Iconicity or Symbolism? by anastasia sam

ARC9009M / March/ ANASTASIA SAMARA/ 10232120/ FRANCESCO PROTO/ 2011-12

CONTENTS: o Introduction 1.1 1.2 1.3

Abstract Literature Review Scope

o Philosophical background 2.1 The significance of semiotics 2.2 The fundamental theorists and each model of signs 2.3 Umberto Eco’s point of view

o The relationship between Semiotics and Architecture 3.1 From language to buildings 3.2 The properties of architectural signs 3.3 The power of the architectural signs in Societies

o The sign as a symbol 4.1 How symbols dominate space 4.2 Connotative and Denotative symbolism 4.3 From Modernism to the ‘decorated sheds’ 4.3.1 Is a building a sign or vice versa? o Iconicity or Symbolism; 5.1 Case studies

ABSTRACT Architecture has been merely serving function since the classical times but its form has been always influenced and derived from signs. Semiotics is the study of signs and their processes, signification and communication. Signs in architecture are involved with the signification system in the built space. Built space pervades in every aspect of the human world in the same way that language does. Words and sentences here are replaced by buildings, but in fact we are talking about the same small unit the structure is built on. From a word to an image, from a concrete building to a fire-hole, all examples fulfill the general term. They fulfill the intersection between humans and the space they live in. The first approach to the signification system of architecture was fabricated at the School of Architecture in Florence, back in the early 50â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. Moving on to the properties of semiotics, both in architecture and in linguistics, the basic unit is the sign. The sign in architecture can be connotative or denotative. Connotative is about architecture of expression, while denotative is about architecture of meaning. In this research I will examine how architecture is an expression or a meaning of cultural conventions through semiotic analysis. In particular I will analyze the whole architectural history that will be divided in three chronological times- Classical, Modern and Postmodern. The theories that I will use to establish my argument will be based on Charles Jencks, Umberto Eco, and Robert Venturi. Additionally, I will present a rebuttal of the main arguments of Venturiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s theory against denotative architecture and prove that it is not applicable to contemporary architecture through the case study of Jewish Museum in Berlin.

Lastly, due to Venturi’s and Jencks theory about symbolism and iconicity, the focal point of this analysis will be in accordance to an iconic building- the Jewish Museum in Berlin- which is a significant example of contemporary architecture. The last one will be assessed in a parallel comparison with Greek temples from classical times, in order to demonstrate how ‘’enigmatic signifiers’’ were and still support iconic buildings, in both the exterior and the interior spaces, in a way that iconicity is consistent with symbolicity.

LITERATURE REVIEW It is essential to understand first the meaning of semiotics and how they are connected to architecture. Semiotics could be found everywhere. The shortest definition is that semiotics is the study of signs. But that doesn’t leave enquires much wiser. People usually ask what a sign is. Road signs, pub signs and star signs are few examples that first come to our minds and those which we routinely refer to as signs in/of everyday life. There is a variation of what semiotic is as there are leading semoticians who have involved with that subject. As mentioned in the Semiotics: the basics by Daniel Chandler (2002) ‘’semiotics involves the study not only of what refer to as signs in everyday speech but of anything that ‘stands for’ something else’’ [Chandler, 2002]. Theories of signs appeared in the history of philosophy from the ancient times, as signs derive from the Greek word ‘σημειον’, since Postmodernism. The first explicit to the theories of signs was by John Lock. However, based on to the book “An introduction to semiotics’’ by Thomas A. Sebeok (1920), the two co-founders of semiotics was the Swiss linguistic Ferdinand de 3

Saussure (1857-1913) and the American philosopher Charles Sanders Pierce (18391913) [Sebeok T.A, 1920]. According to Pierce ‘’nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as a sign’’ instead according to Saussure ‘’sign is a link between a concept and a sound pattern’’ [Johansen D.J. & Larsen S.E., 2002]. From these fundamental theorists and through their theories, a movement was born and semiotic analysis was known around the globe. What has emerged from this study is that semiotics ‘can be applied to all sorts of human activities, including cinema, theatre, dance, architecture, painting, politics, medicine, history, and religion; areas that are involved or concerned with communication and the transfer of information and therefore semiotics are embedded as a form of communication in our societies’[Seiler M.R., 2006]. We use signs in everyday life to convey messages to people around us. In this case, the sign is no longer just signal carrying information about a casual relation with the object; it is also an act of communication. Part of this communication is the field of architecture. This relationship between signs and architecture was introduced in the School of Architecture in Florence back in the early 50’s and that was to set up the first linguistic analogies of architecture. As described in the book ‘’Semiotics of architecture, semiotics of space -looking back and ahead’’ by Krampen M., Umberto Eco was the first one who answered the question why architecture is a particular challenge to semiotics. He mentioned that we commonly experience architecture as a way of communication in the societies and this is the main link between architecture and semiotics. Words and sentences are now replaced by buildings, but in fact we are talking about the same small unit the structure is built on. It is as described in the article 'Function and Sign: The Semiotics of Architecture' (1980) by 4

Umberto Eco, that “architectural language is an authentic linguistic system obeying the same rules that govern the articulation of natural languages'’. Also, in the article ‘Communication and the Semiotics of space’ by Elliot Gaines, the relationship between semiotics and space is explained in a more analytical way, focusing on the reasons behind this relationship. In everyday life space is usually understood as an active notion, set in the background of our minds, trying to explain the meaning of the surrounding objects. In semiotics, the meaning of space, as a sign, is better understood in relationship to the qualities of each space and the surrounding objects within that space and, also, a person’s point of view of that particular space [Gaines E., 2006]. Moreover, going through the Course Notes of Semiotics of Architecture (2007) by Budak C. the author is dealing with the properties of the architectural signs. He claims that the basic unit in the semiotics of architecture is defined as a code. Looking deeper on that, the sign bears the terms of the signified and the signifier which affect its meaning in the same manner: the signified becomes the coded problem and the signifier the coded solution [Budak C., 2007].

Having the theoretical approach of architectural semiotics of my analysis in mind, I will focus on the signs as a symbol. More specifically, a study of architectural forms since the 1950s reveals two main types of signs: the indexical signs which directly or indirectly indicate their use, like arrows and linear corridors and iconic which their form is a diagram of function. [] When people use these two categories frequent enough to form a coherent image through codification, the signs become symbols. Looking deeper into that, according to the article ‘Professional Use of Signs in Architecture’ by Marco Frascari the meaning of the build space is transmitted

through symbols, as a mean of communication and thus affects the perception of the viewer/observer. As Robert Venturi explains in his book ‘’Learning from Las Vegas’’, Modern architects, ‘shunned symbolism of form as an expression or reinforcement of content: meaning was to be communicated through the inherent, physiognomic characteristics of form.’ Moreover, as described in the article ‘The symbolism of place: a geography of relationships between space, power and identity’ by Jerome Monnet, a symbol is a concrete reality when referring to a building, that communicates through something intangible which is an idea, a value or a feeling and as a result a place of power by definition, is a symbolic place.

