Building With Light and Space - MArch Dissertation by Matt Wreglesworth

BU I L DING WITH LIGH T AND SPAC E Phenomenology and Collaboration.

Matthew Wreglesworth

BUILDING WITH LIGHT AND SPACE Phenomenology and Collaboration

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture at the Manchester School of Architecture. 2018 MATTHEW WREGLESWORTH 17096467

Manchester School of Architecture Manchester Metropolitan University University of Manchester Supervisor: Lea-Catherine Szacka

iii

ABSTRACT This dissertation studies the work of James Turrell and Olafur Eliasson, focusing on the implications of their art becoming increasingly architectural. The practice of collaboration between artist and architect forms a key part of this analysis giving an insight into how artwork can be embedded into architecture. Conducting case studies of built and planned projects by the two artists within the experiential framework of Heidegger and MerleauPontyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s writings, conclusions are drawn as to how their phenomenological qualities are maintained and what compromises have been made due to the increased constraints of architectural practice.

DECLARATION

This dissertation is original work produced by the author. No part of the work has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STATEMENT

i. The author of this dissertation (including any appendices and/or schedules to this dissertation) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and s/he has given The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for administrative purposes. ii. Copies of this dissertation, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which the University has entered into. This page must form part of any such copies made. iii. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trademarks and other intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright works in the dissertation, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this dissertation, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions. iv. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and commercialisation of this dissertation, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University IP Policy, in any relevant Dissertation restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, and The University Library’s regulations.

CONTENTS TITLE PAGE

AUTHORS DECLARATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

iii

ABSTRACT

CONTENTS

LIST OF IMAGES

viii

INTRODUCTION

LITERATURE REVIEW 1. Phenomenology 2. ‘Light and Space’ 3. Artists and Architects in Collaboration

4 6 10 16

METHODOLOGY

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

CASE

STUDIES 1. James Turrell Roden Crater 2. James Turrell & Schmidt Hammer Lassen ARoS Next Level 3. Olafur Eliasson Your Rainbow Panorama 4. Olafur Eliasson & Henning Larsen Architects Harpa Concert Hall 5. Studio Other Spaces Fjordenhus

24 32 36 40 44

NOTES ON TECHNOLOGY AND PERCEPTION

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX

vii

LIST OF IMAGES

viii

Figure 1.

James Turrell, Afrum (White) (1966)

Figure 2.

James Turrell, Mendota Stoppages (1969)

Figure 3.

James Turrell, Wedgework 3 (1974)

Figure 4 & 5.

James Turrell, The Colour Inside (2013)

Figure 6 &. 7.

James Turrell, Deer Shelter (2007)

Figure 8.

Olafur Eliasson, Suney (1995)

Figure 9.

Olafur Eliasson, Your Sun Machine (1997)

Figure 10.

Olafur Eliasson and, Kjetil Thorsen, Serpentine Pavilion (2007)

Figure 11 & 12.

Herzog & de Meuron and Thomas Ruff, Eberswalde Senior Technical School (1996)

Figure 13.

Olafur Eliasson, Your Body of Work (2011)

Figure 14.

Olafur Eliasson, Riverbed (2014)

Figure 15. Figure 16.

James Turrell, The Light Inside (1999)

Olafur Eliasson, The Weather Project (2004)

Figure 17.

Olafur Eliasson, Your Embodied Garden (2013)

Figure 18.

Olafur Eliasson, Ice Watch (2014)

Figure 19.

James Turrell, Roden Crater (1977 - )

Figure 20.

James Turrell, Roden Crater (1977 - ) Site Plan - 1983

Figure 21.

James Turrell, Roden Crater (1977 - ), North Space Model

Figure 22.

James Turrell, Roden Crater (1977 - ), South Space Model

Figure 23.

James Turrell, Roden Crater (1977 - ), South Space Celestial Diagram

Figure 24. Figure 25.

James Turrell, Roden Crater (1977 - ), Crater Bowl

James Turrell, Roden Crater (1977 - ), Viewing Benches

Figure 26.

James Turrell, Roden Crater (1977 - ), Celestial Vaulting

Figure 27.

James Turrell, Roden Crater (1977 - ), Eastern Portal

Figure 28.

Schmidt Hammer Lassen and James Turrell, ARoS Next Level (2020), External Visualisation

Figure 29.

Schmidt Hammer Lassen and James Turrell, ARoS Next Level (2020), Internal Visualisation

Figure 30.

Schmidt Hammer Lassen and James Turrell, ARoS Next Level (2020), Site Plan

Figure 31.

Schmidt Hammer Lassen and James Turrell, ARoS Next Level (2020), Aerial Visualisation

Figure 32.

Olafur Eliasson, Your Rainbow Panorama (2011)

Figure 33.

Olafur Eliasson, Your Rainbow Panorama (2011) Aerial View

Figure 34.

Olafur Eliasson, Room for one Colour (1997)

Figure 35, 36 & 37.

Olafur Eliasson, Your Rainbow Panorama (2011)

Figure 38. Figure 39.

