The importance of sight in architecture Throught the eyes of phenomenology and Robert Venturi’s movement.
The importance of sight in architecture Through the eyes of phenomenology and Robert Venturi’s movement.
page left intentionaly blank
Contents Chapter 1
Abstract
01
1.0
Introduction
03
2.0
“Seeing” - Theoretical Background concerning the importance of Sight in Phenomenology
11
2.1
Case study Analysis – Villa Mairea by Alvar Aalto
2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 Chapter 2
Immediate sight Continuity and sight Tactility and sight
3.0
Seeing – Theoretical Background concerning the importance of sight in
3.1
Case study Analysis – Chestnut hill house (Vanna’s Venturi) by Robert Venturi
3.1.1
Referral Sight
3.1.1.1 3.1.1.2 3.1.1.3 3.1.1.4 Chapter 3
Ambiguity Lightness Completeness Symmetry
4.0
“Seeing” in matters of Seeing
4.1
Case study Analysis – Villa Mairea by Alvar Aalto
4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 5.0
25
35
Complexity Ambiguity The inside and the outside
Conclusion
41
Bibliography
45
Appendix
47
page left intentionaly blank
Abstract “Our buildings are turning into objects of momentary visual seduction, while losing their sense of presense, plasticity and hapticity ; indeed, their sense of the real” Juhani Palasmaa
“The unending rainfall of images” Italo Calvino
This thesis aims on investigating how architecture became dominated and controlled by vision, how it’s relation with history was used as a tool for design and how as a mean for persuading meaning. Everything is judged by what people see, in such a way that true meanings are lost. All that matters nowadays is to please the eye. Two movements, that rest on common ground, which is the power and importance of vision in architecture, realized the potentials that sight has and used it in total different ways in order to achieve additional goals. On the one hand is the deep philosophy of phenomenology and more specific of perception that translate vision as a way of understanding space and at the same time as a link between the manmade world and nature which then triggers the existential questions. On the other hand, now, a quiet newer movement, which started with Robert Venturi, uses sight in a completely different way, always in relation with the visual meaning given through history of architecture. The thesis will start with an investigation concerning the theoretical background of phenomenology and hermeneutical discussions by Branko Mitrovic as also the Eyes of the Skin by Juhani Pallasma thus focusing on the relation between experience and meaning. Then this will be juxtapose to Robert’s Venturis general work who values and investigates architectural history for opposite ends, primarily as the foundation of tensioned interplays of meanings. Precedent studies, which relate with both of the movements such Villa Mairea in Finland by Alvar Aalto and the Chestnut hill House of Robert Venturi’s will be further analyze in order to investigate how the two approaches have lead to different architectural interpretations. │ 01
Overall thesis theoretical background
Informed by Human senses smell
vision
The image that is generated due to the combination of the one from the physical world and the one from the rest of the sensory aparatus of the body.
taste tactile
touch
sight
hearing
visibility
The image that is generated due to the combination of the one from the physical world and the brain understanding.
Cultural bias which is further informed by multiple references. (Genius loci - space related)
02 │
VS brain
Phenomenologists
architectural movements
Cultural register which is heavily mediated from the overall history and theory of architecture.
transition eyes
perception
limited
VS
broad
conception
Robert Venturi
Introduction 1.0 Introduction
“As we look, the eyes touches, and before we even see an object, we have already touched it and judged its weight, temperature, and surface texture”.
Juhani Pallasmaa
Throughout the years, there have been many attempts to prove that there are more than what is known until now, but formally only five is said to really exist. Five one’s that each and every single leaving being has from the beginning of life. Five links between the body and the physical world. Five senses commonly identified by the public as smell, taste, hearing, touch and sight. Each and every one of them has its own strength as also its frequency of use, characteristics which at the end of the day makes two of the five being the most dominant ones. Both touch and sight are consider to be under the same category of the tactile senses, since that before coming in contact with an object and therefore touching it, the eyes “have already touched it and judge its weight, temperature and surface texture” (Pallasmaa, 2006) providing an overall primitive image of the object for the observer. The sense of sight depending on how the final “image” is produced can be translate in two different ways. Both of them have as a common ground the image the eyes see in the physical world. On the one hand is vision which describes the final image that is generated due to the fusion of the multiple other images that the senses of the body is producing, with one of those five being what the eyes see. It is an image made by all five of the senses and only. While on the other hand is visibility which defines the final image that occurs from the combination of what the eyes see and the general knowledge, hence the only part Introduction │ 03
page left intentionaly blank
04 │
that has that relation, the brain. So, vision and visibility. Two words, which are commonly faulty believed that have the same meaning and yet are not.