Furthermore, what has emerged from this study is that signs can be connotative or denotative [Eco U., 1997]. Additionally, reference will also be made to the Strip of Las Vegas, illustrating the way that Postmodernism produced symbolic places and how they influenced the construction of collective identities and the perception of the community [Venturi R., 1972].

SCOPE This study will attend to find the hidden and symbolic meaning of the forms (conception) and more specifically the concept behind the architectural forms of a building and also the process of comprehension of these meanings in the mind of the observer/viewer (perception). Keeping a broad viewpoint, this analysis will attempt to demonstrate how built spaces can evoke universal responses, both mentally and physically in the minds of the people who are to inhabit or use them. This research will be limited to an understanding of the various components of architectural 6

spaces at their most universal level, with a few examples of specific cultural cases. In particular, I will analyze spaces as scattered fragments and meaningful constructs, as well as their subsequent synthesis. Moreover, I will examine the role of the symbols in the build space using denotative and connotative symbols and how the exterior facades enrich their signal value. Additionally, I will use the Jewish Museum in Berlin, Germany, as a key study of contemporary architecture and compare it with three more

studies

from

different

chronological

timelines-

from

classical

postmodernism- in an attempt to prove how an iconic building like Jewish Museum can be designed with both connotative and denotative symbolisms and identify a whole city at the same time as it is â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;[â&#x20AC;Ś] a sign vehicle with respect to representation of a time [and] engenders a fundamental rethinking of architecture in relation to its programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. Finally, the conclusion will provide an assessment of the argument, which is how the contemporary architecture can be both symbolic and iconic at the same time and communicate with the observer/viewer.

2. PHILOSOPHICAL BACKROUND 2.1 The significance of semiotics The term semiotics refers to the theory of signification. This term, deriving from the Greek word ‘σημείον’ (simeion), which means sign, was reintroduced in the seventeenth century by the philosopher John Locke [Martin B.& Ringman F, 2000, pp1-2]. Signs are divided in three categories; symbols, icons and indexes. Different understanding of these terms have created different definitions known from the American and the Paris school branches [Laves, A., 1982, p 219]. Semiotics as a science, offers a ‘systematic, comprehensive and coherent study’ of other communication systems and relating sciences [Hodge, R. &Kress, G., 1988, p.1]. They provide a theoretical framework to study different systems of signification and patterns of meaning formation [Budak C., 2007]. Saussure has described it as ‘the science of the life of signs in society’ [Culler J., 1976, p 18]. According to Roland Barthes semiology is a ‘science of forms, since it studies significations apart from their contents’ [Barthes R., 2000, p 111]. Moreover, Morris’ definition is quite similar to the latter one, mentioning that semiotics is the ‘process in which something is a sign to some organism’ [Morris S., 1971, p 366]. Signs can become words, images, actions or objects only when we give them meaning. ’We interpret things as signs largely unconsciously by relating them to familiar systems of conventions’ [Chandler D., 2002, p 17]. Contemporary semioticians study signs as part of the semiotic sign-system. More specifically they study the reasons behind the certain meanings and how the reality is represented. There are three main areas which form what we understand as semiotics, ‘in the 8

signs themselves, the way that they are organized into systems and the context in which they appear’ [Crow D., 2003, p 16]. In its broadest sense, signs can be decoded into different meanings, but always in a form of communication between the sign and the observer.

Figure 1: ‘Initial signification system’

2.2 The fundamental theorists and each model of signs The two fundamental theorists of semiotics were the Swiss Linguistic Ferdinand de Saussure and the American philosopher Charles Sanders Pierce, both of them working in the early 1900s. Peirce’s model became more strongly associated with American thinking besides Saussure’s model is associated with Europeans thinking. Ferdinand de Saussure, the ‘father’ of modern linguistics, as a structuralist, was interested in the language as a system of structure. As a linguist theorist, his theories were based on language, focusing on the words as signs. His ideas can be applied to any language and anything we call a ‘signifying system’. The signifying system is the way that signs become connected into large communicative units, such as sentences and paragraphs, according to relations between the words [Saussure F., 1974]. As 9

most structuralists, Saussure was only interested in the design of structure itself and not in the details of what fills up the structure. Ferdinand de Saussure stated that ‘’Any system of signs is a semiotic or signifying system’’ [Blonsky M., 1985, p xvi]. His main analysis on the linguistic sign properties will be presented in the following paragraph. Language is an identification process, by which all the things are applied with a word or name, a process which according to Saussure, gets across the idea that the basic linguistic unit consists of two parts; the “concept”, referring to the idea behind a sign, and the “image”, which is a psychological imprint of the image. ‘The meaning of any sign is found in the association created between the image and the concept’. The bond between those two is strong, as one will instantly invoke the other. The sign according to Saussure is the outcome of the relationship between the signifier and the signified, in other words the image is the signified and the concept is the signifier [Martin& Ringman, 2000, p 3].

Figure 2: ‘Saussure’s definition of sign’

The upper part of the diagram indicates ‘‘the nature as a homogeneous substance originally without the cultural classifications and categorizations of the human mind’’. The text tree in the form of script defines and signifies an entity in the nature -it is the line of signification- whereas the natural tree that can take endlessly various forms –it is the iconic mode of signification-[Lalla N, 2010]. In order for two or more people to communicate, they must first agree on who is the signifier and who the signified. Furthermore, Saussure categorized the signs in the arbitrary sign. As far as the arbitrary sign is concerned, there is no natural or inevitable link between signifier and signified that means ‘there are no fixed universal concepts or fixed universal signifiers’ [Crow D., 2003, p 16]. Most of the common signs are arbitrary. Each language has a distinctive and thus arbitrary way of organizing the world into concepts or categories [Culler J., 1976, pp 21-25]. Moreover, there is not a typical relationship between a word and the object it refers to, nor is there an underlying relation between the natural or commonly accepted properties of the object and the nature of the sign used to signify it. In addition, Ferdinand de Saussure was interested in the linguistic signs when Charles Sanders Pierce was more interested on how we make sense of the world around us. Semiotics, according to Pierce’s theory, is a representation of objects that function as signs, characterized by a triadic relation which involves “a co-operation of three subjects, a sign, its object-external reality, and its interpretant- the effect on user of the sign” [Munro C.F., 1987, p 117]. This triadic structure conveys the interdependent relationships between the elements of the triad.

‘A sign represents, in the broadest possible sense of represents’. It describes another thing thus ‘it is not necessarily symbolic, linguistic, or artificial’ [Pierce C., 1909, p 498].

ii.