Henning Larsen Architects and Olafur Eliasson, Harpa Concert Hall (2007)

Olafur Eliasson, 5-Dimensional Pavilion (1998)

Figure 40.

Olafur Eliasson, 8900054 (1996)

Figure 41.

Henning Larsen Architects and Olafur Eliasson, Harpa Concert Hall (2007)

Figure 42.

Henning Larsen Architects and Olafur Eliasson, Harpa Concert Hall (2007), Foyer

Figure 43.

Henning Larsen Architects and Olafur Eliasson, Harpa Concert Hall (2007), Rear Elevation

Figure 44.

Olafur Eliasson, Fjordenhus (2018)

Figure 45.

Olafur Eliasson, Fjordenhus (2018), View from roof a.

Figure 46.

Olafur Eliasson, Fjordenhus (2018), Brick vaulting

Figure 47.

Olafur Eliasson, Fjordenhus (2018), Brick details - exterior

Figure 48.

Olafur Eliasson, Fjordenhus (2018), View from roof b.

Figure 49.

Olafur Eliasson, Fjordenhus (2018), Brick details- interior

Figure 50, 51, 52 & 53. Olafur Eliasson, Room for One Colour and Multiple Shadow House, Instagram Feed (2018)

Figure 54, 55, 56 & 57. Olafur Eliasson, Your Rainbow Panorama and Harpa, Instagram Feed (2018)

“To make a square room is to give it the light which reveals the square in its infinite moods” (Khan, 1991: 227).

“Space is simultaneously many things – the voids in architecture, the space around architecture, the vast space of landscape and city space, intergalactic spaces of the universe. Space is something both intrinsic and relational” (Holl, 2000: 22).

INTRODUCTION Light and space are essential in the creation of architecture. It is then no surprise that the artistic movement named after these two elements shares many qualities with physical spaces designed by architects. This dissertation will analyse the work of ‘Light and Space’ artists and discuss its relationship with human perception and architecture. Focusing on the careers of James Turrell and Olafur Eliasson and looking at how the work of these artists is becoming increasingly architectural, analysis will be made as to whether this built work possess the same experiential properties as the artworks which preceded it. Will budgetary constraints, demanding clients and a lack of creative control impede the artists’ ability to conceive perceptual experiences? As Turrell and Eliasson are bridging the gap between art and architecture by directly collaborating with architects, it is key to this writing also to analyse how these new working relationships influence design, and if this can help to embed artistic practice within architectural form. This writing will also touch on the consequences of creating buildings in which art and architecture become indistinguishable from each other, with regards to how these spaces are experienced and the context in which they are approached. The theoretical base for this analysis will come from phenomenology, looking at writers such as Martin Heidegger, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Juhani Pallasmaa, who all focus on how we interact with the world around us. In essence: can the artists described by Melinda Wortz as ‘architects of nothingness’ (Butterfield, 1993: 15) create sensory architecture which is perceptually meaningful? This writing will seek to answer one single research question: How do artists from the ‘Light and Space’ movement use collaboration with architects to realise architectural projects, and how does this work retain the phenomenological integrity of their installation art?

LITERATURE REVIEW This literature review will cover three areas of writing key to this dissertation: phenomenology and its relationship with architecture, the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Light and Spaceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; art movement, and collaboration between artists and architects. The subject of phenomenology is vast and far reaching. Therefore, it is not possible, in the scope of this dissertation, to pretend to an exhaustive study of the topic. However, this writing will offer a cursory overview of the development of this field of study, focusing specifically on areas which relate to architectural experience. It is also important to note that many of the texts written about James Turrell and Olafur Eliasson are taken from their artistic monographs and, although presenting a helpful overview, often lack a critical edge and a more objective vision.

1. Phenomenology Phenomenology has been written about since 1900. Beginning with Edmund Husserl’s two-part text Logical Investigations (1900, 1901), the topic has since been expanded and challenged by many but, in essence, phenomenology is the study of human experience (Sokolowski, 1999). It was not until the 1960s that this thinking was applied within an architectural context. Before this, there were two main phenomenological standpoints: transcendental phenomenology, set out by Edmund Husserl and existential phenomenology, developed by his student Martin Heidegger. The main difference between these two schools of thought is the concept of epoché, in which the pre-understanding of a subject is temporarily suspended to allow for unbiased analysis, referred to as phenomenological reduction (Lewis and Staehler, 2010). Heidegger did not believe it was possible to bracket our experiences and understandings and this is therefore why Heidegger’s phenomenological approach has been influential within architecture and design. His philosophy focused on human experience, believing that much of modern life served as a distraction from the priorities of existence. Concerning himself with the ‘big questions’ relating to life, death and time, he noted that an inability to address such questions can result in a failure to place oneself in the world, (Sharr, 2007: 6-14) a feeling he described as ‘being-in-theworld’ (Heidegger, 1962). Therefore, it can be seen that art and architecture influenced by Heideggerian philosophy should be concerned with this psychological placement and attempt to heighten a person’s awareness of time beyond the span of a single life. French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty followed Heidegger’s viewpoint and went on to write several texts which became significant to contemporary artistic and architectural writers. His seminal text Phenomenology of Perception (1945) outlined that our experience of the world cannot be explained through intellect but only ‘through the mediation of bodily experience’ (Tamari, 2016: 92). Merleau-Ponty believed that the ‘embodied experience’, derived from sensory information, is how we learn about the world around us, only then can this knowledge be applied intellectually. He believed that it was this subconscious bodily awareness that allows us to orientate ourselves in the world (Merleau-Ponty, 2013). It is important to note that, although Merleau-Ponty’s writing became incredibly influential for architecture, he never once wrote about buildings or physical space (Hale, 2016). In 1962, around the same time that Merleau-Ponty was writing his last work, Danish architect Steen Eiler Rasmussen wrote Experiencing Architecture. At this point, phenomenology had not been referenced within architectural circles, but it was clear the book was heavily influenced by the writings of Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty,