“The true essence of buildings does not arise from theoretical knowledge, or an aesthetic aspiration ; it originates in our existential desire”. Juhani Pallasmaa
The field of architecture was one of the few that really understood the true power that the sense of sight comes with and most importantly, which is the correct way of using it. By distinguishing and understanding what makes the two sight related terms differ and by combining it with the knowledge already obtain in the field, architects managed to use both vision and visibility for their own benefits and achieve different goals. There are two different movements, which revolve around them. At first there is the group of architects that is following the phenomenological movement and its beliefs which translates sight as vision rather than visibility since that they are dealing with it as being a part of the overall sensory apparatus of the body that when combined with architecture it allows to “mediate between the world and our consciousness” thus perceiving space. To do so is necessary for architecture to be informed by the local cultural register that is thoroughly informed by multiple other references, principles which refer to the idea of genius loci. And then there is Robert Venturi who gave emphasis on what the eyes see as just an image and by that it means sight was explained as visibility and how that can be used so that different messages could be transferred to the observer, when related with the architectural history and theory. It is more about what the eyes conceive and what it is further understood by the brain. Introduction │ 05
Chapter 1 - “seeing”
06 │
Chapter 2 - seeing
Chapter 3 - seeing in matters of seeing
For a better understanding on how sigh is use in each case, two of the best examples that describe in a high degree each of the movements will be further analyze on chapter one and two. And then on chapter three the same case study that is analyze on chapter one will be once again analyze in the matters that describe chapter two leading eventually to a comparison between the two that will provide the final conclusions.
│ 07
page left intentionaly blank
1
“Seeing” Sight in Phenomenology
“The taste of the apple... lies in the contact of the fruit with the palate, not in the fruit itself; in a similar way... poetry lies in the meeting of poem and reader, not in the lines of symbols printed on the pages of a book. What is essential is the aesthetic act, the thrill, the almost physical emotion that comes with each reading.”.
Jorge Luis Borges
“Things speak to us... the poet... and the painter know this very well, that is why poets and painters are born phenomenologists”.
J. H. Van den Berg
Phenomenologists Philosophers
Architectural Theorists
Architects
- Maurice Merleau Ponty - Martin Heidegger - Martin Husserl - David Morris
- Branko Mitrovic - Christian Norberg Schulz
- Alvar Aalto - Juhanni Palasma - Peter Zumthor - Steven Hall
10 │Chapter 1
2.0 “Seeing” - Sight in Phenomenology
“My perception is [therefore] not a sum of visual, tactile and autible givens : I perceive in a total way with my whole being: I grasp a unique structure of the thing, a unique way if being, which speaks to all my senses at once” Maurice Merleau-Ponty
“The fundamental human task of architecture is “to make visible how the world touches us” ”
It was in the beginning of the twentieth century that for the first time the philosophy of phenomenology became a movement, strongly supported by many important philosophers such as Martin Heidegger, Martin Husserl and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Apart from the philosophers, there are also other groups of people which based on J.H. Van Den Berg “are born phenomenologists” (Pallasmaa, 2006) such as poets, painters and even architects that also contributed on supporting the overall movement. As a philosophy, it preexisted long before though manipulating many of the cultures in their way of life such as in Japan something that is even evident until our days. Most of philosophers that were involve were influence by each other, during the development of their individual understanding on what really describes phenomenology but each one of them had a unique approach towards the way that the theory was translate. Multiple theories were develop with many examples given every time trying to explain in an easy way what phenomenology is all about. Examples that were revolving around various ideas that once you start thinking about them you realize that your whole life until know you have been looking things as they are missing their true essence and meaning. Looking at them only from the personal point of view but think about it. There is always going to be a different point of view and then another and another giving every time another meaning. And at the end of the day someone realizes that there is nothing right or wrong, true or false only. Instead, there are only different ways of seeing things or to be more precise perceiving them. It is only necessary to realize the different possibilities that exist for it to exist. In order to “Seeing” │ 11
page left intentionaly blank
12 │Chapter 1
do so it is necessary to see things in the proper way or read them as they should be read. These are in a way some of the principles of phenomenology that teach people to look deep with all they got in matters of senses in order to understand the real meaning. Maurice Merleau- Ponty was one of the philosophers that was quiet interested on how perception is achieved by the “correlation between visual data and those of touch or of muscular feel” (Smith, 1992). The roots of the term phenomenology derive from the greek word phenomenon (φαινόμενον) and it describes “the disciple that studies what gs really are and how they come about” based on Branko Mitrovic (Mitrovic, 2011) covering in that way a broad field of subjects, with architecture being one of those. ¬ From the beginning of time people felt, the need to be as close as possible to the natural environment making the presence of the edge between the man made world and the natural one not that evident to them. People realized that by blurring or even mini“The varius parts of the land mizing that edge which is mostly defined by the enshould be used as God intended vironment that architecture creates it is possible for them - good forest should remain good forest and the same goes for someone to start experiencing space in a completely good farmland” different way. A way that can be achieved by seeing not just through the eyes but rather say through the Alvar Aalto total of what consists of a human being. Hence, the involvement of all five senses is necessary with sight playing one of the major roles sometimes as an independent one and other times in a collaboration with the rest. Being an architect and at the same time a theoretician with interest in phenomenology Juhanni Palasmaa was able to develop his own theory regarding how architecture can lead to perception, thus . In his book the eyes of the skin he explains how architecture “Seeing” │ 13
Fig.1│Villa Mairea, arerial photo of the house within the pine tree forest.
