ond that we franser them fo what we see. This means that the ‘archetypes elicit specific meanings, thus influencing one's experience of the relationship between inside and outside. THE PURPOSE OF THE BOOK The book hos o design-oriented goal. With a more precise knowledge of the archetypes ond their variations, itis possible to replace the schematic crchitecture of recent years without necessarily falling back on and copy- ing motifs rom the past. In addition, a more reliable basis forthe emotional content of architecture con replace the generally subjective ‘feelings cebout the qualities of buildings. The archetypes cannot cover all the combinations that give architecture meoning. Consequently, this work is not a recipe for right and wrong. Moreover, its intent sto point out the possibiliies which lie atthe roots of ‘architecture, and which in the hands ofa creative proctioner, can give the ‘art of building o more humane countenance. ‘ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ‘The author hereby expresses his gratitude fo three nitions for their professional and economic assistance: fist ond foremos his place of em- ployment, the Oslo School of Architecture, secondly the Norwegion Re- search Council for Science and the Humanities for underwriting the trans- lation. Heis particularly grateful forthe Henrik Steffen Stipendivm from the ‘Christian Albrect Univesity in Kiel, Germany, outumn 1978/spring 1979. 9Thismade possible o sabbatical year for studies a The German Insite in Rome. The book was fist published in Norway in 1982. The same year the ‘author received the degree of Doctor Philasophiae at the University of (Oslo forthe workof which his book so concentrated version, both regard- ing the text ond especialy the fooinotes. ‘Special thanks go to thee individval researchers who, each in his own ‘way, have meant a great deal forthe author's understanding of architec: ture: firstly Professor Dr. Techn. Christian Norberg-Schulz, with whom the ‘outhor has had the pleasure of working closely for many years. With his humanistic outlook on architecture, Norberg-Schulz hos provided on in- valuable contibution o architectural debatein Norway and the rest ofthe ‘worl. Secondly Professor Dr. Philos. Hans Peter Orange (t 1983), who ‘os leader of The Norwegian Insitute in Rome provided vital inspiration for the author's interest in classical architecture. Finally Associate Prof. Jon Georg Digerud for many beneficial discussions about modem architecture. Itis natural also to thank the students of architecture whom the author has ‘met during is 14 yeorsasateacher. Eachinhis or her own way has provid- ‘ed on expanded understanding ofthe breadth ofthe subject andhos, with ‘free critical approach and an open inquistveness, been a source of con- tinval inspiration. Thomas Thiis-Evensen Oslo September, 1985, 10ARCHETYPES IN ARCHITECTUREINTRODUCTIONse Eiis developed in direct response to individual functional conditions, is also well known, More recent architectural theory has, however, pointed out that such ox- joms are no longer unconditionally valid Ithas gradually been perceived that creativity is primarily related to the way in which certain basic forms core combined and varied ARCHETYPES AND THEIR CLASSIFICATIONS ‘These basic forms con be referred to as the archetypes oforchitecture. The ‘original Greek meaning of the word archetype is ‘fist form, oF ‘original ‘mode ast exsts os o bosis fr all later variations and combinations.* Inother words, behind the plurity of he many forms in history ies osim- ple set of archetypes which we can call the grammar of orcitecture. These ‘archetypes may be understood as images which can be identified inrela- tion to both architectural form, function and technology. The term archetype, which wos originally employed within psychology by C.G. Jung, was first used syélematicaly within architectural theory by Paul Zucker in his book Town and Square from 1959. On the basis fo description of five square archetypes, he uses specific examples to show howistory chooses that form whichis appropriate ond how these typolo- gies, owing fo dissimilar functional characteristics, vary from antiquity upto the present day (Fig. 5). The theory of archetypes was further developed inthe 1960s, with Aldo Ross's book The Architecture of the City from 1966 representing on important step forward. During the 1970's, the theory of archetypes hos increasingly been utilized as a bosisfor architectural prac- tice, through the work of, omong others, Michael Graves, Rob and leon Krier and Mario Botta (Fig. 6) As far as being acquainted with the expressive potential of form is con. cemed, a theory of archetypes must have three goals: the fististo classify the