although containing far less philosophical rigour (Mallgrave, 2011). Written during the popularisation of the ‘International Style’ Rasmussen was concerned with how we perceive architecture as a multi-sensory experience, rather than the design of a ‘photogenic’ object (Rasmussen, 1962). Also picking up on the writings of Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty, Norwegian architect, theorist and historian Christian Norberg-Schulz was the first person to directly relate the subject of phenomenology with architecture in his book Intentions in Architecture (1965) and developed this in more depth in Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture (1980). His book Existence Space and Architecture (1974) was primarily concerned with how existential space can be “concreteized” within architectural space (Mallgrave, 2011). He believed that architecture served as a vehicle for giving a person a sense of place or ‘being in the world’: a direct reference to the writings of Heidegger (Norberg-Schulz, 1974 and Haddad, 2010). Juhani Pallasmaa continued to develop phenomenological thinking applied to architecture. In the 1980s he wrote a series of essays outlining how architecture is foremost a multi-sensory experience, playing with both body and mind (Mallgrave, 2011). In 1994 Pallasmaa co-authored a special edition of A+U journal titled ‘Questions of Perception: Phenomenology of Architecture’ alongside Steven Holl and Alberto Pérez-Gómez, which was later published as a book with the same name (Holl et al, 1994). Agreeing with Heidegger, Pallasmaa began to discuss how an overuse of modern technology is reducing our capacity for a multi-sensory experience (Tamari, 2016). Reflecting the ethos of the ‘Light and Space’ movement, Holl and Pallasmaa wrote about how sensory experience should take priority over the visual aesthetic of architecture, as opposed to creating buildings as objects, with little logic behind tectonic choices (Holl et al, 1994). As with many of his predecessors, Pallasmaa believed that the purpose of architecture was to ‘create embodied existential metaphors which concretize and structure man’s being in the world’ (Holl et al, 1994). To explain this, Pallasmaa wrote of a forest walk in which multiple senses are stimulated simultaneously and in turn reinforce each other (Pallasmaa, 2005), an allegory comparable to Heidegger’s writing of country walks (Heidegger, 1962) as a way of awakening the senses and strengthening our sense of place. Holl takes this forward in his essay ‘Enmeshed Experience: The Merging of Object and Field’ (Holl et al, 1994), in which he describes how the constituent elements which are experienced simultaneously loose clarity and merge into a singular, ‘complete experience’ (Holl et al, 1994). The same concept is developed by Peter Zumthor in Thinking Architecture (2010).

â&#x20AC;&#x153;The term art and object are virtually synonymous, yet for a decade and a half these artists produced essentially no objects.â&#x20AC;? (Butterfield. 1993)

Figure 1 James Turrell Afrum (White) (1966)

Figure 2 James Turrell Mendota Stoppages (1969)

Figure 3 James Turrell Wedgework 3 (1974)

2. Light and Space ‘Light and Space’ was an art movement which began in California in the 1960s. The work was often intangible, focusing on human perception and experience rather than the creation of an art-object (Butterfield, 1993). It is often seen as a response to the object centric work created simultaneously within the Minimalism movement on the West coast of America, as well as being a reaction to the low quality, ‘ego-driven’ architecture in which artists’ work was being displayed (Auping and Clark, 2011: 82). Rather than disregard the places of architectural exhibition, ‘Light and Space’ artists would manipulate them by adding and removing physical structures and manipulating the qualities of light (Auping and Clark, 2011). The art created within this movement was almost always specific to the location it was created for (Butterfield, 1993) and much like site-specific architecture, these pieces would not work if they were transported to a new location. Two of the founding fathers of this movement were American artists Robert Irwin (1929 - ) and James Turrell (1943 - ). Despite working in close proximity and even collaborating at times, the two artists had a very different approach to their art. Irwin began as a painter, producing incredibly subtle, minimal pieces which had phenomenological properties, leaving the viewer with a ‘sense of presence’ (Butterfield, 1993: 19). Irwin noticed how the environment of his studio affected the subtle qualities of his paintings and would dedicate hours to painting, plastering and building new walls, purely to alter the quality of light. This process of manipulating architecture eventually turned into Irwin’s primary artistic form (Auping and Clark, 2011) and it was this later ethereal work which became the main inspiration for a Danish-Islandic artist Olafur Eliasson (Weschler, 2008). In contrast, James Turrell worked with light as his main medium from the outset (Auping and Clark, 2011), beginning by creating single-colour light projections. This was then developed with a piece called the Mendota Stoppages (1969) in which Turrell himself would open and close a series of apertures in blanked off windows to manipulate internal lighting conditions. These environments were further manipulated by interior alterations made by the artist, including the removal of internal structural walls; much like the work of Irwin in the 1970s. This would be the first site-specific work of Turrell’s, paving the way for a future of more architectural and phenomenological pieces (Govan and Kim, 2014). His long career has seen him explore both natural and artificial light in great detail, discovering how perception of space can be affected by light but also how light can manipulate the appearance of physical space. Turrell’s Wedgework series is a good example of this, using coloured light to construct what appears to be a physical screen that a viewer believes they can reach out and touch, despite no object being present.