Fig.3│Villa Mairea, exterior view of the villa.
a
Fig.3a│Villa Mairea, field’s of vision height in relation to leafage’s height.
a
Fig.2a│Villa Mairea, relation of spaces height and field’s of vision height.
14 │Chapter 1
Fig.2│Villa Mairea, interior view of the living room with the staircase in the back.
can trigger and manipulate the senses of the body to start perceiving space both as individual owns and all of them together as one entity. 2.1 Case study analysis – Villa Mairea by Alvar Aalto There are many brilliant examples that followed the theory of phenomenology with architecture playing the key role as the translation of it into the physical world using and manipulating sight up to a level that it would contribute on perceiving the space. One of the architects that followed this movement was also Alvar Aalto with many of his projects gaining their character due to that such as villa Mairea in Finland which is a guesthouse build for Harry and Maire Gullichsen that is located in the Finish landscape in a densely forested area (fig.1). From the phase of designing the house and even until it’s construction there have been many modifications and changes made by the architect because of his consistency to have satisfying result (Weston, 1995). 2.1.1
Immediate sight
As it was mention before, Villa Mairea was built in a glade of a pine tree forest in the area of Noormarkku surrounded with the beauty of the Finish landscape and Alvar Aalto being a lover of nature searched for ways that habitats could have direct visual connection with the forest from the inside of the villa. His primary tool was having openings on the walls (windows) positioned right where they needed to be. On the one hand by doing so he allowed a direct connection of the habitats and the environment and on the other hand the same openings were allowing light conditions caused by the trees to get inside the “Seeing” │ 15
Fig.4│Villa Mairea, area of the living room with the central fireplace.
b
c
a
a brick
b
stucco
c glass
Fig.4a│Villa Mairea, the different materials found in the room, their relation and the location of the sculpted edge.
Fig.5│Villa Mairea, close up view of the sculped part in the area of the fireplace.
Fig.6│Villa Mairea,interior view of the ceiling wiht the forest alike shafts of light coming out from the library area.
16 │Chapter 1
house and enhance even more the idea that the interior of the house acts as an extension of the exterior environment, meaning the pine tree forest. An aadditional characteristic that the architect applied in the liveable space, which was also an influence from the environment of the forest, was the height of the ceiling in the spaces found on ground floor (fig.2) . In the same way that the pine trees leafage starts from a certain height and on (fig.3,3a), causing in that way a reduction to vision’s height (fig.2a) so does it happen also inside the villa. Alvar Aalto throughout the house used a number of different materials that have various characteristics and because of that it was inevitable for him not to have any visual contrasts that it would create a strong edge, highlighting in that way the transition from the one material to the other. Ingenuity of the architect concerning the visual juxtaposition occurring between the villa’s different materials and the way he indented to avoid it exists in the area of the fireplace inside the villa (fig.4, 4a). The edge between the brick masonry and the glass from the window was visually redacted by sculpting a part of it in an organic form (fig.5) that it “recalls to the form of snow, wind sculpted or melted by the fire” (Weston, 1995). One last but not least characteristic of immediate sight found inside the villa, that likewise was designed based on lighting conditions that can be seen in the surrounding forest are the shafts of light that are visible on the wooden ceiling outside and inside the area of the library (fig.6). A result cause from the glazed slice that is located above the library partitions (Weston, 1995). “Seeing” │ 17
Fig.7a│Villa Mairea, the notion of continuity through the forest pattern and the villa’s canopy pattern.
Fig.7│Villa Mairea, view from the front door towards the pine tree forest. Fig.7b│Villa Mairea, slit between the canopy and the house ceiling framing a view of the forest .
Fig.9│Villa Mairea, view from the surrounding pine tree forest towards the house.
Fig.8│Villa Mairea, interior view of the living room and the stair case with the screen made out from the wooden poles.
Fig.9a│Villa Mairea, pattern of the surrounding pine tree forest.
Fig.8a│Villa Mairea, pattern of the stairs screen made with the wooden poles.