archetypes in o concentrated overview, the second is to attempt 10 describe them in order to point out the potential expression which exists ‘within them. The thitd goal has todo with the following question: Will the expression be tall perceived by the use, and does not the experience of architecture vary from person to person? The aim ofthis goal must then be to show that there iso common language of orm which we can immediate Iy understand, regardless of individual or culture. Not until these three conditions are met can we begin to choose forms, because we then become aware of heir potentialities tothe greotest pos. sible extent Inthe following, consideration wil be limited to those archetypes which constitute the elements of spatial delimitation: the floor, the walls, and the r00F. Tis does not mean that the spotial volume iselfis disregarded, such 7os the cube, the sphere, the cylinder, the cone, et. (Figs. 7,8, 9). Volume tend delimitation are mutually dependent, in thatthe design of the spatiol boundaries willbe abe ether to strengthen or to weaken the spatial form. The prortizationis bosed more on the desir to study building as. specfic phenomenon, which means the study ofthe construction ofthe elements of the roof, walls ond floor. Intermscfform, the floor element, the wall element, andthe roofelement can be dividedinto categories which at he some time represent four levels cf scole within the construction ofthe delimiting elements. The firsts con- ered with the elemerts’ major forms. The second has to do withthe con- struction system, which shows whether or not the main forms are massive corseletal. The third concerns itself wth the surface treatment ofthe major forms, and the fourth has fo do with the openings in the major forms. ‘On each of these levels (mojor form, construction system, surface treat ‘ment, and openings), clearly defined archetypes exist which represent {general solution to problems of form that remain the some regardless of time, place or function. Respectively, they ore referred to os themes and motifs. The themes ore related tothe functions ofthe elements, or rather to ‘what they ‘do, os with floor, for example, which directs, delimits and sup- ports. The moifs suggest how the elements do their job, which means the specific interpretations within each of the themes. As on example, the delimiting theme ofa floors interpreted in principle by a limited group of mots, such as lowering, ising, frame, central patterns, surface patterns. MOTION, WEIGHT, AND SUBSTANCE AS THE BASIS OF EXISTENTIAL EXPRESSION An archetype's expression can be found in an exact description of what they are or as suggested above, whot hey ‘do’ ond how they doit. Asstat- ed, such description also creates a bass forthe division of classifications into themes and motifs But donot roofs, walls, and floors ‘do completely different things, in that 0 r00f spans above, a floor covers the ground below, and a wall encloses round? These functions cannot be seen as diferent, in that they represent dissimilor woys ofaccomplishing fundamentally similarends. Tisarchitec- tural commonality is thatthe delimiting elements separate interior space from exterior space. The exterior space that is bounded by the roof exists cover us (the ky], the walls adjoin the exterior space that is around us (the londscape, people), and the floor defines the exterior space that is ‘beneath us (the ground} (Fig. 10). In other words, the elements ofthe roof, wall and floor all do the some thing — they balance the forces of inside and outside. The bottle between these forces is an existential prerequisite for mankind. Without shelter, in 19208. Achelypcaeatonships | edition b]peneraron, cdi sion ond) spoce ina space! 9. Archetypa modes organi: 2aHon: crt, anh nd ne ‘wot om Nosoorg Shula, Bx ence, Space & Archie). the broadest sense, man cannot ive upon this earth. In his context, these delimiting elements embody « fundamental meaning and thereby o fun- domental expressive potential, n that we evaluate them in elation to their principal role of protecting an interior space from an exterior space. This expressive potential lies in how the roof, was, and floor relate tothe sur- roundings. Inother words, the expression of he del svisuolizedin the spon between opening ond closure. Each work of architecture mustfind its place somewhere between complete closure and complete openness {Figs. 11,12) How then can @ roof be open and closed? The roof bounds the exterior space of the sky andisin balance with this space in the curve ofthe dome, climbs up towards it inthe point of the gable roof, and closes against tin the low flat roof How then can « wall be open or closed? A wall bounds the exterior space