An object is a subject matter of a sign and an interpretant. It can be anything discussable or thinkable, a thing, event, relationship, quality, law, argument, etc., and can even be fictional. All of those are special or partial objects. The object most accurately is the universe of discourse to which the partial or special object belongs [Pierce C., 1909, p 498].

iii.

An interpretant is the clear meaning of the sign implication. The interpretant is a sign of firstly the object and secondly of the interpretant's "predecessor" as being a sign of the same object [Robin M., 2010]. The interpretant is not fixed but its meaning can differ depending on the reader of the sign.

Figure 3: ‘Peirce triad of semiotics ’

Charles Sanders Pierce, except the theory of semiotics, he explains that a sign may be categorized as either an ‘icon,’ an ‘index,’ or a ‘symbol,’ according to its connection with its ‘object.' 12

An iconic sign is a representation of an existing thing or event which resembles essentially the thing that it represents. That type of signs are mostly pictorial ideas which has no dynamical connection with the object it represents and cause analogous sensations in the mind of observer/viewer for which it is a likeness [Pierce C.S., 1894]

II.

An indexical sign illustrates the direct link between the sign and the object. It is physically connected with its object even if the viewers/observers mind has nothing to do with this connection, except remarking it, after it is established [Pierce C.S., 1894].

III.

A symbolic sign is a combination of other signs, particularly of iconic or mixed signs and their contribution with the nature of iconic and symbolic signs and their symbolic parts which are called concepts. These signs have no reasonable connection between the signs and its meaning. The way they are used has associated them with their meanings. ‘Now, we do find symbol (sumbolon) and often used to mean a convention or contract. Aristotle calls a noun a “symbol,” that is, a conventional sign. Moreover, any expression of sentiment was called a symbol. Such were the principal meanings of the word in the original language’ [Pierce C.S., 1894].

Pierce also argues that the complex of icon, index and symbol may be called as a symbol and symbols may be principle or general types and general expressions which are used to produce concepts. Symbols may be conventional signs which are used as signs for other signs [Pierce C.S., 1903].

2.3 Umberto Eco’s point of view During the seventies, Eco developed his theory of the sign. His theory has similarities with Derrida's conception, which establishes the idea that there is no ‘transcendental signified’; relating to Peirce’s unlimited semiosis: "as soon as a sign […] reaches the level of the interpretant, it is ready […] to become the ground of a new sign" rather, they cite that there is an ‘infinite chain from one signifier to another’ [Fisette J., 1990, p 16]. Following the theories of Derrida and Fisette, Eco based his theory on the non-dimensional nature of the sign's meaning, he refers to sign-functions. This theory, which includes the "modes of sign production", has led to the creation of his theories on the role/importance of the reader, in which the meaning of a text may be distinguished from the model reader [Guillemette L.&Cossette J,2006]. Although the interpretant can be considered as a psychological event in the mind of an interpreter, it should not be read in this anthropomorphic way. Generally speaking, it could be defined as another sign translating the first one, ‘a process which may be continued ad infinitum’ [Munro C. F., 1987]. The freedom of Peirce's definition from any necessary reference to human communication makes it, in Eco's view, superior to that of Saussure [Guillemette L.&Cossette J,2006].

Figure 4: ‘Language in relation to its Connotative Semiotics: Ideology, Gender and register’

3. The relationship between Semiotics and Architecture 3.1 From language to buildings Semiotics can be used as a way of communication, thus they hold an important role in architecture. Most of architectural objects do not communicate but function. A phenomenological reflection of the relationship between the observer and the architectural object notify us that we mostly experience architecture as communication, even if we are familiar with the function of the building [Leach N.,1997, p 182]. Space communicates with its own inherent language. Through its own set of basic alphabets and sentences, a space commits descriptive, communicative and expressive formalities, so built space begins to adopt sign-like qualities. Similar to language, architecture is difficult to be defined, if not impractical. Words and sentences are replaced by buildings, but in fact we are talking about the same small unit the structure is built on. From a word to an image, from a concrete building to a fire-hole, all examples fulfil the general term. They fulfil â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;the intersection between humans and the world and humans and the empty space they live inâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; [Hooker R., 2010]. Looking back in time, signification in architecture has always been an issue. Thousand years ago, the conception of the city created by Cleisthenes in Athens in the 6th century was an exclusively signifying one [Barthes, 1967, p. 413]. The end of the World War II was followed by an urban sprawling in many European cities. It was one of the factors that gave birth to the theory of modern semiotics in architecture and space in general. The first linguistic analogies of architecture were 15

fabricated at the School of Architecture in Florence back in the early 50’s. In 1971 and 1973 at the ‘Centro Internazionale di Semiotica e Linguistica di Urbino’ the first international meetings on semiotics of architecture were held. Umberto Eco was among others who presented their studies, where he introduced the Anglo-Saxon position on the semiotics of architecture [Krampen, M, 1998, p 3]. In his last book, ‘Struttura Assente’ (1975) and, also, in the book ‘Meaning in Architecture’ by Charles Jencks and George Baird (1969), parts of Eco’s seminars were included. Umberto Eco, one of the linguistic philosophers, was sceptical about the world of semiotics and he claimed that 'architectural language is an authentic linguistic system obeying the same rules that govern the articulation of natural languages' [Watkin D., 2001, p.1]. Adding on to this, Eco characterizes architectural signs as a meaning which is codified by a given cultural context. For architecture this ‘denoted’ meaning becomes the function of the given element. An architectural sign is defined then as 'a sign-vehicle whose denoted meaning is the function it makes possible'. This is the sign-vehicle which, taken as a reference point of culture, denotes 'the possibility of going up' no matter of any independent behaviour or mental reaction’ [Munro, 1987, p.120] Moreover, Peter Eisenman and Bernard Tschumi were some of the architects who embraced post structuralism and deconstructivism and used linguistic theories on signs. Baird and Jencks were some of the first theorists who applied the literary theories to architecture [Leone, G., 2009]. In his essay “Architecture and the problem of the rhetorical figure”, Eisenman tries to describe his “rhetorical figure” by the use of assumptions drawn by semiotics and structuralism with regard to architecture

[Eisenman P., 1996, p. 174]. However, moving on with his argument, he acknowledges the differences between those two areas of study. ‘Fixed structure’ and ‘transparency’ are factors of his comparison with different characteristic between architecture and language [Eisenman P., 1996, pp. 176-181].