Figure 4 & 5 James Turrell The Colour Inside - Skyspace (2013)

Figure 6 & 7 James Turrell Deer Shelter - Skyspace (2007)

Although this previous work was important for Turrell’s development and demonstrates his interest ‘in the perception of space and how light inhabits space’ (Brown, 1985: 101), this dissertation will focus on the artist’s more architectural work, in particular Skyspaces and Crater Spaces, in which physical buildings are constructed as a place to focus the viewer’s attention on the specific qualities of a given light. Skyspaces are Turrell’s most widely recognised site-specific works and he has built over seventy around the world (Govan and Kim, 2014). Inside, the viewer’s attention is focused on a hole in the roof, where ‘the sky is transported down to the plane of the ceiling’ (Turrell and Wolfsburg, 2009: 151). At dawn and dusk, lights within the room will slowly change hue tricking the brain into seeing the sky in unusual colours such as green and pink, raising questions of perception. In his first experiments, Turrell would cut holes in the ceilings of existing structures to focus one’s attention upwards. However, with the creation of his third Skyspace, the artist realised the need to create ‘autonomous architecture’ as the manipulation of existing structures had become both ‘limited – and limiting’ (Govan and Kim, 2014: 133). This decision to build his own structures gave Turrell more freedom to consider aspects such as geography, geology, astronomy and climate in more detail (Govan and Kim, 2014). This art explores how we perceive space beyond the realm of structure and form. Within a Turrell installation we are often presented with perceptual ambiguities which encourage us to engage more with a piece in search of a resolution. His work can be seen as phenomenological experimentation towards the understanding of architecture, heightening one’s self-awareness and perception of space (Turrell and Wolfsburg, 2009). The work of Irwin and Turrell was of critical importance to the development of Olafur Eliasson’s (1967 - ) art (Grynsztejn et al, 2002). In much the same way as his predecessors were responding to Minimalism in the 1960s, Eliasson’s early work was a response to the object-oriented, market conscious art of neo-expressionism of the 1980s (Grynsztejn et al, 2002). He began by using light, mirrors and candles to create experiences, as opposed to objects, a theme that would continue to develop throughout his career. It can be said that the way in which the body interacts with space is central to Eliasson’s artistic practice. The link between his work and the philosophy of Merleau-Ponty is evident when he says: ‘You could say that I’m trying to put the body in the mind and the mind in the body’ (Gilbert, 2004: 6). Initially Eliasson was interested in the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl, which acted as a theoretical base for his artistic exploration into what the philosopher describes as the ‘now effect’: a moment of total presentness, indicating both consciousness and experience (Grynsztejn et al, 2002). Not only does the artist want to heighten the perceptual experience had by a spectator, but he wants to instil a feeling of awareness of the experience which is taking place (Gilbert, 2004).

Figure 8 Olafur Eliasson Suney (1995)

Figure 9 Olafur Eliasson Your Sun Machine (1997)

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Like the Minimal work, these were statements reduced to an essenceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Butterfield, 1993)

Figure 10 Olafur Eliasson Kjetil Thorsen Serpentine Pavilion (2007)

Similar to Irwin, Eliasson’s work began with the transformation of existing architectural spaces, whether it be a perceptual alteration in the way one interpreted space with Suney (1995) where a transparent yellow sheet was used to divide a room, or a Turrell Skyspace & Gordon Matta-Clark inspired physical alteration to the space with Your Sun Machine (1997) where a hole was cut in the ceiling of a gallery allowing light to spill in and constantly change throughout the course of a day. It was the Tate Modern installation The Weather Project (2003) which thrust the artist into the public eye. Filling the room with a soft orange light, reflected off an entirely mirrored ceiling surface, a contemplative atmosphere was created in which members of the public would reflect literally and metaphorically (Beccaria and Eliasson, 2013). After this, Eliasson’s studio began to grow and his work became increasingly architectural. This began with the Danish Pavilion at the 2003 Venice Art Biennale in which a promenade of sensory installations were created where perception was intensified and manipulated. However, Eliasson’s first true step into architectural practice was with the design of the 2007 Serpentine pavilion in collaboration with architect Kjetil Thorsen, a founding partner of Snøhetta, the first time Eliasson had collaborated with architects outside of his studio. This interest in architecture has resulted in the establishment of his own architectural practice in partnership with architect and long-term in-studio collaborator Sebastian Behmann, under the name ‘Studio Other Spaces’. The practice, founded in 2014, will focus ‘on interdisciplinary and experimental building projects and works in public space’ (Eliasson and Behmann, 2014).

