Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Arnheim, R. (1977) The Dynamics of Architectural Form

    Uploaded by

    Lluís Mira
    57 views68 pages

    Original Title

    Arnheim, R. (1977) The dynamics of architectural form

    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
    57 views68 pages

    Arnheim, R. (1977) The Dynamics of Architectural Form

    Uploaded by

    Lluís Mira

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 68
    THE DYNAMICS OF ARCHITECTURAL FORM RUDOLF ARNHEIM THE DYNAMICS OF ARCHITECTURAL FORM RUDOLF ARNHEIM UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS niyo Catania Meh anon Angie Cain tine of Clr rom i copra bi ‘The Renae ary Cor, "ard tetiae! semethecs Pepi win pbc mer hii ined Libary Masa ARS 23948 CONTENTS Tntroduetion| Space cated by ings 9 Arche npatns 1 The lds in beiee 6. gy ed dra 2. Thymic rod spaces 1. VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL Anyi pct. 32. Vio ke pi Peng te roved 39 ornona 44 Woh a ph 4 yeas he ‘iment, 31 The mind ne mening adn in cnet 6 Bande round The erly tpi, The are pr Cig ad at Cri ‘ne ede and oe, 91, Comte ad sony, ‘ian 1M Th edn a 17 Mot andi 12 Te ep ‘Obigensiand dep 38 2 o 0 v. womuiry ry VI, ORDER AND DISORDER 1a ode 11, Lv of compe, IE The Pn a eran ‘pen IB Basing men 83. Theranee ne WD VIL. SYMBOLS THROUGH DYNAMICS 205 VIM. EXPRESSION AND FUNCTION 248 ‘int ake fem 28 Wht ee expe 27 Stes a stone 27 A hovghe ako eaing 272 Notes ns Bibliography 29 Acknovsledgments 284 Index 285 INTRODUCTION 80.0 om the visual form of architecture requires justification. Are there reasons enough to focus so much tention on he appearance of Dullings? And if there are. can such an analysis afford to leave aside most of the social. economical. and historical connotations and all the technology so inseparably involved inthe art of building? Most of us, when walking through the srets, are alfected in one way or nother by the lok ofthe buildings we pas and their arrangement i space “Moreover, itis hard to eseape the impression that visually succesful build- ings are rarer today than they were in almost anyother perio or eilization ‘On what sort of observation are such judgmens based? We ask: Does 3 building display the visual unity that makes understandable tothe human je? Does its appearance refet the various functions, physical as well as pjchologleal, for which it was designed? Does it display something of the Spirit that animates, o ought to animate, the community? Does it ransmit some of the best in human intligence and imagination? It takes the oxea- sional onftontation with a work of architecture that lives up io these requests toremind wsthat they are relevant and reasonable: andthe elation offered us ‘bysuch sights dampened only by the realization that oo cften the pleasure {8d not toa builder of our own time but a someane long ag0 The persistent discomfort eaused by most ofthe publi settings provided today by man for man urged me to explore the visual conditions that in ‘uence the psychological effect of architecture Amore positive ipue came from seeing with my own eyes the remains ofthe Poseidon temple on ‘Cape Sunion high bout the Aegean Sea or Jorn Utzon'sopera house on the promontory in Sydney tarbor | fai sped by he ewer cab of he Palazzo Farnese in Rome and by the new Gy hall in Boston; by te pola of ‘he Pantheon and the poetry in cement by Pier Luigt Neri; but abo by the crysaline mountains of New York’ ofce buildings bt up at might, the onerous expanse of Paris stees, and the labyrinths of Venice. Decisive Pethaps was the opportunity daring my year at Harvard to work in Le Corbusier's Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts. Not simply oii bat 10 serve and he served bya building of sch generous spaces tobe greeted in the morning by the outreach of the curved stdin. walk between the tll columns or up the sweep ofthe rim tothe third floor, toe impelled 10 ‘move within the controlled measures of those halls and to try to keep up with them-this added a dimension of practical interaction to the relations between man and man-made form that I had studied in painting and sul ture I ako oceurted to me that the perceptual ores which organize visual ‘Shapes and endow them with expression were embodied in the geometry of archteetare with a pity found elsewhere oly in music ‘Given the exhilaration of those shapescantigue des colons, as Paul Valery calls so melodiously—I was puzzled wo notice inthe practitioners of| architecture, professionals, teacher, and students, a kind of malas, ads Iusionment that made them neglect the active study of EBRD even de ounce i at frivolous diversion from the seriou ssi! oblig chic, I noticed architects writing books in which reporting about their readings in linguistics, information theory. strutur- alls, experimental psychology. and Marxism. At ines, these excursions Seemed to evade the diction of architecture itself No doubt. any one of| ‘hose theoretical approaches can tow light on certain aspects of ou subject, boot uns that ight visibly iluminates the actual products of architecture hati the appearance effec, and ase of builng, the academic talk b> seures more than i reveals, [DESIRE courses nothing more or les than the creation ofa building's lungible and visible shapes. How then could BaTFome to be considered something that may be done without? I this merely reaction ta historical period that wed to revive the temples, churches, and castesothe past in the ost ffces, banks, and lecture halls of the present? Or i this aversion a roves against» more recent stripping crusade that hd the variety of human impulses in a neat but often empty geometry? Whatever the cause, any attempt wo avoid the archites’ final responsiblity must be Tale. One ea neglect he shape of an object, but one cannot do without it Resistance wo the stay of form certainly derived in part from the accu tion that architects ad theorsts had taken to treating buildings as pare 2 shapes, without regard to their practical and social functions. Anybody with « live Sense of the interplay between buildings and the human community ‘ust rebel against such formalism, if only because it must lad to a misin- terpretation ofthe very shapes it wishes to deal with, One cannot understand the shape of door or abridge without relating it tits funetion. And beyond "is surey trv that only a perverted mind can conser a building but a means an end. What requis sertiny the nature ofthat fend and the ways of ataning it “Material nsods would scem to come fist, Without well protected, well ‘equiped shelter, human ie cannot function properly. But itis one thing 0 be responsibly aware of pracical necessity and quite another to ry for an ‘easy victory in discussion by denouncing the “Tormalists,” To insist on the importance of material needs and to minimize or even ridicule ll others pts the speaker ina song posion. K makes him appear tobe someone with his feet onthe ground, inspite by a sense of sca responsibility, untouched by 4 frivolous concern with the tries of taste. He articulates the reality of the cold-water fas, the broken windowpanss, the gasbage and the ras. But ‘when it comes to gauging human need objectively, the easy thetoric may not sale Later in the this book Isha have occasion to remind the reader that ll human needs are matters ofthe mind. Hunger pangs, the chills of winter, the fear of violence, and the disturbance from noise are all facts of human consciousness I makes litle sense to distinguish between them by abut {ing some tothe body and others tothe mind. The hunger the chill, and the fear are on equal footing with the need for peace, privacy space, harmony, ‘order, or color. T the best