Figure 5: ‘Treachery of Images’

3.2 The properties of architectural signs Moving on to the properties of the architectural sign, we can realize that while the basic unit of linguistics is the sign, in the semiotics of architecture this basic concept is defined as the code. The sign bears the terms of the signified and the signifier which affects its meaning in the same manner [Budak, 2007]. The architectural code is shown in the following diagram: Sd : a coded problem Sr:

a coded solution

One of the basic points of the structuralist theory is that “without the natural language and the related concept formation we would not be able to differentiate anything in nature”. The above analogy between the coded problem (Sd) and the coded solution (Sr) in architecture, can be explained as someone who is not trained as an architect, having almost nothing to say when looking at a building and can only describe it as something beautiful, ugly or attractive, without the ability to recognize anything else. Architectural codes may not be identified and understood by its occupants, but they can still be effective. It is the case of a problem that raises the awareness of understanding these codes [Budak, 2007]. While the linguistic sign “defines a communicative signification, a relationship of standing for, representing, recalling or referring”, the architectural code defines a “functional signification, a relationship of realizing, fulfilling or carrying out a task. It is usually in the form of a coded solution to a coded problem” [Budak, 2007].

3.3 The power of the architectural signs in Societies The power of architectural signs in societies is basically characterized by the communication power and how it is motivated. Charles Jenks in his book ‘Meaning in architecture’ contends that ‘although a form may be initially arbitrary or non – motivated as Saussure points out, its subsequent use is motivated or based on some determinants’ [Jencks C.& Baird G.,1975, p 11]. This motivation can be political, religious, social or cultural. Also, according to Umberto Eco, the architectural sign ‘is

a codified meaning that in a given cultural context is attributed to the sign vehicleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; [Leach N., 1997, pp 184]. Architectural signs give a visual expression to ideas, such as social, ideological, philosophical or religious. These ideas are meaningful and motivate the observer/viewer to arrange the reality and through that arrangement the build space becomes meaningful [Jencks C. & Baird G., 1975, p 223]. These means are transmitted through means of communication, making the description and expression possible. Additionally, signification forms in architecture are using codes which are proposed as structural models with communicative relations. That kind of relations is either denotative or connotative attached to the meaning of the build space. This is the way of how the semiotic universe, referring to architecture as communication, becomes viable and the architectural objects become significative forms [Leach N., 1997, pp 184-185]. Furthermore, the communicative aspect of architecture is dependent on two principal categories which are both associated with convention and recollection I.

Personal experiences: This aspect of communication is connected with our personal experience of using a space and individualities such as comprehensive ability.

II.

Social experiences: This aspect of communication is related with the common cultural associations. These cultural associations are necessary if the meaning manifested in form, has to be comprehended. For example, black is the color of the West.

These two types of experience examine architectural forms as symbolic expressions while the forms of the build spaces are recognized as signs of an external reality.

4. The sign as a symbol 4.1 How symbols dominate space According to Foucault: ‘’Architecture […] is only taken as an element of support, to endure a certain allocation of people in space, a canalization of their circulation, as well as the coding of their reciprocal relations. So it is not only considered an element of space, but it especially thought of as a plunge into a field of social relations in which it brings about some specific effects ’’ [Gaines E.,2006] Thus, the semiotics of a build space maintains an established social distribution of power through a symbolic representation. The meaning of the build space in architecture is transmitted through means of communication and results in perception. These meanings are perceptual demonstrations, which are familiar to humans since childhood, as well as systems and forms which make description and expression possible for communication [Hil J., 1998, p 62]. These systems and forms over a period of constant use, become symbols. Symbols integrate into the culture’s sign systems. The better the symbols of an object are delivered; a better communication will be established with the observer/viewer. For example, the symbols behind a building must be expressed in a way that people will notice and understand.

There are two types of symbols, the indexical and the iconic. Indexical are the symbols which indicate their use directly. Besides, iconic symbols are those where their form acts as a diagram of its function.

Figure 6: ‘Las Vegas’

Robert Venturi, in his book “Complexity and Contradiction in Modern Architecture” illustrated the indexical symbols properly; by describe them as ‘ducks’ are opposed to ‘decorated sheds’. A ‘duck’ is the building that its functions are obvious by looking its facade or that allows its internal order to be displayed on its exterior.

4.2 Connotative and Denotative Symbolism Referring

back

linguistic

theories,

they

analyze

architecture’s

communicative properties emphasizing the paired qualities of denotation which is when an element depends on its heraldic characteristics and “indicates specific meaning” -such as the casino sign’s fundamental message, “Stop here” or “Spend your money here”- and connotation which is when an element depends on its physiognomic qualities and “suggests general meanings” that are integrated in the forms of the signs. These general meanings are “associative,” as they are both based on past experience and set the social character of the actions, which take place under the context of the build space [Venturi R. & Brown S.D., 1977]. The style, size, or even the color of the world plays an important role on the message they communicate. For example, specific characteristics of the graphics can connote basic values while their size can connote the motivation such as commercialism. Their position can connote the entrance while their color and decoration connotes wealth. On the other hand, in the book ‘Languages of art: an approach to a theory of symbols’, Goodman argues that the expression of meaning in architecture is seldom denotation at the level of description or representation. In most cases, buildings express meanings through exemplification. Specifically, buildings may exemplify or express certain properties. 4.3 From Modernism to the ‘decorated sheds’ Robert Venturi in his book ‘Learning from Las Vegas’, he clarifies that Modern architects, ‘shunned symbolism of form as an expression or reinforcement of

content: meaning was to be communicated through the inherent, physiognomic characteristics of form.’ This idea is supported by critics and historians who are involved with the "decline of popular symbols" in art. ‘The creation of architectural form was to be a logical process, free from images of past experience, determined solely by program and structure, with an occasional assist from intuition’ [Venturi R. & Brown S.D., 1977]. Additionally, modernist architects refuse the symbolic function of architecture while seeking meaning in an unacknowledged way. But such abstract architecture is unproductive because it rejects architecture's rich heritage of symbolically charged conventional forms that goes into deeply rooted social and cultural references and associations. To the modernists' strained efforts to achieve individual expression through dramatic massing, Las Vegas offers the counter example of a legible architecture that works through the familiar and the obvious. The Strip of Las Vegas is a landscape of big signs, small buildings and high speeds where architecture becomes a symbol, or a series of symbolic systems in space competing and often contradicting each other. In this new landscape, buildings do not just denote the functions they deal with, but function as signs conveying several meanings.