Herzog & de Meuron Thomas Ruff - artist collaborator Eberswalde Senior Technical School (1996)

Figure 11

Herzog & de Meuron Thomas Ruff Eberswalde Senior Technical School Facade detail

Figure 12

3. Artists and Architects in Collaboration Collaboration between artists and architects can take many forms, from generating sitespecific art pieces, to ensuring an art gallery or museum is deigned to best display the work of a specific artist. However, the focus here will be on how an architectural project can be influenced when an artist is involved from the early stages of the design process. This type of collaboration is generally founded on a shared philosophy between artist and architect and seeks to increase the richness of a project to something greater than the sum of its parts (Margolious, 2003), allowing for routine ways of decision making to be revealed and questioned (Rendell, 2006). In her 2006 book Art and Architecture: A Place Between, Jane Rendell argues that the early involvement of the artist is important for a successful collaboration as, by later stages, the key design decisions for the project will have already been made. Input towards the later stages of a project cannot be used strategically and will be purely for decoration. James Wines agrees, saying that art incorporated as an afterthought is ‘lacking content and context’ (Muschamp and Wines 1989: 13). Instead, Philip Ursprung writes (Fernie, 2003), the ideas from both parties should mix and become indistinguishable. Here, Ursprung also draws parallels between artistic and architectural collaboration with the term ‘gesamtkunstwerk,’ a German word translating literally as ‘complete artwork,’ to describe projects in which the individual disciplines blur together to form a unified whole. The difference between the two disciplines are vast and apparent, ranging from timescale and budget to philosophy. Swiss architect Jacques Herzog believes that artists are much more willing to attack contemporary societal issues which some architects are embarrassed to address (Fernie, 2003). The involvement of an artist is likely to challenge the thinking of an architect, questioning their traditional and assumed roles. A question posed to a client by an artist is likely to elicit a different response, compared to the same question asked by an architect (Margolious, 2003). A project can be influenced in many ways by the merging of these disciplines with the vastly different worlds in which artists and architects work allowing for deviation from the traditional architecture project. Arguably the most prominent of these is the way a client can influence a project. A client on an architectural project has a degree of control over design decisions, whereas with an artistic project, a suggestion by the client would compromise the artistic value of the final piece. Eliasson explains: “The brutality of clients has created more compromises, which some architects have failed to navigate. With art you never have a client who says things like: ‘Can you change that colour into green?’ because then they don’t have a work of art anymore.” (Moore, 2011). For this reason, it can be said that the involvement of an artist on an architectural project could hand back some control to the design team to ensure artistic intentions are not compromised. However, it is currently very rare for a client to pay for the involvement of an artist in an architectural project unless the end product is predetermined (Fernie, 2003) and, as mentioned earlier, when the artist is not able to participate in the initial design stages of a project, the full benefits of the collaboration cannot be achieved. A pre-determined artistic contribution would also defeat the purpose of the collaboration and restrict the knowledge sharing process between the two disciplines.

METHODOLOGY This dissertation will conduct case studies of selected architectural projects by James Turrell and Olafur Eliasson. This will include independent ventures in which the artist has full creative control, as well as collaborations with architects. For Turrell this will include: the ARoS Next Level extension to the ARoS art gallery in Aarhus, Denmark in collaboration with Schmidt Hammer Lassen Architects (SHL) and Roden Crater in the Arizona desert, USA. For Eliasson the case studies will include: Your Rainbow Panorama, rooftop installation on the ARoS art gallery in Aarhus, Denmark; the Harpa Concert Hall, in Reykjavik, Iceland in collaboration with Henning Larsen Architects; and Fjordenhus in Vejle, Denmark. Much of the analysis will draw from the personal experiences of the author at Your Rainbow Panorama and the Harpa Concert Hall as well as several Turrell and Eliasson installation pieces. This is important as phenomenological art and architecture is very difficult, if not impossible, to appreciate without first hand interaction as the works are often multi-sensory. As Pallasmaa believes that much contemporary architecture is designed as an ‘art of the printed image’ (Holl, et al. 1994: 29), it would be contradictory to assess the architecture which addresses these issues with photographic analysis alone. First-hand experience will be supplemented by literature written by the artists, or by those who have visited the work in question. It is important to note that some of the projects discussed are not yet complete and therefore analysis will be made in a more speculative manor, assessing the proposed nature of the spaces. An interview will be conducted with Jacob Sørensen of SHL in which specific questions will be asked about working with Turrell and Eliasson on the ARoS art gallery. The questions will focus on working relationships, creative control, strategies for communication and frequency of interaction. As both projects are working with the same building, comparisons should easily be made. Additional interviews with the studios of Turrell and Eliasson would have been an exciting supplement to this, but unfortunately this was not possible. Secondary interviews of the artists will be used instead as a means to hear the artists’ personal aspirations for each of the projects and their views on collaboration. Key to this is Eliasson’s 2016 discussion with Tim Marlow at The Royal Academy, Eliasson’s conversation with Morten Schmidt in the SHL monograph Outline (2008) and Turrell’s 2013 interview with Lynn Herbert at the University of Texas, named ‘Landmark Features’ in which the Roden Crater project is discussed in detail. Prior to the exploration of the case studies, a theoretical comparison will be drawn between the artworks of Turrell and Eliasson and the philosophy of phenomenology. This will act as a foundation for analysis of their architectural project and derives from the writings of Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty, as well as Holl, Pallasmaa and PerezGomez who focus specifically on architectural experience. Finally, the relationship between these artworks and technology will be touched upon. A brief analysis of social media activity will be performed to add further insight into how people interact with sensory spaces and how the influence of technology is altering perceptual experience. A comparison will be made between Your Rainbow Panorama, the Harpa Concert Hall and two Eliasson installation pieces using data collected from Instagram. The sample taken will use the ‘most recent’ uploads to ensure the data set is unbiased, with projects identified using hashtags. This is a cursory overview and should be seen as supplementary to the main body of text.