18 │Chapter 1
2.1.2 Continuity and sight “The task of the house is to reveal Relating the house with the existing surrounding enthe world, not as essence but as vironment with sight being the tool of design was presence, that is as material and color, topography and also one of the aims concerning decisions that the vegetation, seasons, weather and architect took. Existing patterns that were found on light ” the nearby forest were repeated and most specific Christian Norberg- Schulz
located in the house in a way that they were creating a sense of continuation with the exterior environment. Such an example is the wooden strip elements that were place on the main door ceiling. By doing so, Aalto created a continuity between the linear element of the tree trunks on the foreground of the plot and the house ceiling. A continuation made in matters of pattern, that is made only by just looking from inside towards outside (fig.7, 7a). Furthermore, in the same area of the entrance Alvar Aalto created also a slit between the canopy roof and the house ceiling (fig.7, 7b), framing in that way a part of the forest which it also allows the forest light to penetrate the house.
Another way that the architect implied the sense of relation between the interior and exterior environment was the repetitive use of linear wooden elements (poles), such as in the area of the staircase (fig.8 8a, 9, 9a) that in reality are used as a screen that provides also support for the hand rail, but unconsciously they are read also an extension of the forested area within the habitable space (Weston, 1995). 2.1.3 Tactility and sight Aalto knew really well the relation between the sense of sight and touch and the opportunities that derived from them, with that being evident in many parts of “Seeing” │ 19
Fig.11│ Villa Mairea, average height that people come in contact.
a
b
c
a
red slate
b
ceramic tiles
c
white beech
d
natural stone
Fig.10│ Villa Mairea, steel columns wrapped in different ways. From left to right, left as it is, bound in rattan, concealed with wooden strips.
d
Fig.12a│ Villa Mairea, different floor finishes found during the movement.
Fig.12│ Villa Mairea,plan view of ground floor with a route from the entrance towards the sun room.
20 │Chapter 1
Fig.7│
“The purpose of architecture is to bring the material world into harmony with human life” Alvar Aalto
“To humanize and to naturalize” Alvar Aalto
the villa. The emphasis that was given on what materiality is better to be used, where it is better to exist and how to be deal with it was well thought because he knew that if done correctly he was able to “undermine the artificial architecture rhythm” (Weston, 1995) and hence blur the edge between the livable space and nature. Such an example is the way he treated the interior industrial elements which in the case of the specific Villa where steel columns that he dressed with wooden strips or he bound them with rattan (fig.10). By doing so the specific elements gained a different character which was more natural and human towards the users since that they were then related with the surrounding environment and more specific to the trunks of the pine trees in both ways by looking and even coming in contact with them. Alvar Aalto tried to locate also in other areas of the house mostly in smaller scale elements, textures such as the leather on the door handles that he knew people would come in contact quiet frequent and hence keep on relating them with the natural world (fig.11). But he didn’t stopped there. The architect tried to make the presence of nature evident within the livable space also by covering up the floor with diverse finishes, hence textures that were strategically located in space with an order that once again related with the transition of the natural world to the man made one. When someone enters the house is located in a space that the floor is cover with ceramic tiles, follow up with a bigger space of a white beech flooring that when crossed it leads to the garden room where somebody then realizes that is standing on natural stone (fig.12, 12a) (Frampton, 1980).
“Seeing” │ 21
page left intentionaly blank
2
Seeing
Sight in Robert Venturis Movement
page left intentionaly blank
24 │Chapter 2
3.0 Seeing – Sight in Robert Venturi’s movement By the early 70’s a new movement concerning the importance of sight in architecture and more specifically the messages that could be transfer when related with the architectural history made its appearance with Robert Venturi being the father of it. Sight was translate as the tool for design having always as a background the architectural history and its evolution. Aim of Venturi was to design “signs” (Venturi, 1977) that would speak from themselves describing what there use really is. By creating a game of interplay between various basic architectural elements linked with several parts of architecture past the architect was able to reach a high degree of complexity in matters of the overall. In other words complexity was achieved through the overlay of multiple layers of simplicity. 3.1 Case Study Analysis – Chestnut hill house (Vanna’s Venturi) by Robert Venturi “Less is Bore”
Robert Venturi
Robert Venturi applied his theory in many of the projects throughout his carrier testing it in that way, with probably the best example being the Chestnut hill house in Pennsylvania owned by Vanna Venturi, which happens to be also the architect’s mother and the case study that is going to be further analyzed. The house was built from 1962 – 1964 following the idea of a basic typical suburban American house, only that now there were modifications made that were trials and attempts based on the theory. The house has been described by many critics as “ugly and ordinary”(Marvin Trachtenberg, Isabelle Hyman, 1986). Seeing │ 25
b a c
Fig.14a│Chestnut hill house, typical suburban house characteristics used, a - pitched roof, b - chimney and c portico.