Figure 7: ‘I am a monument’

As Robert Venturi mentions, ‘Symbol dominates space. Architecture is not enough’ [Venturi R. & Brown S.D., 1977, p 13]. Symbols rather than forms, create the spatial relationships, thus architecture in this setting becomes symbolic rather than form in space. “Architecture defines very little: The big sign and the little building is the rule of Route 66” [Venturi R. & Brown S.D., 1977, p 13]. The Strip is a commercial landscape and creates architecture of communication which overcome what we common perceive as a space. It is ‘a symbol in space rather than form in space’ [Venturi R. & Brown S.D., 1977, p 13]. 24

4.3.1 Is a building a sign or vice versa? Was the 1960s Strip a purely visual, message-conveying environment? Is architecture a text? What message did it convey? , In what manner? , Is architecture a form of language? ‘‘In historical styles, buildings remind of a precise association and romantic references to the past to express literary, ecclesiastical, national, or programmatic symbolism’’ [Venturi R. & Brown S.D., 1977, p 7]. By reclaiming its symbolic content Venturi, Scott Brown and Izenour, hoped to transform architecture into a visible language and make it less inevitable, aesthetical and more vital. On signs rather than by “deformed” buildings-by a sign proclaiming “I AM A MONUMENT” standing on an ordinary building rather than by a monumental or original building. In the book Learning from Las Vegas, the Strip messages are categorized in the heraldic, where signs dominate, in the physiognomic, where messages are transmitted through the faces of the buildings and in the locational, where service stations are found in the corner, for example the casino is in front of the hotel and the ceremonial valet parking is in front of the casino [Venturi R. & Brown S.D., 1977, p 73]. In the first category signs refer more to the highway than to the buildings. ‘The big sign independent of the building and more or less sculptural or pictorial-inflects by its position, perpendicular to and at the edge of the highway, by its scale and sometimes by its shape’ [Venturi R. & Brown S.D., 1977, p 73]. In general, signs in Las Vegas use mixed media so as to persuade and inform. ‘It is architecture of styles and signs, that is antispatial; it is architecture of communication over space;

communication dominates space as an element in the architecture and in the landscape’ [Venturi R. & Brown S.D., 1977, p 8] According to the second category buildings are also signs. More specifically, the entire buildings are illuminated, not only through the reflection of spotlights but neon tubes, where as the neon sign in that space has become the architecture of that particular space. ‘Symbolism of form was expression or reinforcement of content: meaning was to be communicated, not through allusion to previously known forms, but through the inherent, physiognomic characteristics of form’ [Venturi R. & Brown S.D., 1977, p 7]. Contemporary architects believe that the architecture itself should replace the signs in a way that architecture will dominate the symbols or at least both of them will have equal value. But complex programs and systems require a complex arrangement of the media used, beyond the pure architectural harmony of structure, form, and light at the service of space. Venturi’s own words suggest architecture of bold communication rather than one of subtle expression [Venturi R. & Brown S.D., 1977, p 9].

Figure 8: ‘Robert Venturi - duck vs decorated shed’

5. ICONICITY OR SYMBOLISM; 5.1Case studies From the beginning of its use as a language during historical time, architecture has been an icon rather that a symbol. To explain this statement and to talk more precisely about the difference between a symbol and an icon I will use the differentiation between analogy and metaphor. Both analogy and metaphor come from the analysis of literature and both of them are applied in the world of arts. Analogy comes from the Greek word ‘αναλογία’, is a cognitive process of transferring a meaning from a particular source to another particular subject where there is often a similarity. Analogy plays a significant role in communication and phrases such as so on, the like, as if, and the very word like also rely on an analogical understanding by the receiver of a message including them [Hofstadter, D., 2001]. Metaphor come from the Greek word ‘μεταφορά’ which means transfer and it refers to a transfer of one word’s meaning into another word. A metaphor replaces one word with another but does not draw any parallels between the meanings of the words; in contrast an analogy does claim a similarity between one thing to another. Analogy is a weaker replacement of meaning but a stronger illustration of parallels between the two meanings. In the particular example, the analogy is the symbol and the metaphor is the icon so as the difference between them to be clearer. In contemporary architecture iconography acts both metaphorical and analogical. Moving on, having as basic principles the differentiation of icon and symbol, in Rober Venturi’s and Charles Jencks’ writings, they present a theoretical outline and textual

research for the symbolic and iconic buildings focusing more in modern and postmodern architecture. In the book “Learning from Las Vegas”, Robert Venturi divided all buildings into ‘ducks’ and decorated sheds. Ducks are a kind of building becoming sculpture; decorated sheds are buildings more directly at the service of the program of the building. Particularly, Venturi, Scott Brown and Izenour finished their research with the following conclusion, ‘’Where the architectural systems of space, structure and program are submerged and distorted by an overall symbolic form. This kind of building-becoming sculpture we call the duck […]. The duck is the special building that is a symbol’’ [Venturi R, Brown S.D., Izenour S., 1977,p 188]. To assess representational symbolism due to Venturi’s theory, it is appropriate to return to modern architecture and City Halls which established the scale of local ‘’decorated sheds’’ that exists in Britain today. To exemplify this period, Nottingham City Hall will be use as a case study. More purposely, it is an iconic building for the city of Nottingham and a decorated shed for the world of architecture. In general, city halls were iconic buildings in each city through its language applied because of its forms. Specifically, they are buildings which are designed for the citizens and through the several exterior features; they demonstrate an aristocratic governance of its city. It is a way of expression for both the city and the citizens in their architecture. Thus, from the modern time until contemporary time, the enlightenment was reflected through city halls and provided space for cultural events. Nottingham City Hall was completed in 1929 to the designs of Cecil Howitt, it sits next to Old Market which is located in the centre of the town. Nottingham’s city hall 29

was a building which accommodates the council, the court and a public hall. Nowadays it still provides council offices and is also provides space for retail outlets and the Exchange Arcade [Scoffham E., 1992].

Figure 9: â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Nottingham City Hallâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

Moving on the exterior space, there is a terrace overlooking the Old Market Square with figures, that represent the activities of the Council and a 61 meters dome rises up to the sky which is the most remarkable visual part of the building and an iconic symbol at the same time. Additionally, there are sculptures inside and outside the building which offers a more close-to-human-scale perception of the building. Most of the sculptures are figures that represent things that made the city wealthy and indicate the industrious nature of the city. Moreover, the clock tower which is located on the dome represented the individuality of the city in a political way. Clock tower was a sign that stood for the public spaces and at the same time to the citizens. These kinds of symbols of local history and public pride present a very 30

significant role between the people and the city as it engages the community in the building and at the same time symbolizes the community. Neo Baroque style on the façade to echo the style of Britain, but classical in plans so as to reflect the functional effect [Beckett J. & Brand K., 2004]. City Halls are characterized as decorated sheds because they focus mainly on the exterior symbols which weren’t reflected in the function of the building, but in the importance of its individuality among the other cities. City Halls are still recognized as an emblem of the city.