Figure 13 Olafur Eliasson Your Body of Work (2011)

Figure 14 Olafur Eliasson Riverbed (2014)

Figure 15 James Turrell The Light Inside (1999)

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK As outlined earlier, phenomenology is the study of experience. For the purposes of this dissertation, the writing will centre on the work of Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Holl and Pallasmaa. One of the most important parts of Merleau-Ponty’s writings, and one that relates to the work of Turrell and Eliasson, is the idea of the continuous dialogue between the body and its environment being what embeds us in reality (Hale, 2016). As opposed to traditional two-dimensional art forms, the work of these artists provides us with a multi-sensory experience and situates us within space and time. This idea is described by Merleau-Ponty: My body is geared into the world when my perception provides me with the most varied and the most clearly articulated spectacle possible, and when my motor intentions, as they unfold, receive the responses they anticipate from the world. This maximum of clarity in perception and action specifies a perceptual ground, a background for my life, a general milieu for the coexistence of my body and the world. (MerleauPonty, 2013: 261) This idea of bodily interaction links to Holl’s writings of the importance of movement as a fundamental part of experience and the understanding of architecture, believing that ‘our faculty of judgement is incomplete without this experience of crossing through space’ (Holl, 2000: 26). A viewer is seldom static whilst present at an installation of these artists, for example in Eliasson’s Your Body of Work (2011), Riverbed (2014) and Turrell’s The Light Inside (1999) in which the physical experience of a space changes from point to point as the viewer moves through the piece. Many of these works also respond to Pallasmaa’s belief that architecture should comprise of a multi-sensory experience as opposed to one which focuses purely on visual stimulation (Pallasmaa, 2005). Whilst visual aspects are of course important to these artworks, sound, temperature and touch are features that often present themselves, with the importance of movement implying a degree of bodily interaction with a space. In a Turrell Skyspace, the distinct lack of aural stimulation creates a tranquil environment which intensifies the opportunity for introspection.

Figure 16 Olafur Eliasson The Weather Project (2004)

Figure 17 Olafur Eliasson Your Embodied Garden (2013)

Figure 18 Olafur Eliasson Ice Watch (2014)

The second key thought of Merleau-Ponty which relates to these artists is the idea of perceptual illusion as a tool for inviting exploration. What he describes as the ‘solicitations of the world,’ Merleau-Ponty believes that we are likely to be drawn into bodily engagement in an attempt to resolve any perceptual uncertainty (Hale, 2016). This is key to the work of Turrell. The way he uses light to manipulate our perception of a space often draws us in. His Wedgework series appears to create a physical barrier that divides the room enticing the perceiver to reach out to touch the plane, engaging with the work to understand the construction of the physical environment in which they find themselves placed. The use of coloured light during dusk and dawn within a Skyspace makes the sky appear to transform into hues we know are not possible, making us question our ability to interpret visual information. Illusions are also explored within the work of Eliasson, often with the use of mirrors. His video piece Your Embodied Garden (2013) creates spatial ambiguities with the use of a circular mirror and The Weather Project (2004) uses a giant ceiling mounted mirror to expand the perceived volume of the turbine hall at the Tate Modern. With this piece, the bodily engagement was less tactile and more introspective, with visitors often lying on the floor, exploring the space in tandem with their reflection. When we question what we experience we become aware of ourselves perceiving (Beccaria and Eliasson, 2013). Heidegger concerns himself less with the interaction between body and world, and more with the existential questions of ‘being-in-the-world.’ This is something that is less directly addressed within the artworks of Turrell and Eliasson but is more relatable to the more abstract consequences of the experiences encountered during the interaction of the viewer and installation. Connections made between human, earth and time are features that are key to Turrell’s Skyspaces, in which the procession of the Earth throughout the day is the main driver for the continuously changing internal environment, with a direct relationship between viewer and sky. These themes are developed further within the architectural projects of these artists, and this will be discussed within the following case studies. It is important to mention that unlike the work of Turrell, Eliasson’s oeuvre spans several themes with a wide range of media. Whilst his main concern is with human experience, there are also works that study the relationship between humans and the natural world. His 2014 piece Ice Watch did just this, in transporting one hundred tonnes of glacial ice from Greenland to a public square in Copenhagen in an attempt to instil a sense of personal responsibility within the viewer with relation to climate change (Weber, Bauman and Eliasson, 2014). Although pieces such as this step away from the bracket of ‘Light and Space’ and do not immediately appear to relate to phenomenology in terms of a heightened sense of awareness or increased sensory stimulation, it is possible to argue their relationship to the Heideggerian school of phenomenology. Increasing the viewers awareness of time and the relationship with the environment will help to place themselves in the world (Heidegger, 1962).