ofa paychoogis knowledge the priorities are by ‘0 means self-evident. Dignity, a sense of pride, congenality, a feeling of cise—these ate primary needs, which must be seriously considered when the welfare of human beings is under discussion. And since they are require- ‘ments ofthe mind, they are satisfied not only by good plumbing, heating. and insulation, but equally by light congenial colors, visual order, wel ‘roportioned space, and 9 forth Here again i easy to dismiss the problem by maintaining that the average man inthe street and in the house does not care about the psycho logical needs that architects and other creatures of luxe. came et volypé attribute to him, Ask the average person, and e wil talk about radiators and draft staircases and the laundry, not about olor schemes and modules. But ‘he maynot talk about light and ar, either, and yet be profoundly influenced a by their quality. Explicit responses to questionnaires and interviews do not exhaust the factors hat determine a persons state of mind, Of many of them, he isnot consciously aware "A building. then in lls aspects a fat of the human mind Kan experience ofthe senses of sight and sound of ouch and heat and cold and ‘muscular behavior, as well at ofthe resultant thoughts and srvings, How tre. have todo more than make case forthe importance ofthe aspects of| ‘sual form on which this book wil vel also hae to justify my attempt to Adscass visual snpects of architecture without putting them inthe historical. soci indeed personal, contexts on which sensory experiences depend ‘Would not complete solution of visual appearance expsty contradict, what state moment ago, namely tht the vial frm of building cannot ‘be understood unless one consider function? I wold indeed 1 ry 49 show for example, a section comparing rehtectute and sculpture, where [demonstrate tht an objet looks diferent depending on whether one views ‘tas ishabable or at, Furthermore, ny al chapter is devoted ently 10 the interrelation between function andthe visual expression derived from it [Even 30, some readers ight maintain that my description are adit in space because they do not specify who i doing the looking under what Nsorcil sci and individual conditions. Infact, hey wil ty am aking about things exiting only in my own mind, since they are bound o be viewed ‘erent hy the ext person. | reply that my appracch seems to me indi pensable because one must establish what people ae loking at before one ‘an hope to understand why, under the conditions pecular to then, they see Ivhat they see. A simple example will make the point, Sappose somebody \nihes to investigate the character ofthe color red. He goes about it by xamining individual instances of burning buildings. fags of revelation slaughterhouses alight, bullights. cardinal robes, sunsets andthe se ‘of red in paintings ofthe fourteenth, seventeenth and twentieth centuries. He then esto exricate from ll these reports what he experiences of red hve im common, To proceed in this way is nt impossible, but i means geting a the facts the hard way. A more promising way of starting the Investigation would be to “bracket out” the experience created by a red ‘surface ore ight fom the context of particular eeumstaneesand examine ‘Wunder neutral conditions. Strictly speaking. of cours. such detachment from particular circumstances is never complete, butt elective enough 0 ‘peta al experimental peyhology to rely on this procedure, And the closer {he facts under aeration come the base elements of human experience. 4 the mote reliable the procedure is. The perceptual phenomens of color contrast or of ceriain percept ilsions, for example. are mechanisms of such slf-suicient completeness that individual derences can be ignored. The sume is true for the distinction between the experiences of ring and falling and openness and closednes, or the dynamic expression of cicular ‘sersusparabolie cures. ‘The results obtained from such inspection are by no means the mere private experiences of individual viewers They reveal the univers founds tion of human perception the ground Noor of mental structure. Once these clementary experiences ae ascertained, one can begin 10 understand what becomes of them under particular circumstances. These peecplul elements aresosrong that they ate seldom tally overlaid by specific conditions. The ‘overlays merely modulate them. The perceptual elements persist whatever the circumstances, and only when their fundamental aspects are Koown ca ‘ne begin to understand an individual instance. How can one hope to realize ‘what distinguishes the experience ofthe Parthenon inthe Aten ofthe ith entuy fom that oa Gothiceathedal ia the Bourges of «D190 ifone thas no ear notion ofthe dynamic relations between vertical and horizontal? [Not knowing what the Grecks or the French reacted to, how cam one spec- late on what they sav? In trying to clarify these relationships for myself, Ihave been greatly helped by a simple diagram (Fig. 1), in which T indicates the target viewed while A, BC, D are diferent observers. I We testit our analysis to the Cultural and individual conditions prevailing inthe observers, we proceed ‘without any knowledge of the perceptual objec they are receiving: and we fre left withthe absurd and divesing conclusion that since they all se Afferent hing. there can be no shared experience and no commonication, trie our analyse wo the warget , we substantial mosifcations introduced by the pointof view ofany individual or collective observer: In this equally one sided way we can get atthe commen ‘ore, but we cannot tell what happens to iin a particular instance, We can hope, however to wolate—in vir, as were-someof the objets qualies mos likely survive the changing taste the ages. he timeless values ofan Egyptian temple, a Chinese pagoda. or a Rococo hunting lodge. long after the particular comnoations ofits sle cease to be an integral part ofthe ‘experince. We pereive a unique configuration of readable qualities, which Serve io enrich our notion ofthe many ways in which maw cio translate his ‘eof life and world into stone or wood. - Iv isa contebution ofthis kind that the present book hopes to offer. Its approach is aril but the perceptual core at which it aims can be singled ‘out without producing much distortion by omission, Iisa though we were looking at Foe window, whose roundness tracery, and waned eas BS wwe ean appreciste and legitimately analyze, even though i complete ‘meaning derives only from the context ofthe building. A moe thorbugh Understanding would necessanly require inclusion of he historical 02a, and individual factors, which in the diagram of Figure 1 Ihave indicated as ‘A.B.C.and D. In selecting my examples I constantly had to distinguish between succes- fal and wnsaccelul ukdngs because only the best specimens illustrate ‘sual qualities uncluttered hy accidentals Here agnin point of method needs to he made. We are told that the analyst of historian must proceed Without making value judgments; he must simply deserbe what there In practice, of course, no such abstinence previ, But ti demanded i prin- ‘ple because of the same prejudice against which Figure 1 meant to stand 6a warning. The value ofan object its said, depends entirely onthe needs to be satised yt. This surely correct. But the felaivst’ argument proceeds io asic that since those needs fle from person to person and in ‘accord ith the cients social and historical circumstance. it absird 49 interpose one’ own jacgment and to cll say. the Palazzo Venezia in Rome beter architecture than the adjacent monument to Victor Emanuel I. The ‘connoisseur may turn up his nose atthe marble wedding cake, but the verge pariot of ours opt diferent ‘Studs of popular taste ae of interes othe social sient the businessman. But to be meaning, dey must sen 1 wef 0 the particular 6 ‘properties inherent inthe object on which preference o ejections based. As ‘arle, mst of an objet’ quaitisexert some orto effect and are evaluated {nsome way. The responses range fom the most superdalauractions tthe deepest human significance. It isto the visual expression ofthe ter thst he present book i devoted "The qualities that carry values can be described with considerable pre Cision. But many of these descriptions cannot be quantiatively confirmed by the measuring or counting of data, They share his trait wth many other facts ‘of mind and nature, and it does aot prevent them fom existing or being important. Nor does sich a lack of numerical prof excide them from ‘objective discussion. The “ostensive" method of arguing with heindex finger by pointing to percivable fact, making comparisons, nd drawing attention 1o televant relation isa legitimate way of furthering understanding by common effort TThave made much se of this method in an erlier book, tad Visual Perception. When {decided to write about architecture, | thought at ist of simply applying to this new subject the principles I had developed and itustrated in the earlier book primarily wth examples from painting a sculpture. This was, in fact. what stents and teachers of architecture had urged me to do and to some extent U have complied, Yet the present book is les technica, less systematic. Be it because I was reluctant to recapitulate earlier explanation, of because the brosder experiential range of achitee- ture invited a dierent treatment, the present book is more an explorers report om high spots ofthe man-made envionment than the outsome of & professional analysis tis also trac thatthe particular nature of architecture calle for aditional rinciples, la relevant or alkogether inapplicable to painting o sculpture ‘The large sie of building, their agglomeration in setements thir intimate ‘aricipation inthe inhabitant’ practical actives, ther having both inside and outide-all these required other concept, For example, the traditional approach to gure-ground perception, derived from flat figures on paper. hha tobe overhauled. Most generally, Ihave come increasingly to Believe thatthe dynamic of shape, color. and movement isthe decisive although the least explored, factor of sensory peeeption, and for this reason the word “dynumes" gues in thet ofthis book, I hereby develops its argument from sketchy beginnings presented in 1966 under the tile The Dymamies of ‘Shape a8 an issue of BTR ware. [At the same time T hope de\otees of architecture will not begrudge the % space Ihave given to comparisons with other visual ars and abo musi. One ‘not truly understand one's own ek without looking a wha is going on Jn the neighbors gardens, just as one cannot truly kaow the particular ature ‘of one's own language without learning some others. Perhaps I should abo explain why this book i ot as richly ilustrated as books on architecture often are these days. The practice of offering a fll edged photograph with every cunory reference 1a work of architetre in the text supplies the reader with a ireasure of substites for the real expe rience, enabling him Io check onthe author's contentions and wo extend his ‘wn explorations beyond them. Bu there are aso diminishing returns from the pervasive and automatic diplay ofthese ches, and I suspect that soc abundance ean interfere with the Wang of the visual imagination, for sthich ther is so much need. The drawings that Lowe tothe collaboration of Robert Roser, «student at dhe Cooper Unio’s School of Architecture. seem 10 me to maintain just the right level of abstraction between the Concept principle they ae intended ollutate and the fll individuality ‘ofthe buildings ftom which they ae taken, “Thanks are due ah to the School of And Architecture of the Cooper Union in New York City for inviting me to give the Mary Duke Biddle Lectures for 1975, The samples from my fis four chapters which were read at that csason fd inet to the writing ofthe ret. am grateful also 0 John Gay of London for leting me wse a fof his ine photographs, and © Valerie Meyer and Linda Owen of the Department of Art History atthe University of Michigan for helping me withthe literary sources and the photographic ilustations. My wife, Mary yped the manuscript nd Mes. “Matic Bell, my editor Relped make my sentences shiny, lean, amd preie Asan architectural historian, Profesor Paul Turner ofthe Art Department a Stanford University contributed number of valuable corrections and su jxstions and Arvid E-Ostrbers looked at my ruminations withthe cic ye ofthe architect, RA, ‘An Arbor, Michigan 1. ELEMENTS OF SPACE tat 18 space? There ate wo ready answers to this question. One of them i spontaneously plausible. It conceives of space as a sel ‘contained enti ifiaite o fit, an empty vehicle, eady and having the capacity to be Billed with things. Consciously or not, people drive this ‘notion of space from the workd as they seit, and unless they are psycholo- iss, artis, or architects, they are unlikely ever be confronted with the Challenge of questioning it. Pato spoke in the Timaeus of space a8 “the smother and reeptace of all erated and visible and in any way sensible ‘things He thought of i ak “the universal aature which receives ll Bodies that must be always ealled the same; for while receiving all things she never departs tall rom her own natre and never in ny way oratany tine assumes a form ike that of any ofthe things which enter into he; shes the natural recipient of ll impressions, and is stived and informed by ther. nd ‘appears different fom time to ime by reason of them.” Space was for Plat 3 nothingness exiting as an enity inthe outer world lke the object it could hold. Inthe absence of such objets, space would sll ext, as an empty, ‘boundless container SPACE CREATED BY THINGS. Spontaneously, then, space is experienced asthe given that precedes the ‘objects init asthe seting in which very hing takes it place. Without paying ‘ur respects to ths spontaneous and universal manner of looking at the ‘world, We could not hope 10 understand the nature of architecture as an arrangement of buildings placed witha a given, continuous space, Never. theless, this conception neither reflects the knowledge of modern physics ‘nor describes the way the perception of space comes about psychologically 9 IV. AS IT LOOKS AND AS IT IS ‘0 three-dimensional objec can be completely recorded as an optical mage bythe eye at anyone time ftom one fixed point. This is 50 ‘because the optical image sa two-dimensional projection, which can portray no more than one pont of an objet at any one place. When stright Fine mectsathreesimensional oid it doesso iat east two plaeson ts outer ‘race the eon and in the hack, Frm this iitation four sense of ight it follows that ifthe human mi ito grasp three-Simensional object a8 ‘vole it must eanscend the information received rom any one angle PERCEIVING 4 SOLID Fortunately, visual perception and imagination are not limite to the range ofthe optical images on which they rely. Te sense of vision not a ‘mechanical recording device, It organizes, completes, and synthesizes the sructre Found in the parcular optical images, Figure 623 indicates in Section that when the vble part ofan objet presents enough of a su ciently compelling structure—for example. the vile pat ofa sphere ora olume-the objet wil be sen spontaneously as a whole. Ths percep tendency may be misleading when the hidden pat ofthe object does not complet its orm in the simplest, most consistent way (Fig 628) maddition, visual experience isnot typialy limited