THE SENSE OF SIGHT

Humans are primarily visual creatures. The act of looking is one of the main ways we gather information about our surroundings, and a quarter of the brain is dedicated to processing and interpreting what we see.1 Ironically, though, architects have developed a stigma against appearances, learning to regard them with suspicion. Architect Yael Reisner comments on this paradox, “Good architecture and brilliant buildings are mostly judged by their capacity to produce an aesthetic experience, yet many outside the architectural profession are surprised to discover that architectural design is neither led by, nor generated through, a process that is engaged with aesthetical issues or visual thinking.”2 With the overwhelming amount of visual stimuli that we encounter in our contemporary lives and the unprecedented speed at which we consume it, it is no surprise that we have become numb to what we see.

Juhani Pallasmaa drives the nail further into the coffin when he critiques Western culture’s ocularcentrism in his seminal text, Eyes of the Skin, urging architects to consider more tactile ways of experiencing architecture beyond the “narcissistic and nihilistic eye.”3

Yet, architecture remains a highly visual practice, which is unsurprising given that renderings, photos, and drawings are often the way we learn about architecture, rather than by visiting the actual space. This is because, as Lebbeus Woods points out, “the way the thing looks is the real domain of the architect because it is about visual sensibility and culture...there is an intelligence in the way things look.”4 The thickness of a wall, the height of a window, the material on the facade - a lot can be understood in just the act of looking.

The architect then finds himself in a predicament: on the one hand, designing for the eye is deemed superficial and trivial, but on the other hand, architecture is largely appreciated via sight. To deny such a conflict is fairly unproductive, and so it seems imperative that we repair this “troubled relationship” with aesthetics.5

1 Reisner, “Architecture and Beauty.”

2 Ibid.

3 Pallasmaa, The Eyes of the Skin.

4 Reisner and Watson, Architecture and Beauty.

5 Ibid.

I think the biggest hole in the argument is that we also talk about function in architecture. And the function of food is to be delicious.

No, it’s for calories. It’s to give you energy. It’s not necessarily to taste good.

We only call food’s function delicious because having food is a given in our socioeconomic status. Like, food is gonna sustain us. We have a surplus of food. That’s why deliciousness is a factor.

But say nourishment is like a shelter, but function isn’t just a roof over your head. There’s different levels of function. So the whole idea of you need food to sustain life, is the equivalent of you need a roof over your head to not freeze and die. Fair.

Yeah.

But the function of food is to taste good.

But I think ultimately the function of architecture is to protect ourselves.

No, because you might need to have this size of mechanical room, etc. You need to reply to that, too. It’s another constraint.

Maybe the function of architecture is more technical, or maybe there are several more intermediate steps to figure out what it actually is. Like it needs a mechanical room for a pool, it needs a pool for the leisure and satisfaction of occupants.

But that’s not shelter. Like lets say a library is not connected to shelter at all. So the function is not...

...just shelter.