with ts landscapes and people. Ii stonds firmly on the ground, os inthe stone masses of forress wal itremains closed. irises up towards the sky asin the ines ond towers of o Gothic cathedral, it opens both up- ward and outward. And io wall is permeated by similar window open- ings, asin the walls of « Renaissance polace, interior and exterior space cre in balance. How then can a floor be open or closed? A floor bounds the exterior space of the ground, the space ofthe earth beneath us. A massive stone. floor closes the space. Itis the ground itself that rises up and exerts pres- sure, while o shining miror floor opens up the space downward, and the surface layer ofa wooden floor strikes a balance between the life ofthe in terior and the substance of the earthly space. From this description, we see that there are three qualitative concepts, which ore essential othe description of how the three delimiting elements, close or open between inside and ouside. These concepis ore motion, weight, and substance. They are necessary utlized in any architectural description which attempts to suggest 0 building's realty. Motion describes the dynamic nature of he elements, whether they expand, con- tractorareinbolance. Weight describes the heaviness ofthe elements ond is elated to gravity It describes whether they stond, fll, weigh down or lighten up. Substance is reloted tothe materiality of the elements, whether they ate sot, hard, coarse, fine, warm or cold. These qualities can be described as the existential expressions of ar- chitecture. Existential expressions ore characteristics ofa form which ore at the base of symbolic meanings with their stylistic and regional variations. Asonexample, the existentialexpression ofthe Gothic styeisits vertically ‘and lightness. Allo its other cuifural characteristics such os symbols and regioncl ariculations are governed by this general quality. The opposite aiace W's /\ BS Se jal J hill‘quality is typical of Greek temples, in which massiveness and heaviness ‘ate the primory characteristics. On the other hand, one Gothic building ‘can seem heavier than another, clbet relative to the general quality ofthe style. Similarly, the Parthenon seems ‘lighter’ than the Temple of Hera ot Poestum, but here within the realm of massivity (igs. 13, 14) In the same way, motion, weight, and substance also suggest the ex- pressive foundation forthe archetypes found within the categories of roo, wall, and floor. On each level, both in terms of major forms, constuction systems, surface treatments ond openings, the archetypes con be described and thereby associated with speciic expressiveness basedon these concepts. For what st thatthe roof, the floor and the wall do? As ‘motion, the roof rises or fll (Fig. 15). The walls stand up or snk, the floor spreads out, climbs or descends (Fig. 16) In this way, weights also im- plied, That which rises is igh, that which fll is heavy. And if the roof is bright ond soft as a sail is open. fit is dark and of stone, itis closed (Figs. 17, 18). Ifthe openings ina wall ar tall and narrow, they ascend, if they cre short and wide, they sink. A soft and fine floor is warm ond open, but if tis hard and coorse, i closes and is heavy. Insummary,itcan be stated thatthe existential expression in an orchitec- tuca form can be characterized by a description ‘won Gegenstond her’ That means a description of what an architectural form ‘does, in terms of motion, weight, and substance seen in elation tothe function or meaning the form s to hove. MOTION, WEIGHT AND SUBSTANCE AS THE BASIS OF “SHARED EXPERIENCE We have asserted thatitis important for an orchitect tobe acquainted with the noture of he archetypes in order to be able to plan the effects of ar- chitecture more securely. We have also asserted that the existenicl ex- pressions of architectural forms can be described by what motion, weight ‘ond substance those forms have. But how can we be sure that the forms are experienced as we wish them tobe? Besides the competence of the architec, the user's ofitude is essen- tial othe architectural experience. Isnot the effectiveness ofthe expression dependent on each individual's atitude andbackground {age, sex, oun, culture)? These conditions represent our most conscious relationship to how our surroundings are experienced. The communicative aspect of architecture's dependent on a number of changing experentil levels. We can group them in two major categories, both related to conventions ond based on recognition: private experiences and social experiences. Private ex- Periences are connected to our personal experiences and individvaites 23(such as comprehensive abilities). We may like a piece of furniture that ‘others consider ugly