to one aspect of an objet. In the course of moving around in our environment, we se things ftom diferent viewpoints. We may change ou position deleratey to gain a more comprehensive view. A work of sculpture can only be seen ifone walks round it and the same i te for architecture, From the mukiphcity of 10 Fete icws the mind synthesizes an image of the sclptare’sor building's objective ‘ree-dimensional form. Syathess i aided by the fact that thee various views do not come unrelated, as might a series of photographs from which one tiesto form an idea ofa building Rather, asthe viewer moves around an objeto the abject turns ia font of his eyes, he receives an orderly sequence of gradually changing projections. The coherence ofthis sequence greatly factitats the identification of the object, to which all he particular views sefe. ‘Evens, it isa remarkable achievement ofthe mind to derive an image of objective shape fiom discrete views. Maay people can pitute a cube in its ‘completeness with some precision, and this eventhough no more thaa three ofthe cube’ sides can ever be visible at onetime. Such & mental image i rnecesarily derived from partial Views, none of whichis contained inthe “objective” shape of «symmetrical regular, rightangulareube, Nori this objective image given in any of the projective views obtainable from the Physical object, ‘Avworkof architecture, therefor, tan object that never has and never will ‘be seem in is entirety by anybody, Its 8 mental image synthesized with rete reser succes from paral views. How easy or ict tiso obain that image depends on the shapes used by the architect. Paul Frank! has referred to this diference in distinguishing the architectural style of the ‘etiod 142010 1580 from that of late buildings. Ia he earlier period, he says, slices for us to view a building from surprisingly Few points to gain ‘complet architectural mage” This image isthe same, no mater fom what angle the building i looked at, and it corresponds othe “actual fern.” mM PERSPECTIVE DEFORMATIONS For a building to beso independent of projective deformation, it must meet two perceptual condions. Ii objective shapes and the relations ‘between them must be sufficiently simple; and the system of distortions ‘imposed upon iby optical pojections mist be sueienty detachable from the objective shape Look atthe fagade of San Miniat al Monte in Florence froma slight diagonal (Fig 63). Although the oblique projection distor all sizes, angles and proportions of the Esa whole aswell as of is parts, ‘we have no trouble seeing undistorted symmetry, This i so because the facade essentially Mat and contains a number of uninterrupted horizontals ‘The transformation of these objectively parallel edges into a simply family of ‘convergent perspective rays clealy seen and its easily detachable fom the actual shapes which ate quite simple in themselves. Detachment ofthe perspective distortion leaves the rectangles, cies, and arches i their ob- {tive simplicity and symmetry. The same i true forthe symmetry of the Tagade as a whole of forthe simple order ofthe five equal aches. The correspondences are so compelling thatthe homologous elements are seen Sspontancously as equal in size and shape. The deesve condition here not the repetition of similar elements as such, as Norberg Schulz has suggested, the simplicity and symmetry ofthe shapes and thei overall organieation, Repetition f elements in numerical order nota prerequisite it merely helps emphasize comtespondencs, gradients and other aypocs of visually simple configurations that are overan By perspective deformation, ‘Wemust noting however, oa conceptual dichotomy hat hs guided the ‘hinkingof many ar theorists andof some psychologists as well Aesotding 0 that view, there are t49 fundamentally diferent ways of seeing the world Either ti seen "asi i” that is, with a compete neglect of perspective Aitrtion, of the boundatcs of the visual fed, and similar conditions of ‘sion: oral these conditions are explicitly acknowledged, as necessary for ‘euample in order w make a perspetively correct painting or drawing. Ac- tualy. no such radical either-or exists in perception. On the one hand, the lect of projective vison are never completely excluded om the other. no Araltoman has ever seen a projective image the way he draws i namely as totally lat, with all distortions, boundaries et. fully present. What is ac- ‘wally sen, nscad isan in-between version of purl sirightencd-out and partially distorted shapes. ' striking example presents ivelf everytime one enters & triditonal church through ts mais portal (Fig 4) AU fst glance one sees perhaps an ‘lated nav, roofed by sts equidistant fom the for and supported by ‘columns and arches of egual size und height. Paradoncally, however. one say be struck tthe same time by the powerful convergence of all onthog ‘nals toward a vanishing point atthe altar. The situation is ambiguous and ‘aries vomembal fom perion to person. Forone thing few people ws their ‘yes 10 truly look at what they see. Most rely instead om a minimum of ‘nformation, enough fr them to obtain “norm” mage ofthe station Evens, however and withou eiagawate of it they may ako he impressed and guided by the projective convergence toward the at. ‘Some ofthe perons who perceive this convergence mote consciously ma ‘nevertheless insist that they Se the columns and arches as equal in size and lrranged in parle rows, whereas others cannot fee themselves fom the impression thatthe whole interior actually diminishes and converges with increasing distance. The former type of observer ses building of und torte shape subjected w what I have called eewhere the experience of Pyramidal space: the other sess the building self affected hy the deforma Th the case of the church interior, the deformation can be pantully strong because the symmetry of perspective coincides with that of he build m3 ing and therefore canmot be a eal detache as ws posible inthe obigue ‘ew of Sa Minit. Is quite feasible under these conditions for architects ‘orstage designers t strengthen or counteract perspective by deviating from the egal shape ofthe buldng. A famous example Berni Sala Regia in the Vatican staircase whose colonnades and vault diminish in sie and thereby convey the ilason ofa much deeper ist, Ta more gencral sense we ean describe these projective effets as instances in which the viewer atibutes tothe objectively given situation visual qual- ities that derive Tom his own position and oudook. A simple example of spatial orientation was sometimes used by Max Wertheimer in his etares 19 iastrate the diference betwsen an egocentric outlook and one that takes the nature ofthe objective station into acount A peron standing ina rx ‘angular room and facing i the direction inate bythe solid atom (Fi (4a) realizes that he is oriented obliquely with regard to the objectively prevailing situation, The discord inttoduces a tension, which i alleviated if the person changes his postion to sonform with one of the two stractral aes ofthe rectangular room. But in principle itis also possible for someone to insist on his own crientation as the eniral axis Of the situation and to peceive the walls asstnding obliquely andthe comers as deviating fom the ‘patil framework Here, 9, tension will erate dncod, but in this cise the ‘a t alleviate the pressure would be forthe was o sono othe Osc pants postion (Fig. 64). Tn this example ofa simple cubic room it would take an almot patholo. ically egocenrc ersom to Fel thatthe rooen out of step ith him rather than he withthe room. The visual sation is clear-cut and unsimbiguous that to overtook is pata demands al but impossible, Ofte, homers. the architectural ayout eave room