James Turrell Roden Crater (1977 - )

Figure 19

James Turrell Roden Crater Site Plan - 1983

Figure 20

CASE STUDIES 1. James Turrell Roden Crater - Arizona, USA, (1977 - ) Roden Crater is Turrell’s biggest artwork and despite beginning in 1977, the project remains incomplete. Located in a remote part of the Painted Desert in northern Arizona, the artwork is constructed around and within an extinct volcano. When complete it will contain twenty-one individual spaces connected by six tunnels, comprising works similar to previous Turrell installations and often designed in relation to specific celestial events. Around fifty percent of the project is finished, allowing selected individuals to visit and write about their experiences. Much can be said about each of the spaces within Roden Crater as they are both intricate and complex, but for the purposes of this writing, only selected spaces and key design intentions will be covered due to the limited scope. The process of visiting Roden Crater will be an intensely personal journey, with a maximum of two people allowed to visit at one time, however, Turrell prefers it be experienced alone (Butterfield, 1993). This is a key feature of many of Turrell’s pieces and reinforces the importance of the intimate and personal experience that he strives to create. The building has no prescribed route and can be explored in any order with the overall intention of the building being to draw attention to phenomena which would normally be dismissed as ‘perceptual noise’ (Brown, 1985). It is not about the object of the building itself but about what it makes us aware of, extending perception of external physical space and internal psychological space. (Landmarks Features: A Conversation with James Turrell, 2013) To reach Roden Crater a visitor must travel for several miles through the Arizona desert. This pilgrimage is the beginning of the perceptual experience, creating awareness of the artworks geographical location as well as its temporal geological context. Upon arrival, a visitor will spend a night in a lodge by the crater which, along with the journey to the site, constitutes what Turrell calls the ‘letting go process’ (Butterfield, 1993). The areas of the building which will be described here are the four cardinal spaces. Each of these open up to a different part of the external environment, presenting the celestial events present in the specific direction they face. The North Space will be dimly lit by small apertures in the ceiling, one of which acts as a camera obscura, projecting an image of the sky onto the floor of the room. A visitor will also be able to track the gradual shift in position of the Pole star, a cycle which takes 25,800 years to complete (Brown, 1985).

Figure 21 James Turrell Roden Crater North Space Model

Figure 22 James Turrell Roden Crater South Space Model

Figure 23 James Turrell Roden Crater South Space Celestial Diagram

The South Space focuses on the complex relation of the Earth, Moon and Sun, said to allow observers to predict future eclipses. Visitors will also be able to track the alignment of the North star and even feel the rotation of the Earth on its axis (Turrell et al, 1999). If these impressive claims are true, the experience encountered here will surely be one that truly connects the viewer to their relationship with the Earth, time and space. The West Space will produce a homogeneous visual field called a ‘Ganzfeld’, an affect which Turrell is known for creating through artificial light. The effect removes the ability for the viewer to see the shape of a space as the walls, ceiling and floor melt into a singular plane, giving the light a grain-like smoky texture (Brown, 1985). This experience is something that makes a viewer question their own perception in a moment of realisation that signifies how what a person believes they see, is really a representation of the world pieced together by the human brain using the sensory clues offered to it at a particular moment. It is this sense of perceiving oneself perceiving which opens up the phenomenological questions of existence. The East Space responds also to the geological site conditions as well as its relation to the cosmos. A surprising amount of water drains through Roden Crater and the Eastern Space will use as a feature to affect the way light fills the room, acting as what Holl describes as the ‘phenomenal lens’ (Holl et al, 1994), adding further sensory qualities to the space through refraction and reflection. The space will also create a natural light version of a Turrell Wedgework, which, as mentioned previously, creates the appearance of a physical barrier constructed by light which a viewer can often feel as if they can reach out and touch (Turrell and Wolfsburg, 2009). As with the Ganzfeld effect, this space is likely to make the viewer question whether they can trust their senses.