Fig.13│ Chestnut hill house,front elevation.
Fig.14b│Chestnut hill house, new architectural elements inserted by Venturi.
Fig.15a│Chestnut hill house, facade part that has been removed.
Fig.15b│Chestnut hill house, ambiguity.
26 │Chapter 2
Fig.16│Chestnut hill house, depth of the facade.
3.1.1 Referral Sight Approaching the house without even entering it yet was more than enough for the architect to start designing based on what someone could see. One of the aims of Venturi was to design one more alike typical suburban house in matters of what someone is only looking at, that has a pitched roof, a central chimney and a frontal porch, elements that are quite evident on the front elevation of the house (fig.13, 14a,14b) (Marvin Trachtenberg, Isabelle Hyman, 1986). But it wasn’t just that. The façade was manipulated by Venturi in such a way that there are different messages deriving from it. He translated parts of the knowledge that he knew already from the architectural history and theory into various elements which were strategically located on the façade of the house, such as the strip window from the modernism period found in the area of the kitchen, the pediment on the roof from the classical ages, the arch on top of the portico and even the overall symmetry that was inspired by the works of Palladio. 3.1.1.1 Ambiguity At first the architect removed a part from the center of the façade (fig.15a) disrupting also the arch reaching until the lintel above the porch. By doing so now there is an ambiguity whether if the two parts of the facades are merging or the complete one is being divide in two (fig.15b). Furthermore, by cutting off that piece the clerestory on the back with the chimney got exposed becoming a part of the front façade (fig.16) making it then more complex than how it is usually in other conventional houses and only by looking at the elevation someone can perceive the different depth of it (Marvin Trachtenberg, Isabelle Hyman, 1986). Seeing │ 27
Fig.17a│Chestnut hill house, visual load deflection caused by the arch.
Fig.17│Chestnut hill house, close view of the portico with the beam and the disrupted arch.
a
a
Fig.18a│Chestnut hill house, relation between the portico space and the clerestory. a
a
Fig.18b│Chestnut hill house, relation of the strip window and the removed piece from the facade.
28 │Chapter 2
3.1.1.2 Lightness Another meaning that passes to someone by just looking at the front elevation is the sense of lightness in the overall façade something that was again achieved with the visual load deflection caused by the arch (fig.16a) even though that is incomplete it still provokes the idea of a load bearing element, especially when it is related with history of architecture and its use over the past years (Marvin Trachtenberg, Isabelle Hyman, 1986). Knowledge that Venturi knew in the same way that every architect did only that he decided to “transfer” it in a total different way. 3.1.1.3 Completeness Continuing with the information’s that the façade passes to the observer, is also the notion of completeness that is transferred unconsciously. The specific notion is perceived due to the subtraction and reposition of various pieces found on the façade. Such an example is the way the architect relocated the volume from the area of the portico right above it creating at the same time the clerestory and the chimney (fig.18a). It has exactly the same dimensions as with the portico entrance. The same applies also with the strip windows on the right side of the façade, which have basically the same size with the part that breaks the façade in two (fig.18b). Even though that the façade has parts that are actually missing the overall image that passes to the observer is of a complete one (Venturi, 2011). 3.1.1.4 Symmetry Finally yet importantly is how the idea of a symmetrical façade is transferred with sight being the tool. Seeing │ 29
Fig.19b│Chestnut hill house,elements that do not follow the overall symmetry of the facade.
1
4
2
3
5
1
2
3
4
Fig.19c│Chestnut hill house, windows symmetry caused by balance (5-5).
30 │Chapter 2
5
Fig.19a│Chestnut hill house, overall symmetry of the facade.
At first someone might say that the façade is symmetrical because of the geometrical characteristics (fig.19a), with the three different openings being the only concern about it if it really is (fig.19b). None of them being the same with the other make the observer to believe that they have no relation between them. But Robert Venturi’s ingenuity didn’t stopped there. He tried to accomplish the symmetry of the windows in an alternative way, a way that could have been achieved only with the incorporation of sight. What was his solution? All three of the windows that exist on the façade of the house can be divided into smaller same dimensions squares like the one of the three windows that can be seen on the left hand side of the building (fig.19c). On the right side of the house the ribbon window that is located at the edge, it can be divide in five smaller squares while the bigger window on the left side is formed by four individual squares put up together. The architect not only kept the idea of creating his openings based on a standard module but he even enhance the idea of symmetrical façade by using the exact same number of squares on both sides. Five ones on the rights sight as also five ones on the left side. Once again a way that sight was meant to be use for transferring a message unconsciously and in this case of a façade being completely symmetrical (Venturi, 2011).