for more han ane atitudeS,E Rasmussen, priate to the situation. One cam interpret and enjoy the experience as 2 Sequence of unexpecied vista stimulating in their varity and not predeter rined by a recognizable mapof overall order. Sich an envitoament sin the nature ofa texture rather than 3 BEER shed ogsther by its homogene: ty. which refuses to asi wo any element a partiular pace determined by the structure of the whole. Instead of tying to discover an objective onder the whole and assigning individual sighs ther proper location within that ‘order, the mind derives from such cicumstances an onder of is own It records the linear sequence of sights, which unfld, more or less unpredit ably, as they wold na flim. The conditions for such an experience are ‘rested deliberately in the so-called sell gardens of traditional Jaan Ina “grown” sting the objective order is always partial Villages and towns ofthis hind come about by sequences oF evens whose logic largely historical, jus asim a landscape geologsaly regular structures interact with the accidents caused by pariculirconsiellations of natural forces. The hi crating and stimulating effees of such surroundings are known 1 every- brody. and an exces of surveyahe onder hasbeen reegnize by city planners asimpoverishing urban ie Temakes a diference, however, whether one s roaming through a land- us ‘scape in quest of pleasant sensations ori trying to find one’s way through it toreach a particular place. Inthe later ease, mere sequence of disconnected sights offers no guidance. At the very least one has to establish a set of landmarks in the correct temporal order. For more efficent orientation one tres to obtain an overall map, which indicates context and relations, ale natives, distances, and sofort, The same is tre fora urban environment. Ir fone wants to ve and work in Néedlingen one had hetter replace the de- lightul Kaleidoscope of fest impressions witha precise mental configuration ofthe pertinent locations and spatial relations. Kevin Lynch has show that the ease oF difficulty f such orientation depends on its physical pattern and a person’ ability o grasp structural features. He has also de- scribed the forlorness of city dwellers for whom the urban pattern remains ‘manculate ‘What i tue for sueh environments i imperative for the architecture of individual buildings. Architecture i one of the human occupations and products that, for one reason or another, ofer organized form to mind and body. Therefore the historian Paul Frankl must be mistaken in principle when he asserts that from the mid-sixtenth century on, buildings no longet present one coherent image, but a multiplicity of partial images that do not add up o 4 whole. He says that the fest impression received by the vis “unstable, momentary, accidental. From a second and thid viewpoint the building becomes something we had not expected, and what we have alceady seen will nw seem entirely differen” Everybody has had such experiences when he has failed to understand the layout of a building: but when the bewilderment persists one i inclined to suspect that isthe architest who has failed. There is only one type of building designed to transform the architectural experience into an irrational sequence of surprises, and tha is ‘the labyrinth. But even the mazes constructed by paychologists for thie laboratory rats are meant to be understood eventually at least tothe extent that path leading from the entrance tthe final reward is learned as an orderly sequence, Occasional attempts have been made to ilustate in fl the experience of walking through building. An uninterrupted travelingshotean Jed through corridors and rooms, along galleries, and all around the walls and across the ceiling of great halls. But since the image on the screen is limited to a smal section of the setual space and since the spectator does not ‘experience in his body the sensations of locomotion that would correspond 10 ‘he cameras path helm hardly ever conveys reasonably complet idea of rehitectural 6 the building's overall form. The result can be of interest in itself, but in no way does it duplicate the interplay between building and visitor that we know as the architectural experience. That interplay takes place between the building's timeless existence in space and the timebound event of is being centered, traversed. and used by the visitor. In the film, the interplay i rediced to the event ofthe visit, andthe only structural invariant holding the sequence together isthe visitor's viewpoint. OF the two interacting orders ‘only one is et. namely the suite of impressions characterizing the journey that i porteayed by the camera Frank! doesnot deny tha the buildings he desribes—essentially those of the Barogue style—have a definite form oftheir own, but he believes that this formis revealed only as the result ofa strenuous inventory taken by a devoved expert, who paces the buildings, investigates every detail, and peers behind every comer. The average visitor is said to know that the variety of his impressions “is caused by something invariable, but thi invariable is only of Scientific interest. Knowledge of itis gained only forthe sake of anistc pedagogy: artistically onl the impression of change has value” Ithis were 40, we would be faced with the peculiar state of affair that the carefully ‘controlled and beautiful order of symmetries correspondences, and hierat- ‘chic groupings conspicuous in every successful Baroque building had a0 function whatever and was not intended to be seen. What is more, sch an ‘order would probably not be the most ecient way of obtaining the kalei- dlscopie varity of images they allegedly are intended to produce THE READING OF VISTAS Before offering an alternative description, I would like toils further pair of examples he difference between crediting perspective effects toone's own subjective outlook and ceding them to the object itself. Lynch Jhas remarked that since the dome and the campanile of Florence offer a ‘ferent constellation depending onthe direction from which they are seen, ‘one can determine one's own location and orientation by the sight ofthe two landmarks. Sometimes the clock tower is seen to the right of the dome, ‘sometimes to the lft, and sometimes the one is ecpsed by the othe (Fig 68) Using the landmarks for orientation presupposes thatthe viewer nol take theie positon literally. Rather the sight must be understood asthe outcome of the interaction between himself and the architectural constellation, whose ‘objective and invariant nature the viewer has distilled fom the experience of walking around the buildings. 