Figure 10: ‘Plan of Nottingham City Hall’

Representational iconicity displays the symbols of citizens to the city. Those kinds of symbols convey a common ownership to the population of the city. As a result the symbolism presents the principle of the building to the exterior facade in a way that does not make any instant connection between the exterior and the interior. So, City Halls are examples of buildings in modern era which are indicate how representational symbolism can be used to create architecture of decorated sheds [Cunningham C., 1981, p 38]. Through the analysis of Venturi’s theory in Las Vegas and the case study of Nottingham City Hall I am trying to explain how the architecture in Modern and Postmodern times enlarged construction of the icon from the building into the city as a whole and as a result there is ‘’embraced a form of centralized accumulation’’ [Jencks C., 2005, p 18]. Moving on, I will question, from architecture’s point of view combined with the viewers/observers view, how iconicity has changed and if it is changing in response to the same principles of the past? According to Charles Jencks ‘’enigmatic signifiers can be used in an effective way to support the deeper meaning of the building’’, so my argument on that statement will be the analysis of an iconic building; the Jewish Museum in Berlin which is a significant example of contemporary architecture, in a parallel comparison with Greek temples from classical times, in order to demonstrate how ‘’enigmatic signifiers’’ were and still support iconic buildings in both the exterior and the interior spaces, in a way that iconicity consistent with symbolicity. So, I will compare and

contrast the iconic landmark where it came from and how it recently rose to global performance.

Figure 11: ‘Jewish Museum, Berlin’

Iconic building occupies a prominent place in the city or carries out a function which is really important for the city. Moreover, another characteristic is that it has opposing likeness to the most incompatible things and this is a reason why they are often so powerful for both the citizens and the city they are located. Additionally, a reason why the iconic buildings are related to connotative meanings rather that denotative are because it is usually transformed in brand images which either shrunk to the size of TV screen or to a letterhead. ‘’On the one hand to become iconic a building must provide a new and condensed image, be high in figural shape or gestalt, and stand for the city. On the other hand, to become powerful it must be

reminiscent in some ways of unlikely but important metaphors, and be a symbol fit to be worshipped, a hard task in a secular society’’[Jencks C.,2005,p 23]. What if we have a combination of this division and have an example of several buildings like Jewish Museum which is iconic and metaphoric at the same time. Robert Booth summarized that ‘’Cities are competing against each other for icons and are using international architects to drum up the something different, is something different the iconic building?’’ Eiffel tower, build in 1889, is an example of an ‘iconic icon’ which is recognizable as a logo and as an iconic sign which is identified with visual signs, unlike the Jewish Museum. A successful iconic building is when successful sets architecture on a similarity with the best contemporary art to explore freely the possibilities of an open ended inventiveness. In contrast, the Jewish Museum of Berlin was built in 2001 and sits on the southern end of the West Berlin, in an area close to the existing Berlin Wall and it consists of 15,000 square meters. It is an essential establishment on the German museum landscape and is a lively center for German-Jewish history and culture. It is an iconic building and is considered as “one of the greatest architectural achievements of the past 100 years” (Hooper and Connolly 2001) which is a place for exploration, discussion, and exchange of ideas, in other words a museum for every German and non-German, Jewish and non-Jewish. Libeskind’s design came to be seen as a symbol for a "Jewish" museum (Jewish museum Berlin, no date) and works in a symbolic way so as to inscribe the trauma that Nazis caused to Berlin city history.

Similarly, Greek Temples were built in classical times and remain one of the most powerful visual iconic symbols left by antiquity to the modern world which were dedicated to a God. They were established so as to isolate space for God, rituals and cult management. The main motivation of both buildings was religious, political and cultural too. Beginning, with respect to the Jewish museum and the way that the shape and the spaces were designed; we will identify a lot of similarities with the Greek Temples. The shape of the Jewish museum building is a zig-zag and is reminiscent of a warped Star of David. The connecting lines between the historicity and location of Jewish museum create a basic outline and structure for the building. Furthermore, through the shapes and the forms of the interior and the exterior space, Libenskind tries to give a sense of absence, emptiness, and the imperceptible and orientate the observer/viewer to see certain spaces which Libeskind terms as the ‘voided voids’. ‘‘The ideas which generate the plan of the building repeat themselves on the surface of the building, where voids, windows, and perforations form a sort of cosmological composition on an otherwise undifferentiated, zig-zagging zinc surface’’ [Berman J., 2002].

Figure 12: ‘Jewish Museum, Berlin’

On the other hand, Greek Temples have had a more simple shape as they were in geometric style with the most common form of a rectangular building. Normally, it was placed in a sacred enclosure area known as the temenos. More specifically, temenos was the area reserved for worshiping the gods. It generally included a natural feature such as a spring, a grove of trees or a cave which was the actual focus of public worship [Marconi C., 2007]. Through the simple shape, temples aimed to focus on ‘‘a coherent system of meanings which embodied in images and other symbols that enable people to relate cognitively, emotionally and behaviorally to the

world and to communicate that appreciation and understanding to the others’’ [Seasoltz K., 2005] .Temples were the spaces where people reaffirm their faith and receive spiritual comfort as the needs of the gods were really important. Related to Jewish museum, which brings the observer closer to the emotions of Jews history, Greek temples achieve the same feelings dedicating to God history and faith and as a result there is a spiritual comfort in both of the buildings. They were meant to serve as ‘homes’ aiming to protect and sustain the community’s historical or religion values.

Figure 13: ‘Greek Temple’

In addition, studying the interior of the Jewish museum, it consists of three main themes which create three different axes, each of which speaks of a different story. Those axes intersect and signify the connection between the three realities of Jewish

life in Germany. More specifically, the axe of Continuity with German history- the future- is the connecting path from which the other axes branch off. Then there is the axe of Emigration from Germany- diaspora- which directs you from the outside/daylight to the Garden of Exile. ‘‘On the way there, the walls are slightly slanted and close in the further one goes, while the floor is uneven and ascends gradually. A heavy door must be opened before the crucial step into the garden can be taken’’ [Jewish museum Berlin, no date]. Last but not least, there is the axe of Holocaust- annihilation– a dead end where the corridor and the walls become more narrow and dark as it symbolizes the suffering of Jews and their death. Consequently, those three axes identify both physically and metaphorically, the ways in which Germany lost its Jewish people during the 20th century and creates a ritual sense around the space. Subsequently, through the design of the building we can understand that Libenskind placed great importance on people's perceptions for the building [Stead N., 2000].

Figure 14: ‘Jewish Museum, Berlin’

In parallel, the interior of the Greek Temples was separated in different spaces, each of them had a different meaning for the observer/viewer and as a structure in total there was a hierarchy and a ritual feeling. More specifically, there was a set of spaces â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;performedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; mainly for their symbolic value. The central cult structure of the temple was the naos which was separated in different spaces. The naos was enclosed from all four sides, giving the impression of a room with a continuous movement. A cult statue, standing in the end or in the middle of a corridor, produces a surrounding portico, the pteron, offering shelter to the visitors of the sanctuary and a room for the cult procession. Furthermore, cella- another cult statue of the deity- was sited inside the main space of the naos. In front of the cella, there was a space called pronaos which was treated as a processional hall. The pronaos was extended considerably to form a combination of an even more broad and airy space. In order to enter the pronaos, someone had to go up a few steps, separating that part of the building from the surrounding colonnade. As a whole, this gave the interior elements a greater distinction. Moving on, a similar room with the pronaos, is located at the back of the cella, which is called the opisthodomos. Nevertheless, there was no door connecting the opisthodomos with the cella [Robert L, 1946]. Its existence was of a great necessity, because it was the only space that had the ability to view all the spaces of the temple.