Seeing │ 31
page left intentionaly blank
3
“Seeing” in matters of Seeing
page left intentionaly blank
34 Chapter 3
4.0 Chapter 3 - “Seeing” in matters of Seeing Sight has been use in both movements in different ways though providing various results in matters of perception or transferring messages and having nothing in common. Nothing except the fact that any architectural proposition that followed one of the two movements which has been already described has been a quiet successful one in many ways. Someone may wonder now if architecture, which follows both of the movements, can be that successful or even if that is even possible to happen without that resulting on losing any of the qualities that each one provides. Following is an attempt of reading the same case study that was use on the first chapter regarding phenomenology, Villa Mairea by Alvar Aalto in matters that describe the Venturian movement. Aim is to investigate and identify through analysis and comparison whether if a building that it has considered sight as a part of the design it allows it to be read through different movements. 4.1 Case Study Analysis – Villa Mairea by Alvar Aalto There are many elements around the villa that could be read through the eyes of Robert Venturi overall theory even though that it was designed based on another sceptic that Alvar Aalto had. 4.1.1 Complexity Alvar Aalto positioned as it has been mention before many windows all around the villa having as an aim the connection of the livable space and the exterior environment. The ones that can be found on the first floor in the area of the children’s bedrooms though are quiet particular (fig.20). Windows are most comSeeing in matters of “Seeing” │ 35
Fig.20a│Villa Mairea, depth of facade.
Fig.16│Chestnut hill house, depth of the facade.
36 │Chapter 3
Fig.20│Villa Mairea, exterior view of the windows in the area of the children’s bedroom.
monly an element found to be in the same level with the rest of the building and quiet simple in matters of structure, hence the fact that most times are not that evident. While the ones in the bedrooms are a complex form that protrudes (fig.20a) and breaks in several parts making their existence obvious to the observer having what it is usually done, not been applied in this case. A similarity with the Chestnut hill house of Venturi and more precisely with the façade of the house that has some parts of it not being in the same level with the rest (fig.16). 4.1.2 Ambiguity Primary goal of the architect was to design a villa based on genius loci, of having a building born from the site itself therefore making it look like as that is an actual part of nature and probably the biggest ambiguity that was achieve by the architect based on the theory of Robert Venturi. The way that architecture blurs the edge between the manmade world and the natural one, instead of making it more distinct like how it generally happens it is also the reason that makes people to wonder whether if they are inside the villa or outside. 4.1.3
The inside and the outside
Villa Mairea is probably one of the best examples where the edge between the inside and the outside is not that clear with that being the end result of multible techniques that the architect used. One of them is the way he created conditions linked most of the times with comfort that people are use to relate them with the livable spaces and are usually found inside. Such an example is the second fireplace, which Alvar Aalto has placed, bellow the stone staircase Seeing in matters of “Seeing” │ 37
Fig.21│Villa Mairea, the exterior fire place found bellow the stone staircase.
a
b
Fig.22a│Villa Mairea, scale comparison between a- the covered of the front entrance and b- the sun room .
Fig.22│Villa Mairea, view of the entrance exterior covered space.
38 │Chapter 3
(fig.21) in the exterior space. An element that is commonly found in any of the living areas of the house and not outside. Another element that has been altered by the architect is the main entrance cover (fig.22). The scale that the covered area has in the case of the villa is so big that it becomes an actual space with the only difference being that it is outside. It has the same size with the main entrance hall that is an enclosed space such as the sunroom (fig.22a).
Seeing in matters of “Seeing� │ 39
page left intentionaly blank
40 │Chapter 3
Conclusion “The fundamental human task of architecture is “to make visible how the world touches us”...”
(
Described in many ways and considered in various ones sight has been prove to play one of the most important key roles in architecture. It doesn’t matter what movement is chosen to be follow or what style is of more interest, as long as that sight is being manipulated in a proper way providing qualities beyond just the basic image. Sight can be describe as the tool that allows common interests to be resolved in different ways however, each time is following only one of the various movements that exist in architecture but it allows also to be read through many others. An additional positive of sight driven architecture’s design is the human scale that is necessary for it to always relate to making then architecture become more anthropocentric, thus to start engaging stronger connections between user and the environment. It is inevitable to use it as a design parameter and not to have architecture that it relates with human scale because then the result leading to is a design meant to please only the eye. Furthermore a higher degree of an overall complexity that derives through simplicity, is also a characteristic of the architecture which manages to control both vision and visibility and not the other way round. Different layers that describe the countless ways that are related with controlling and manipulating sight, provide several qualities that allow for a certain complexity to exist in architecture. Conclusion │ 41
page left intentionaly blank
42 │Chapter 3
Unfortunately, in the present even though that sight is still the dominant sense over architecture it has a direct connection with visual aesthetics and only rather than any other true meaning. People tend to design and build based only on the basic image without showing any interest of relating it with the human scale, thus translating it to either vision or visibility so that architecture would be informed.