47 To sain such understanding, one has wo liberate oneself from the com- pelling image ofthe given particular sight and to sce i as acsidentl, as one among many equally posible and valid ones. Ths requires mental xibilty, ‘which takes training. The psychologist Jean Piaget ha used a small ardboard ‘model of a group of mountains to test children’s ability 40 predict what the constellation wil lok like when perceived from a postion other than thet ‘own (Fig 66). He found that young children distinguish minimally or not at all between their own viewpoint and that of other observers. At about seven tonine years old, certain relations are understod to vary with changes in the ‘observer's positon, but the comprehensive coordination of viewpoints is not achieved until age nine or ten. The ability to distinguish accident from invariance in evaluating visual ‘object and to use a particular perspective as a means of determining one’s ‘own postion i indispensable for praca orientation. Quite diferent pur- poses are served by the atitude of painter or photographer who can take such 8 grouping of objects literally and derive vai symbolic statements from it ‘This pictorial attitude, or more nearly that of fmmaker, was adopted in literature by Mareel Proust in the famous episode ofthe three clock towers 18 ‘that change their relative position, as the boy, sting next tothe coachman, ‘watches them during an outing Michel Butor, in an essay on Prous, suggests ‘that we are being presented with a spatial symbol of the liberation from xed distances in time, which makes it possible forthe narrator to play freely with his reminiscences. “The three clock towers are released from their everyday servitude a though they had become birds.” [tis not uncommon for an architect to consider his building inthe context ‘of the landseape or cityscape in which it wll appear and to be aware of the diferent aspect it will offer in diferent perspectives. But it seems legitimate to say that in envisioning such sighs, the architect doesnot think of ind 9 vidual views of his building as pictures that presenta nique sight, limited 0 the one aspect shown. He conceives of ther as related 1 other possible views and tothe shape ofthe building a sch. He expects the building to be scen as ‘what its, and he thinks ofa given vista only as offering a particular slant on the building's invariant nature. In fact, he will maintain that the particular view makes sense ony ifitis perceived with an explicit awareness of wha the ‘building and its poston in the seting objectively are. tis against the nature of architecture to become subservient 10 3 mo ‘mentary image or a number of such images. as buildings often do onthe stage ‘rina film, The teason forthe difference is that the stage set or film image is ‘made only forthe sense of sight and fora particular viewpoint, whereas the creations of the architect are to be used inthree-dimensional space and for [Physical purposes. These physical purposes of orientation, habitation, et. ‘ust be served by the way the building is pereived visually, and even i purely expressive qualities must, as 1 shall show later, accord with these unetions For ths reason it seems necessary to reinterpret the characteristic of the Baroque and similar styles noted by Frankl If am not mistaken the visual character of those buildings has a much more interesting purpose than offering a dazzling spectacle of everchanging images tis intended 10 com plicate the viewer's acces to the architectural theme and thereby to the fundamental meaning ofthe building. Ths tendency issimilat to approaches Jin the other ars at & comparable sijlistic stage. Painters such as Pieter Brucghel or Tintoretto often hide the principal theme of a picture by re ‘moving ito the background, away from the center of attention: they show it ‘as small and overpowered by the close-up prominence given secondary items. Comparable to, is Shakespeare's roundabout way of introducing his audience to the core of his plot. In all these instances the path leading the Visor to the heart of the matter i besct with obstacles, and the tension created by the discrepancy between the structure of whats be understood, and the appearance of what is being offered 10 the senses i an ese ‘quality of the work ‘Therefore, when an architect chooses to use highly complex shapes that are litical to survey, he s unlikely to do so forthe purpose of making the visitor jetlost ina labyrinth, Rather, he organizes his building in such a way thats basi structure is potentially visible but must be extricate from a thicket of claborations. Figure 67 is meant to illustrate this difference bythe profiles of two details, one of them simple and easily surveyable the other embroidering {he basic shape with complications. which however. neither hide nor distort 120 A similar example from music may make the point even more clearly (Fig 168). Baroque musicians were expected to elaborate the clear melodie line ssiten by the compose. Lamm reproducing a sample ofa sonata by Francesco Geminian indicating how the solos after playing the straight melody ofthe ‘op stave. repeated it in an ornamented form. an example of whichis given on the second stave. One observes the use of ils, which change a steady note Ito an alternation of adjacent ones and thereby transform a clear-cut state- ‘ment of pitch level into a vaellaton. The exact moment at which a particular tone of the mile isto appears made uacleat by anticipation or delay. The simple downseard step of an interval is elaborated into sting of four oF ‘more notes involving 4 small upward movement in addition wo the descent, and the same principle enriches the melodic line as a whole, The simple ‘hythm of the melody is complicated by syncopation, and so forth, The melody isnot hidden, since this would defeat the very pont of the perfor- ‘mance, but transpites i original simplicity through the teasing int ‘ofthe ornament. “The idiosyncrasies of Baroque architecture Full he same function, The 1 frontal surface of a fagade mast be visually extacied from curved and ‘oblique elements departing fom the plane in all directions. Curves, aking the place of straight corners, make fora gradual change of direction, which i less easily grasped than an abrupt one. Cornics, capitals swellings, and spiral tists complicate the vertically of supports. Sometimes two different shapes are combined to serve the sume function, for example, when a door ‘way is topped by a triangular pediment, nsribed with an arch, Convenity at ‘one level ofthe building contradicted and supplemented contrapuntally by ‘oncavity a another. Instead of sating a eonsstent height a row of elements ‘creates a visual till by alternating between somewhat lower and somewhat higher units. Interrupted shapes cal for completion, and perspective overlays violate each other's integrity MODELS AND SIZES "have described the Barogue principle at some length because it ilustates dramatically the general problem Lam discussing here, namely that of the relation between objective architectural form and its particular appearance. Earlier | pointed out that buildin, lke any other three-dimensional object. can never be seen in its entirety but only i projetvely deformed aspects Tiss tre not only forthe completed structure but also fort conception in the architec’ mind, and since he cannot conceive his (EHEMithout an integrated overview, he resorts to working with small models ‘No doubt the architect must imagine with some degree of precision what the actual building will look like when approached from the sieet or seen from the inside. But much ofthe actual shaping must be done on thought models ofthe whole building, mental images that are supported sooner of later hy smallscale models built at the ofce (Fig. 69), Such models, being ‘easily comprehended inthe visual fel, are much more surveyable than the ‘executed structures, Claude Lévi Straus, talking about the artis’ habit of ‘making pictures and sculpture smaller than the subjects they represent, sys that reduction seems to reverse the cognitive process: the viewer, instead of beginning with the parts inthe usual way. i invited fist to comprehend the ‘whole. Whereas viewer normally tres overcome the resistance of large ‘object by dividing i into parts, scale red mn everses the station “The smaller the totality of the object the les redoubiabe it appear: by being quantitatively diminished i aceme qualatively simpites. More precy. tht {quuniatve transposition increases and dversiis our power ver an analogue of the thing by means of which the hing Hee Be akon old of, weighed nthe hand ‘Somprehended wath single nce Lévi-Strauss speculations are borne out by recent experimental studies of the ability wo handle meatal images. I has been shovtn not only