Figure 13: ‘Greek Temple’

In conclusion, it is most apparent that there was continuity through the spaces of Greek temples, from level to level, from room to room; there was integration between the naos and the other spaces to keep the feeling of the ritual and secrecy [Router K.N & Sparkes B.R, 2000]. ‘‘The feeling of ritual is the key component of the hidden communication, since ritual itself is defined as an opportunity for the exchange of messages, prayers and requests from men to gods, warnings and messages of acceptance from gods to men’’ [Seasoltz K., 2005]. Apart from the interior, the exterior space, in both buildings, played a significant role in the iconicity and symbolism. Therefore, considering the Jewish Museum and its exterior, the symbolic language, that Libenskind is using, is evident on the building’s façade. Firstly, through the sharp narrow slits windows’ cuts which symbolize the network of connections between Jewish and German citizens on a map of pre-war Berlin and secondly,

through the zinc material which has a long tradition in Berlin's architectural history. Moreover, the outside of the building is surrounded by the Garden of Exile that intergrades with the program and the symbolism of the building in total. More specifically, there are forty-nine concrete stelae which resemble with a sculptural form and attempt to present the viewer with ‘‘a sense of the total insecurity and lack of orientation experienced by those driven out of Germany’’ [Libeskind, D., 1990]. Last but not least, on the top of the stelae there are Russian willow oaks that symbolize hope. As Hugh Pearman said “a Libeskind building performs. It sings, it tells stories. It takes you by the elbow and points things out to you. Things you might not have noticed or understood” [Pearman H., 2001].

Figure 16: ‘Jewish Museum, Berlin-The Garden of Exile’

Similarly, the exterior space of the Greek temples was decorated by figural representations. Individual mythological and battle scenes were some of the main themes of the decoration. Moreover, pediment triangles were found on the façade of the temples, which were decorated with rows of God figures. Generally, the

decoration themes were increasingly dominated by myths connected with the locality so as to encourage viewers to enter into a particular relationship with the figures or scenes sculpted [Porter J. 2009]. Furthermore, there were theological implications to the relationship between viewer and sculpture. In particular, the sculpture could have the ability to confront the worshipper with the manifestation of the gods’ power. Lastly, Greek temples were symbols as well as spatial constructions, and they were both large in scale, both on the inside and outside, in order to dominate their urban settings and spread their religion message [Router K.N & Sparkes B.R, 2000].

Figure 17: ‘Greek Temple’

Through the study of the Greek temples and the Jewish museum, one can come to the conclusion that architecture becomes a medium of communication. The architecture of those buildings tries to enrich the perceptive of people in terms of the historical, political, and cultural motivation concerns. ‘‘It's not just some more big buildings. It's not to erase that tragedy, but to inscribe it in a way that is meaningful, that will tell that story, that will be memorable’’ [Greene D., 2007].

The visual and spatial language of those buildings, with enriched history and symbolism, they not only house a museum or a deity but also provide the observer/viewer with its own exceptional experience as they walk through the spaces.

As José Luis González Cobelo suggested, as regards to the Jewish museum: ''the museum proposal is to evoke and particularize an absence more than a presence: the unnamable of the voice of God, but also absence as an accusing form of presence of an incinerated culture and community’’ [Cobelo J.L., 1996, p 37]. This statement articulates not only the philosophy of Jewish museum, but also the Greek temples too. When a building combines iconicity with symbolism, it helps the observer/viewer to experience its own dynamism and aesthetic approach of the spaces and the building in total, while it can strengthen their memory and awareness.

CONCLUSION Through my research I presented the basic structures of the sign. I investigated the linguistic sign properties as well as whether they can be applicable on architectural signification systems. One inference is that when we observe the space as a sign, new ways of understanding are possible, and the meanings of things can be discussed as they concern to our everyday lives. Insistent experiences in space are inclined to appear identical because of a habit of seeing things from a incomplete perspective. The book ‘Learning from Las Vegas’ by Robert Venturi was presented as an example of the applications of these theories in an urban space. Summing up, we must note the fact that, the sign-receiving and sign-using system does not reveal the world or itself, ‘it cannot enunciate any kind of truth about the world’ [Blonsky, 1985]. Nowadays we know that signs lie: they make no responsible pronouncements, but the “act on people”. Many examples in history showed how people in power used this characteristic of signs to “engineer the future of people [Blonsky, 1985]. Hills states that ‘Counter to today’s predilection for outsized Ducks, an understanding and adoption of this work would lead to ethical and responsible buildings. “Learning from Dubai” might be a suitable extension of the original to today’s condition, an analysis of another place of excess, shaped by many architects and occurring at the time of environmental crisis. The strip gives way to Sheikh Zayed Road’ [Hill J., 1998]. Moreover, due to my main argument I have to perceive that if in the future there will be a historical opening to a new type of sign, there will be a shift from the conventional monument to the unconventional landmark and as a result we will

succeed the age of enigmatic signifier. As a result, the observer/viewer will be standing in a particular place in the earth, which is meaningful across history and the architecture will communicate in a better way with the people. So this will be the main motivation to move our lives in a positive direction rather than simply be stuck in a duck.

Figure 18: â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;What can we learn from Las Vegas today?â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

Bibliography BOOKS 

Barthes, R. (1997) Image Music Text. London, Fontana Press.



Berger, A.A. (1998) Signs in contemporary culture. New York, Longman.



Blonsky, M. (1985) On sings. Oxford, Blackwell.



Budak, C. (2007) Arch 412 Semiotics of Architecture / COURSE NOTES 1.



Culler, J. (1976) Saussure. Fontana, William Collins Sons.



Crow, D. (2003) Visible Signs. London, AVA Publishing.



Eco, U. (1976) A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington, Indiana University Press.



Goodman, N.(1976) Languages of art: an approach to a theory of symbols, United States, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company,



Harris, D. (1996) A society of Signs. New York, Routledge.



Hil, J. (1998) Occupying Architecture: Between the Architect and the User. London, Routledge



Jencks, C. & Baird, G. (1969) “Meaning in Architecture. London, Clement’s Inn.



Kepes, G. (1966) Sign, image & symbol. Studio Vista.



Leach, N. (1997) Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory. London, Routledge.



Marconi C. (2007), Temple Decoration and Cultural Identity in the Archaic Greek World: The Metopes of Selinus, Cambridge University Press, New York



Martin, B. & Ringman, F. (2000) Dictionary of semiotics. London, Cassel.