Conclusion │ 43
page left intentionaly blank
44 │
Bibliography - Baldwin, T., 2004. Maurice Merleau-Ponty : basic writings. London: Routledge. - Bhatt, R., 2013. Rethinking aesthetics : the role of the body in design. New York,London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. - Frampton, K., 1980. Modern Architecture A critical history. 4th ed. London: Thames & Hudson ltd. - Marvin Trachtenberg, Isabelle Hyman, 1986. Architecture. From Prehistory to Postmodernity. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. - Merleau-Ponty, 1977. Phenomenology and the social world : the philosophy of Merleau-Ponty and its relation to the social sciences.. London: Routledge. - Mitrovic, B., 2011. Phenomenology and Hermeneutics. In: Philosophy for Architects. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, pp. 117-141. - Pallasmaa, J., 2005. THE EYES OF THE SKIN, Architecture and the Senses. Great Britain: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. - Pallasmaa, J., 206. Questions of perception :phenomenology of architecture. San Francisco,: CA : William Stout. - Reed, P., 1998. Alvar Aalto Between Humanism and Materialism. First ed. New York: The Museum of Modern Art. - Sarah Menin,Flora Samuel, 2003. Nature and Space: Aalto and Le Corbusier. First ed. New York: Routledge. - Smith, M. B., 1992. Texts and dialogues /Maurice Merleau-Ponty edited and with an introduction by Hugh J. Silverman and James Barry, Jr. New Jersey: Humanities Press. - Venturi, R., 1977. Learning from Las Vegas. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT Press. - Venturi, R., 2011. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. 2nd ed. New York: The Museum of Modern Art. - Weston, R., 1995. Alvar Aalto. First ed. London: Phaidon Press Limited.
│ 45
page left intentionaly blank
46 │
Appendix Chapter 1 Figure 1│ Villa Mairea, aerial photo of the house within [Photograph] the pine tree forest. Retrieved from <http://des deelojodebuey.blogspot.com.cy/2013/02/ ran-ortner-drift.html> Figure 2│ [Photograph]
Richard Weston (1995).Villa Mairea, interior view of the living room with the staircase in the back. Alvar Aalto, p.94.
Figure 2a│ [Diagram]
Villa Mairea, relation of spaces height and field’s of vision height. Diagram author’s own.
Figure 3│ [Photograph]
Villa Mairea, exterior view of the villa. Retrieved from<http://www.arch.ksu.edu/seamon/asse fa.htm>
Figure 3a│ [Diagram]
Villa Mairea, field’s of vision height in relation to leafage’s height. Diagram author’s own.
Figure 4│ [Photograph]
Richard Weston (1995). Villa Mairea, area of the living room with the central fireplace. Retrieved from <https://www.flickr.com/pho tos/ouno/3642493780/>
Figure 4a│ [Diagram]
Villa Mairea, the different materials found in the room, their relation and the location of the sculpted edge .Diagram author’s own.
Figure 5│ [Photograph]
Richard Weston (1995). Villa Mairea, close up view of the sculpted part in the area of the fireplace. Alvar Aalto, p.95.
Figure 6│ Villa Mairea, interior view of the ceiling with [Photograph] the forest alike shafts of light coming out from the library area. Retrieved from <https:// divisare.com/projects/311000-alvar-aalto-ake- e-son-lindman-villa-mairea> Figure 7│ [Photograph]
Villa Mairea, view from the front door towards the pine tree forest. Retrieved from <http://www.lindmanphotography.com/?at tachment_id=977>
│ 47
page left intentionaly blank
48 â&#x201D;&#x201A;
Figure 7a│ [Diagram]
Villa Mairea, the notion of continuity through the forest pattern and the villa’s canopy pat tern. Diagram author’s own.
Figure 7b│ [Diagram]
Villa Mairea, slit between the canopy and the house ceiling framing a view of the forest .
Figure 8│ [Photograph]
Villa Mairea, interior view of the living room and the stair case with the screen made out from the wooden poles. Retrieved from <http://designblog.uniandes.edu.co/blogs/ dise2503/2014/09/>
Figure 8a│ [Diagram] Figure 9│ [Photograph]
Villa Mairea, pattern of the stairs screen made with the wooden poles. Diagram author’s own.
Figure 9a│ [Diagram]
Villa Mairea, pattern of the surrounding pine tree forest. Diagram author’s own.