becouse it was owned by and reminds us of someone. ‘we were once close to. The social experience isrelated to common cultural ‘ssociations — certain cultural agreements are necessary ifthe meaning of form isto be comprehended. In his manner, yellow i the colour of movin- ing in India, while black serves the some purpose in the West ‘This part ofthe teachings of expressionism, which deals with architectur- al elements as symbols, has surely been given more attention than any ‘other areas of study within architectural theory. Postmodemismis too great ‘extent based on such culturally specific associations. Charles Jenck’'s book, The Language of Postmodem Architecture rom 1977 is on example ‘of such a theory. Its characteristic of both the private and social levels of ‘experience to view architectural formsas symbolic expressions. Thismeons that the forms oe primarily seen os signs of an external reality ‘The intention of his bookis to study third level of experience alongside the private and socal levels. This level, which s to « great extent indepen- dent of cultural determinants, can be termed the universal level. These shared experiences are dificutio put one's finger on becouse they belong to our spontaneous and unconscious reactions te architecture. They ore defined by our reactions tothe inherent sructure of architectural forms, in- dependent oftheir symbolic associations Shared experiences, lke symbolic meanings, ore based on recognition, but his time with reference to our bodily experiences (Fig. 19, 20). Such ‘experiences ore common o al people and are gained through confronto- tions with the phenomena which surrounds. These things are givens, such ‘93 gravity and the forces of nature. Experiences with these phenomena can be described in terms of motion, weight and substance. As acting in- dividuals, we move in relation o.o dynamic reference which is defined by ‘gravity and which therefore represents a vost range of characteristics for Us: we i, we st, we stand, we run, we bend and twist. Day and night pro- Vide experiences differentiated by light ond dark. Tactile experiences teach us about he differences between soft andhard, coarse andfine, wet cond dry. These experiences form acomplexnet of references which are the basis for our reactions when we move in relationship to objects in space. These movements are described vis-d-vis physical relationships to the things around us. We walk on something, we ascend something, descend something, walk along something, through something, between some- thing, under something, etc. But the mannerin which we do these things is ‘ot immaterial, in that the experience differs if what we wolk onis seep or slack, brood or narrow — if what is bove uss low and heavy or high and light —is what we walk clongside ofis sof or hard, coarse or shiny. In other words, the existential expression ofan architectural form, which 25isbased on the form's motion, weight and substance, is recognized on the boss of our common experiences with naturel phenomena. In the some ‘way os symbolic meanings in architecture, existential expressions form im- ‘agesto which we react, Thismeans that we ‘use’ oursuroundings psycho- logically prior to sing them physically. Tiss tated also by architectural theorists such as H. Weilflin: ‘we interpret the whole outside world according to the expres- sive system with which we have become familiar from our own bod- ies. Tot which we have experienced in ourselves as the expression ‘ofseverestriciness, tout self-discipline or uncontrolled heavy reloxa- tion, we transfer to all other bodies (Fig. 22)”. IF we see a door on the opposite side of «room, we ‘go through it in our minds before we do so in reality. It acts os a sign of ls use os 0 door be- cause of our indoctrination through past experiences. However, the actual experience of passing through the doorway is dependent on whether itis high orlow, wide or narrow, whether itis part ofa solid wall or exists os on element ina skeletal wal system, ete Inthe some way, we ‘sit ina chair before we actually do so physically, and we sit comfortably in a soft chair, uncomfortably in a hard choir, relaxed in a lounge chair and formally in a stoigh'-back chair (ig. 2). ‘And a table gathers individvols hierarchically if itis long and narrows, iti- mately itis round. ‘Additionally, we wish to ‘be’ what a volume does. Therefore, we walk swiftly ino corridor and slowly and ceremoniously in a broad space. We ‘ate’ in the end of o deep room and in the centre of « round room, and at the top if a staircase is rising and ot the bottom iis folling, ‘We clso wish to be what the delimiting elements do somewhere be- ‘ween the ossaultof the phenomena of nature and the resistance