that spatial relations sich a comparisons of size, can be “rea off” from three-dimen sonal thought models but that the average person is also quite capable of ‘rotating such model either inthe fromtal plane on depth if ask requires it What can be seen in imagination tends, of cours. to be less detailed and more generalized, but nevertheless the handling of a mental image bears 3 striking resemblance to the manipulation of an actual model with one's hands The advantages of using models are evident. To avoid being mised, however the architect must keep in mind thatthe final product of his labors is huge structure to be seen and used by small creatures. The diflerence between a small model and an actval buikling may lad to psychological ddsctepancies that are worth elucidating here, For this purpose I shall draw ‘upon analogies 19 what the physical and natural sciences tell us about allometr. that, about the dependence of shape on size and the ensuing elect of size on function, “Absolute size decrees tht the hon will ever fy ‘nor the robin oar” writes Peter Stevens, on whose handy presentation of the subject I shall rely ia what falows Allometry derives from the fct that geometrically a large abject has more ‘volume in gelation to its surface than a small objec; more precisely, surface ases by the second power of the lincar dimension whereas volume ases by the third. In the weightless space of mathematics sich trans: fon makes no difference, bat when it occurs in the physical world under the influence of constant gravitational pul, the difference matters a great, ‘eal, To the extent that am increase in volume means aa increase in weight the relation betwcen weight and shape ialtered when sie changes Inthe psychological world of peresptual awarenes, the constant factor 124 that makes fora similar ciference isthe disproportion in size between man and his dwelling place. The human animal is relatively small and confined to the ground, and since his locomotion is accordingly slow, he builds for himself environments in which the local distances are small The shorter the distance from an objet, the greater the visual ange, which determines the size of an image recived by the eyes. In a constricted environment, there fore, a relatively small part ofa building or space between buildings fills large area of the visual eld and may be surveyable ony ifthe eyes and the head rove back and forth in scanning motions. ‘The resulting visual experiences are qualitatively different from those received when one looks at a small model. Thus, for example, the spaces between windows in the model may he easily bridged by the eye. The ‘hythmical alternation between windows and spaces i effective because the horizontal row is surveyed asa whole (Fig. 70). When the actual building is seen from nearby, however, the distance between two windows may look 0 reat that the alternation of the visual units cannot be perceived. Similaly Intended correspondences between the lower and upper parts ofa building ‘may be evident ina small model but unobservable from the sireet. The front view of Le Corbusier’ Carpenter Cente for the Visual Arts shows a drum ‘containing studio and next1oit an upright cube containing the staircase, the two being separated from each other by an opening. which closes on the top ‘oors. Whea students who saw the building every day were asked to draw it {rom memory ‘ith empty space between them. A similar but more extreme phenomenon ‘obtains for high rise buildings as sen by pedestrians. One walks past the Empire State Building without an inkling ofthe gigantic presence towering ‘over neighboring roofs thatthe more distant ses, Allometrcallya small cube is relatively free from the pull of gravity. tean bbe moved by the ik ofa finger lke a matchbox. Perceptually aso, a small ‘model looks light, perhaps insufficiently anchored to the ground. The atchi- tect may fel tempted to strengthen the connection. The visual weight of the ‘Actual building, however, may be soch that one sees it pres down unmistak- bly. Relevant here is Stevens's observation thata spherical building. such as the United States Pavilion designed by Buckminster Fuller forthe Montreal ‘Worlds Fair in 1967, is much more subject wo gravity than a small ball lying ‘on the oot. This also tre visually, The contradiction between the sym retry ofthe shape and the asymmetry ofthe spatial field is all the more evident when the sphere is very large. Inrelaton tohuman size, an actual building is, ofcourse, imposingly lage. But the large its dimensions, the greater the visual discrepancy between the ‘volume ofthe interiors and the partion eeating them, With increasing siz, the architectural shell looks limsie, even though its dimensions have been enlarged proportionately. The walls of a larger oom seem to lok thinner, ‘hey fulfl their function of shielding the room against the outside less ‘convincingly, because their specific visual density decreases with size. Ste ‘ens poins out that the surface tension ina drop of water can hold together only so much liquid, “IF the volume of water is too great, the litle skin will Durst. The volume must remain commensurate with the strength of the surface." Visually 100, the texture ofa wall neds tobe given more substance with increasing area, les it seem to burst under the impact ofthe large hollow space. ‘The same is true forthe ceiling Stevens gives the example of a beam resting on two posts. Physically i wil break under its own weight ifitis made ‘much longer. Inthe same way the center ofa large ceiling. quite distant From the supporting wal, lok commensuratey less fm. regardless ofthe actual CColumas or pilots supporting a bulky architectural volume look thinner 126 than they do in a small model even though their peth has been increased proportionately. The legs ofan insect look gracefully thin and those of an ‘elephant quite clumsy when one compares pictures that make the two ani- mals the same size. In nature the diference looks much less pronounced. ‘Although the walls surrounding a lage interior may look imsy, they also seem more constrictive because volume grows more rapidly than surface. ‘The walls ofthe Pantheon in Rome suround us more tightly than smaller ‘version oft would. This seems paradoxical since the smaller interior restricts ‘our locomotion so much more severely. But as I shall ry to show inthe next, ‘chapter, visual space and motor space do not always produce similar per- ‘ceptual effect, Just as al ological cells come essentilly in the same size, regardless ofthe size of the animal, so there isan optimal size forthe living space of man: if tis to lage, the boundaries may look Wo fisy and 100 ‘confining, even though the person may fel forlorn in the excessive interior ‘expanse: itis too small, the Boundaries become unsurveyable bu the room for action is constricted. Needles to say, these purely perceptual factors interact with the conditions derived fom the function and meaning ofthe room. Is the small interior study or a prison cel? Is the large one a ‘ceremonial hallo a pretentious private dining room? THE RANGE OF IMAGES Let me return to the disproportion in sie between man and his buildings In a purely visual sense this creates obstacles when a building is 10 be surveyed as a whole and in is pats from different distances. Furthermore ‘because the building i nt only an object to be contemplated but also a part, ‘of the human environment in which man and building ate to interact, man ‘must be able wo integrate himself and the building ina perceptval continuum, How can ths be dane given the discrepancy in size between the twa? ‘When may we call an abject surveyable? In a purely opti ‘condition is met when the