Villa Mairea, View from the surrounding pine tree forest towards the house.Retrieved from <https://farm3.staticflickr. com/2868/9777770194_4aac2b8306_b.jpg>
Figure 10│ Villa Mairea, steel columns wrapped in different [Photograph] ways. From left to right. Left as it is, bound in rattan, concealed with wooden strips. Retrieved from <http://www.fontdarquitectura. com/detall_img/39-img_detall_3.jpeg> Figure 11│ [Diagram]
Villa Mairea, average height that people come in contact. Diagram author’s own.
Figure 12│ [Diagram]
Villa Mairea, plan view of the ground floor with a route from the entrance towards the sun room. Diagram author’s own.
Figure 12a│ [Diagram]
Villa Mairea, different floor finishes found during movement. Diagram author’s own.
Chapter 2 Figure 13│ [Photograph]
Robert Venturi (2011). Chestnut hill house, front elevation. Complexity and contradiction in architecture, p. 119. │ 49
page left intentionaly blank
50 â&#x201D;&#x201A;
. Figure 14a│ [Diagram]
Chestnut hill house, typical suburban house characteristics used a- pitched roof, b- chim ney and c- portico. Diagram author’s own.
Figure 14b│ Chestnut hill house new a0rchitectural [Diagram] elements inserted by Venturi. Diagram author’s own. Figure 15a│ [Diagram]
Chestnut hill house, part from the façade that has been removed. Diagram author’s own.
Figure 15b│ [Diagram]
Chestnut hill house, ambiguity. Diagram author’s own.
Figure 16│ Chestnut hill house, depth of the facade. [Diagram] Diagram author’s own. Figure 17│ Chestnut hill house, close view of the portico [Photograph] with the beam and the disrupted arch. Re trieved from < http://101planosdecasas.com/ la-casa-que-venturi-diseno-para-su-madre/> Figure 17a│ [Diagram]
Chestnut hill house, visual load deflection caused by the arch. Diagram author’s own.
Figure 18a│ Chestnut hill house, relation between the [Diagram] portico and the clerestory. Diagram author’s own. Figure 18b│ [Diagram]
Chestnut hill house, relation of the strip window and the removed piece from the facade. Diagram author’s own.
Figure 19a│ [Diagram]
Chestnut hill house, overall symmetry of the façade. Diagram author’s own.
Figure 19b│ [Diagram]
Chestnut hill house, elements that do not follow the overall symmetry of the facade. Diagram author’s own.
│ 51
page left intentionaly blank
52â&#x201D;&#x201A;
Figure 19b│ [Diagram]
Chestnut hill house, windows symmetry caused by balance. Diagram author’s own.
Chapter 3 Figure 20│ [Photograph]
Richard Weston (1995).Villa Mairea, exterior view of the windows in the area of the chil dren’s bedroom. Alvar Aalto, p.84.
Figure 20a│ [Diagram]
Villa Mairea, depth of the facade. Diagram authors own.
Figure 21│ [Photograph]
Villa Mairea, the exterior fireplace found bellow the stone staircase. Retrieved from <http:// www.alvaraalto.fi/net/villa_mairea/en/49.htm>
Figure 22│ [Photograph]
Richard Weston (1995). Villa Mairea, view of the entrance exterior covered space. Alvar Aalto, p.85.
│ 53
This thesis aims to investigate how architecture became dominated and controlled by vision, how itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s relation with history was used as a tool for design and as a mean for understanding true meanings. Architecture is judged by what people see, in such a way that relations of meanings are lost. All that matters nowadays is to please the eye. Two movements, that rest on common ground, which is the power and importance of vision in architecture, realized the potentials that sight has and used it in totally different ways in order to achieve different goals. On the one hand is the deep philosophy of phenomenology and more specific of perception that translate vision as a way of understanding space and at the same time as a link between the manmade world and nature which then triggers the existential questions. On the other hand, now, a postmodernism, movement, which started with Robert Venturi, criticizes visual aesthetic in a completely different way, always in relation with the history of architecture. The thesis will start with an investigation concerning the theoretical background of phenomenology and hermeneutical discussions by Branko Mitrovic as also the Eyes of the Skin by Juhani Pallasma thus focusing on the relation between experience and meaning. Then this will be juxtapose to Robertâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Venturis general work who values and investigates architectural history for opposite ends, primarily as the foundation of tensioned interplays of meanings. Precedent studies, which are, relate with both of the movements such as the Bruder Klaus Chapel in Germany by Peter Zumthor and the Chestnut hill House of Robert Venturiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s will be further analyze in order to back up the theory that will was already mentioned.
The importance of sight in architecture : In matters of phenomenology and Robert Venturis movement
Synopsis
Anthimos Papaperi-