ofthe en- closing elements, where the feeling of secutty or insecurity is decided by the degree fo which he interior space is threatened or victorious. An inter- ‘or space slike « pulsating membrane that surrounds us, soon contracting cond threatening asa prison cell. ‘nthe innermost port of my house | lve in peace while the enemy burrows his way from one direction slowly and Quietly towards me,® or soon expanding and optimistic as in Paxton's Crystal Palace (185I,” or soon heavy, balancing on a tightrope as « log Cabin's obstinancy inthe face of a winter storm (Figs. 23, 24) lis because we ‘participate’ in these things that we ore upiified under an elevated dome and borne down upon under the nearness of cellar vaut. We bear the load of he roof with the walls, and with them we protectin order to sur viveinthe world: ‘Withits thickness andi strength, i protects man against destruction.” Atoll scales, security i the driving force, while shared experiences pro- 29Pec oct Vide points of existential reference. The existential expression then islinked tothe choractersics ofa space which we immediately recognize indepen dently of cultural determinants. (Of couse, this does not mean that the existential expression cannot be influenced by symbolic meanings and atitudes. Nevertheless, the existen- tiol expression s always there os the very reference forthe symbolic mean- ings. we stand at the base of o steep star, the existential expression isthe resistance itself which les inthe steepness. We know what lies chead os ‘we mount the stir, thus accepting is invitation. However, the sensation of resistance varies with the goo! atthe top. Ascending to the gollows and ascending to a Victory stand ore two completely diferent things. In the former instance, the resistance could be experienced as reluctance, inthe latter os « challenge to be overcome. In the some way, sick people ond healthy people will have the same experiential reference, but will respond differently in the some situotion. For a wheel-chair user, @ narrow door is seenasasspecial hindrance. Asc healthy individual, he willexperience the dooras an opening, butfor he wheet-choir usr, it will be on opening hat cannot be penetrated. What the surroundings do and what we can do in them ore not experienced completely differently from individual to in- dividual, rather they exist as diferent possibilities within the some ‘offer Insummary, we can state thatthe existential expression hos a fundamen- tol efect on our architectural experiences, not as a quality separate from the symbolic meaning, but as an integrated port thereof. In other words, the study ofthe expression of orminterms of motion, weight and substance links the ort of building to universal qualities and manifests itself as o phenomenon in lationship to existing cultural and personal associations. 31he Foy of Man ison, Sondbu 25, The oor os experienc [photo by P-N-N 34THE FLOORWHAT THE FLOOR DOES ‘The floor has three main functions in relation to our actions (Fig. 25). directs us from one place to another, it delimits a space from is suround- ings, and it supports us by providing a firm footing Therefore, these tasks, 12. what the floor ‘does, ore prerequisites that ake t possible for vs to consider the floor as @ phenomenon. This means, forthermore, tha the floor defines an interior space affected by an exterior space which isboth around and beneath the floor. Directing and delimiting tmoy be done by both walls and roof. Thus, what is most important forthe ‘expression ofthe floor isis vertical relation to the space beneath — the natural ground. The question therefore, is: what are our shared ex: periences with nature's floor and how do these experiences determine our Impression ofthe floor in ochitecturl terms? Tn the following we shall describe these experiences with the notural floor through its qualities of motion, weight, and substance. Then, on the bois ofthese qualities, we shall explore the expressive potentialities ofthe builfloor These potentialities wil hen be related tothe archetypes infloor ‘architecture. 