object nits entirety ean be accommodated within the visual Held, Since we are dealing with a projective image, is size will depend on the physical area oecupied by the visible part ofthe object in its {elation to viewing distance, The fel available to human vision is appeoxi= mately a half ctcle inthe horizontal direction at any one moment. In the ‘human head both eyes lok straight ahead and each one compensates forthe ‘obstruction onthe nasal side ofthe other eye's eld As Figure 7l shows. each ‘eye covers an approximate angle of 145°, which creates a central overlap of about {10°, available for binocular vision. In the vertical 127 eo Fawn. ‘the two elds do not complete one another. The vertical range comes to about 110°, with roughly 45° above ey level and 65° below. “The extent ofthe field has considerable bearing on visual experience, as ‘one can easily verify by shielding is outer reaches with cupped hands, When the context in which the centrally cated portions appear is restricted, space ‘no longer surrounds the viewer but look ikea picture in front of him. Its as though one were looking ata photograph or the framed image on the cinema screen. However, we mst immediately add that sharp vision is himited toa small angle of about one degre, so tht all but the tiniest images must be Scanned by eye movements in order to be properly perceived. Ths limits ‘ruly comprehensive vision to an area that can be comfortably covered by the ‘human eyes unassisted by head movements Paintings require such comprehensive vision since each part ofthe image should be seen in relation tothe whole. H. Macrtens has established that from a distance tice the length of a painting's longer dimension, the whole will be seen comfortably tan angle subtending about 27°. At sucha distance and size, the range of the visual eld includes the boundaries ofthe picture, so that any part fixated by the eyes is seen a located at its place inthe whole Toa teser degree other aspects, such as direction, shape, size, and color, will also be seen inthe context of the total composition, I seems safe to assert that unless the total visual patera is comprehended within this range teanot be seen and judged as an integrated whole, ‘Whats essential fr thesurveyable unity of the visual image isnot only the defined range of th object within the Rll, but also the fat that slong as the head stays sill and only the eyes move the perceived image also is seen as standing sil, Compensating for the displacements of the projective image on ‘the retinas ofthe eve the feedback that caries information from the motor impubses controling the eye muscles tothe brain centers controlling vision, AAs soon as the viewer’ head moves, however, the visual field is seen a8 128 moving inthe opposite direction, perhaps because under these circumstances the eyes are carried along as passive passengers by the vehicle ofthe head, In addition, as long asthe eyes move in their sockets but retain the same position in space, objects a different distances from the observer maintain & ‘constant relation to one another. But when the head moves the eyes are displaced, which changes perspective relations: for example. one sees the landscape outside move in relation to the window frame. Simi. the boundaries of the visual fled are seen as being displace in relation to the objects contained within the leks, The same thing happens when one views fim, and this is one reason why the effet of head movement resembles the locomotion observed on the cinemasereen when the camera has been rotated or tilled. However, the effect does not equal the nauseating experience of vertigo, whete the world actually seems to spi around the acted person ‘The displacement of the image caused by head movement seems to be sulicient to interfere withthe persistent identity ofthe image perceived in simultaneity. As 1 move my head what Ise is different from what] saw 3 ‘moment ago, and the to sights donot integrate aspartate same thing 33 convincingly as when only my eyes move. Head movement typically prevails when one looks at buildings, as opposed to small architectural models or ‘photographs. Much ofthe ime the viewer not Far enough to profit from the 27° angle optimal for detached contemplation, The usual vertical ange mone closely approximates 45° above eye level. which i the case when the viewer's stance fom the building i equal to its height ‘Under such conditions the eye roving across the building experiences & sequence rather than a unified image. This is bound to prevent the viewer from seeing the architectural BEHBR)ruly 38a whole condition that would be fatal fr the perception of mos! paintings but isnot fr most buildings. The Visual structure of any part ofa building tends tobe simpler than tht of most paintings. Its content with afew base shapes, and the formal unis such as ‘windows of columns, are often lined up in rows, which not only makes sequential viewing more acceptable but almost invites it A building. more ‘over, being #three-dimensional solid, is not made to be stared at from & ‘xed point, but to unfold as one walks around ita sequential experience ‘which seems to go well with an equally sequential survey of any one of is aspects, as distinguished from the restful simulaneity ofa picture. ‘When we employ head movements to survey a building, we make it move ‘and thereby pve it the quality of an event rater than see it merely as stati 129 ‘object. And since moving the head is more of a physical activity than the ‘mee roving of the eyeballs inthe immobile head, scanning by head move- ment is not simply an extension of satic contemplation but makes the ‘viewing of architecture a part of our body's daily activity. Tha is, this mobile mode of viewing makes architecture not something we stop to ee, but something we become aware of as we go about our business There are other reasons that make the sequential viewing of buildings not unwelcome. When a person has to raise his head in order to survey a large ‘object, he confirm in his motor behavior the visual experience of facing ‘majestic height. This works tothe advantage of monumental buildings, when the viewer's eyes lim, a it were. ftom their own level upward ina sor of Pilgrimage to the crowning shapes of roof and tower. “will it up mine eyes Unto the hil, from whence cometh my help. When the range to be covered by sight becomes still large, head move- ‘mens no longer sulle, and the viewer's whole body must tuen oF change place This i tre forthe viewing of any interior space. Here it hecomes even yard to integrate the mage of one total shape from successive impressions Therefore the EH! interiors intended wo be seen as timeless spatial wholes tends 10 be simple: a cube, a cylinder. Otherwise the experience ‘becomes distinctly sequentialfor example, when the viewer winds his way long a cotrdor or pases from room to 0m. THE PARTS OF THE WHOLE Iwill by now be evident that in dealing with architecture we must con stantly shuttle back and forth between the building as an object seen asa whole in space by acontemplating mind, and the building as an event in ime experienced by man in action. Having pointed tothe meaning the Building fas a sequential experience I now retuen tothe importance ofthe wnifed ‘image comprehended as a synoptic whole. Although the viewer’ image of the building adds up t unified whole when he scas it rom bottom 1010p, he will see an incomplete and therefore meaningless thing at sy one mo: ‘ment unless the designer takes the necessary precautions. fn fat it has been ‘ood architectural practice through the ages to compose the total image of ‘building, which can be fitted into the Visual eld only from considerable

    You might also like