Posner, R., Robering, K. & Sebeok, T.A. (2004) Semiotic. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter



Router K.N & Sparkes B.R (2000), Word and image in ancient Greece, Edinburg University Press, United Kingdom



Saussure, F. (1974) Course in general linguistics. London, Fontana.



Seasoltz K. (2005), A sense of the sacred: theological foundations of sacred architecture and art, The Continuum International Publishing Group, New York



Sebeok, T. (1994) An introduction to semiotics. London, University of Toronto Press.



Venturi, R. & Brown, S.D., Izenour, S. (1977) Learning from Las Vegas. Massachusetts, MIT Press.

ARTICLES 

Berman

(2002)

Daniel

Libeskind

1998

Available

from:

http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/jewishmuseum/ [Accessed on:9/04/14] 

Cobelo, J. L. G. (1996) Architecture and its double: idea and reality in the work of Daniel Libeskind, El Croquis, vol. 80, p.30-38.



Eco U., (1973) Function and Sign: semiotics of architecture. In J. Bryan, & R. Sauder, (Eds.), Structures Implicit and Explicit. VIA Publications of the Graduate School of Fine Arts, University of Pennsylvania.



Eisenman P., (1996) Architecture and the problem of the rhetorical figure. In K. Nesbit (Eds.), Theorizing a new agenda for architecture: an anthology for architectural theory 1965-1995, p.p. 174. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996, p. 174.



Hooper, J. and Connolly, K. (2001) Empty museum evokes suffering of Jews, The

Guardian,

September

Available

from:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/08/johnhooper.kateconnolly/pr int [Accessed on:10/05/12] 

Gaines, E. (2006) Communication and the Semiotics of Space. Journal of Creative Communications 1:2, VIA PUBLICATIONS New Delhi, Wright State University.



Green, D. (2007) Voices on antisemitsm- a podcast series Available from:http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/antisemitism/voices/tr anscript/?content=20070913 [Accessed on: 14/01/12]



Libeskind, D. (1990) The Jewish Extension to the German Museum in Berlin: Between the Lines, Architectural Design, v.60, no.2/3, p.62-77



Munro C. F., (1987). Semiotics, Aesthetics and Architecture. British Journal of Aesthetics,

27,

115-128.

Retrieved

January

11,

2012

from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511519 

Pearman H. (2001) Whacky Spacer, Sunday Times Magazine, April, p.36-41



Peirce, C. S. (1894) What Is a Sign? Published in part in CP 2.281, 285, and 297-302, and in full in EP 2:4-10. Peirce Edition Project Eprint



Perez, G. A. (1982) Professional use of signs in architecture. JAE, 36, 2, 2-7. Retrieved January 10, 2012 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1424615 48



Porter J. (2009), Greek Temple Design, University of Saskatchewan, November

Available

from:

http://homepage.usask.ca/~jrp638/CourseNotes/temples.html [Accessed on: 07/04/12] 

Rauterberg, H. (2001) Architektur der Suche, Die Zeit, No.36, August, p.32



Reid, S. (2001),The Jewish Museum Berlin - A Review, London, University of Newcastle / UK Available from: http://www.vl-museen.de/aus-rez/reid011.htm [Accessed on: 24/04/12]



Robert L. (1946),’Interior Design of Greek Temples’, American Journal of Archaeology,

v.50,

no.1,

pp.

39-51

Available

from:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/499747 [Accessed on: 23/02/12] 

Robin M., (2010). 76 definitions of the sign by C. S. Peirce. Retrieved January 17,

2012

from

http://robert.marty.perso.cegetel.net/semiotique/76defeng.htm 

Seiler

M.R

(2006),

Semiology/Semiotics,

CULTURAL

STUDIES

University

Calgary,

COMMUNICATIONS: Available

from:

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~rseiler/semiolog.htm [Accessed on: 23/02/12] 

Suhor C., (2010). Semiotics and the English Language Arts. Retrieved January 14, 2012 from http://www.indiana.edu/~reading/ieo/digests/d59.html



Stead, N. (2000) The Ruins of History: allegories of destruction in Daniel Libeskind’s Jewish Museum, Open Museum Journal, Vol. 2, Unsavoury histories, August



Krampen, M. (1998) Semiotics of architecture, semiotics of space -looking back and ahead. Barcelona. Editions UPC



Watkin, D. (2001) Book Review: Linguistic Identification. – Architecture And Language Constructing Identity in European Architecture C.1000-C.1650 (2000) Clarke, G.& Crossley, P. Cambridge University Press.



Leone, G. (2006) Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown's Confrontation with Postmodernity. 2005-2006 Penn Humanities Forum on Word & Image, Undergraduate Mellon Research Fellows, April. University of Pensylvenia.



Ackerman, J.S. & Collins, P., Gowans, A. & Scruton, R. (2012) Architecture.



Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. Retrieved March 11,2012 from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/32876/architecture>

INTERNET SOURCE 

Jewish Museum Berlin (no date) The Libeskind Building. Available from: http://www.jmberlin.de [Accessed on: 24/04/12]

ILLUSTRATIONS 

Figure 1 ‘Initial signification system’ Barthes, R. Mythologies London: Vintage Classics, 2000 p.115



Figure

‘Saussure’s

definition

sign’

http://massthink.wordpress.com/2007/06/03/the-signifier-the-signified-andthe-sign/



Figure

‘Peirce

triad

semiotics’

Semiotics:

Ideology,

http://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/semiotics.htm 

Figure 4 ‘Language in relation to its Connotative

Gender and register’ http://www.yasni.de/person/curran/martin /martincurran.htm 

Figure

Cosden

Treachery

Images,

Available

http://www.bewareofimages.com/ [Accessed 18/04/12] 

Figure

Bundle

Las

Vegas,

Available

http://bundleboy.hubpages.com/hub/Learning-from-Las-Vegas#

[Accessed

3/04/12] 

Figure 7: Venturi R. Brown S. Izenour (1977), I am a monument [photograph] (Learning from Las Vegas)



Figure 8: Venturi R. Brown S. Izenour (1977), Robert Venturi - duck vs decorated shed [photograph] (Learning from Las Vegas)



Figure

Owens

Nottingham

City

Hall,

Available

http://www.prweek.com [Accessed 21/04/12] 

Figure 10: Teece R. (2006), Plan of Nottingham City Hall, Available at http://www.nottingham21.co.uk/Index.htm [Accessed 21/04/12]



Figure

11-13:

Steinberg

Jewish

Museum,

Berlin,

http://gallagherstravels.com/tracing-jewish-history-in-berlin/

Available

[Accessed

9/04/12] 

Figure 13: Gunther M (1998), Greek Temple, Available at http://www.art-andarchaeology.com/doric/plan1.html [Accessed 19/03/12]