36NATURE’S FLOOR Notur's ow floor, the ground, is experienced as @ combination of hwo ports a surface and beneath to mass. These two parts have essentially rh Siferent functions in existent! space (Fig. 26) * a The surface is the actual plone on which we wolk tis what meets our feet nd mokesitposibleforus to walk back andorth This surface, which may be of gross, sond, sow or stone, varies from place to place. Inthe b desert itis sond that dominates, in the north itis snow, along the coast roll- ing stones prevail, and nthe forest, moss ond gross (ig. 27). Seen in his ‘way itis the surface which lustats that par ofthe ground which guides Our neve od expresses ional varies aunwiicorke __ Imeontfost the mass below the surface hos afor more permanent mean- 26, Thepargcfrakre'soor the ing’ As.a phenomenon itis a tangible reality consisting of stone, earth, fre nd water (Fg. 28). Bu, os an existential eat thos meaning because t is fim and sold. This frmness is a precondition for our existence on earth, imbedded within vs cso fndomental background fr our entire feeling of secuty.! ‘Aihough the mass is permanent dve tots ness, iti not necessarily urifon. I afecs our movements by being fat or by ring or sinking (Fig 25). Consideredinthslight, the mass cn sink ond wo fl, tcon ise and theteby hinder’ us, ori can be level, giving us freedom’ of action Indeed, the expressive quoities of he mass ore determined by a combi- nation of three factor: is expression of weigh, which is rmness, ts ex: pression of motion, which ares between sing and sinking, onditsexpres- Sion of substance, which i the eats own materi phenomenon, INTERPLAY IN NATURE'S FLOOR The expressive potentialities in nature's oor are derived through the inter- play of surface and moss. ‘Seen inthis way, the some surface may have an essentially different im ppact depending upon whether the underiying mass ses, sinks or is level. To wade through a deep layer of snow can be two quite different ex- . petiences depending upon whether the ground beneathislevel or uneven. 3729, The thee motions of mas ‘hing, planar ond fling If ities, movement is more dificult, the ascent becomes an added hin drance fo our progress, ond we must exert ourselves to continue. I it descends, we become ina way captives ofthe decine itself. Similarly, various surfaces may offect our movements even i he ground cthenwise hos the same form. Thus, a stony surface will seem heavy ond ‘more @ port of the ground itself, whereas grass is lighter and is perceived {0s alight covering carpet” In this way we see that the expression of nature's flooris determined by whether the surface appears to be independent of, dependent upon, or ppartof the underlying mass (Fig. 30a). These qualities may be character- ized by prepositions which are used in describing how the surface affects Us in elation fo the ground beneath. Four actions are upon the ground, we have a basic feeling of having a safe and fim foothold, the ground and we ore as one (Fig. 30o). The very essence of the ground as something which supports, something which is permanent and unchanging, determines the impression. fouractionstake place below the ground, we become dependent onits characteristics, we are in the clutch of the ground. We are foced with primordial forces, the ground’s own phenomena. To be beneath the ground means that we have left the near and familiar which is above {ground fo enter into @ lower region unknown and confining. The way in ‘hich the sudace leads us down into the ground is, however, decisive for ‘our impressions (Fig. 30 b-c]. If the surface cracks and breaks open, we ‘fall. The sensation of falling, of plunging through empty space is fought with fear and danger fon the other hand, he earth sinks asin trough, the ground follows along ond we feel we are being ‘guided’ down. We are also dependent upon the ground if it rises up in front of us be ‘cause then our progress is made more dificult. The determining foctor in this case i the way in which the ground rises (Fg. 30 dee). the surface breaks away from the ground and rises sharply, the top level will be isola ‘ed ond limited. But, if the surface is undulating, it gives the impression of being pushed upwards as if by some underlying pressure just os when a ‘wave swells and rises. Inboth cases we ore confronted by o counter-orce: in the ground itsef, one which causes us to pouse before continuing to Ifthe level of our actions is above the mass, our spontaneous reaction is cone of independence Fig. 304). We arein conto of he ground and liber «ted from the depths beneath, In ths case feeling of superiorly may be the result. The scole of variations within this shored experience depends upon equally specific situations. Of course, floating in an aeroplane over Mont Blanc, and stonding on a single step plateau, ore experiential ex tremes, butthey derive from the same situation: inboth cases we are above 39ECond independent of what is below. Atthispoint we must consider the builfloorin elation o these various ex- pressions in nature's floor. Considering what the floor ‘does’ we find three themes in floor architec ture: the directing, the delimiting, ond the supporting floor themes. As will be shown, the supporting theme, which i the manifestation ofthe natural floor’s own characteristics, affects the expression ofboth he directing and ‘the delimiting theme. 4