Figure 24 James Turrell Roden Crater Crater Bowl

Figure 25 James Turrell Roden Crater Viewing Benches

Figure 26 James Turrell Roden Crater Celestial Vaulting

The final space which will be mentioned here is that of the physical crater itself. Here Turrell has re-shaped the crater bowl to create an effect known as ‘celestial vaulting’ where the sky appears to be descending, usually only experienced on open sea or when flying (Turrell et al, 1999). When in the space, the shape of the sky will look different to that we are used to seeing and will, once again, result in the visitor feeling uncertain as to whether what they see can be trusted. The way we interpret visual information is something which will become apparent in Roden Crater, as a visitor is presented with evidence that what we see is really just a psychological representation of sensory data. This is described by Elisa Ramos: We do not see the world directly. What we see is a two-dimensional pattern of light that falls on the retina of our eyes. In order to arrive at the three-dimensional world - with trees, people, cars, etc - we have to interpret that pattern, making sense of the discontinuities and variations in the light. [...] What this means is that seeing is not a purely physical operation but a psychological one. (Ramos, 2015: 9) It is this questioning of a viewer’s perception that is a recurring theme in Roden Crater. Created with an in-depth and often scientific understanding of how the eye responds to varying qualities of light, this uncertainty is likely to be revelatory for a visitor, allowing them to perceive their own perception. This clarification of perceptual uncertainty is what Merleau-Ponty describes as the ‘solicitations of the world’ and is a clear function which enables a visitor to experience a deep connection with their perceptual environment (Hale, 2016). The way in which the building is so deeply connected to geography and geology links the experience within the building to Heidegger’s phenomenological thinking about how we relate to nature, with the time-frame of the building completely out of sync with a normal piece of architecture. Designed in relation to celestial events which take place over thousands of years, a visitor, if they are aware of what they are seeing, will surely begin to think about reality in a way that is detached from the human scale, just as Heidegger wished us to. Visited alone, the building is sure to present an aural sense of tranquillity, something Pallasmaa viewed as the most important auditory experience of architecture, not merely instilling the drama of the construction process of Turrell’s intervention, but the magnitude of the geological formation of the crater itself, increasing one’s awareness of the Earth (Holl et al, 1994). This connection to the Earth is reinforced with the use of locally sourced construction materials such as desert sandstone or shale from a nearby Jurassic lagoon (Butterfield, 1993). The use of craft and natural material helps portray a sense of history as the building ages as well as indicating how it was constructed and its intended use for human habitation (Holl et al, 1994).

Figure 27 James Turrell Roden Crater Eastern Portal

It may be possible to dismiss Roden Crater as an architectural project and simply call it a piece of site-specific land art, especially as there are no deadlines, no client and no real budgetary constraints. Although the structure lacks any traditional function that one would expect from a piece of architecture, it could be said that Roden Crater shares many similarities with spiritual constructions. Turrell distances himself from religious connotations, yet there are distinct parallels with regards to its purpose in that the building is both grand, and a place for contemplation. As it would seldom be argued that a cathedral is not a piece of architecture, it can be said that Turrell’s Roden Crater is too an architectural project. If this is agreed the conversation can be moved forward to compare it to Turrell’s previous works. It is well documented that Turrell’s art has phenomenological properties and as Turrell is simply expanding on these existing ideas within the Roden Crater project, there should be no reason as to why this should be lost. This building is a development of his previous artworks and is, as Richard Andrews puts it, ‘architecture as a locus for perceptual experience’ (Turrell and Wolfsburg, 2009: 151) with connection between building, body, mind and Earth. Turrell did use architects on the project, for example Flynn Architecture & Design, but it is not clear to what extent this working relationship was a collaboration. Due to almost no mention of architects within press material, one might assume that their involvement was purely for the facilitation of the project from a technical point of view, with little design input. In this case there is more written about Turrell’s work with astronomers and geologists than any relationship with architects, which may give an indication as to the primary focus of the project. Roden Crater is very much a Turrell project and could be defined as his life’s work, most probably becoming a career defining piece once complete. These factors may help explain why any involvement from architects has been left unmentioned, as all creative control has been with Turrell, leaving the architect with a role more akin to a consultant. It is also important to mention that Turrell did not set out to create a piece of architecture. The project is a vehicle which enables us to explore, in detail, perceptual experience in relation to light and space. The fact that it has taken the form of a piece of architecture could be said to be incidental and therefore making any involvement of architects unimportant.

James Turrell Schmidt Hammer Lassen ARoS Next Level External Visualisation

Figure 28

James Turrell Schmidt Hammer Lassen ARoS Next Level Internal Visualisation

Figure 29

2. James Turrell & Schmidt Hammer Lassen ARoS Next Level, Aarhus, Denmark (2020) Turrell is currently working on a much more traditional architecture project in collaboration with architectural firm Schmidt Hammer Lassen (SHL). The project is an extension to the ARoS art gallery in Aarhus, Denmark, due to be completed in 2020 and unlike with Roden Crater, is openly publicised as a collaboration between artist and architect. The new additions to the building will include a 1,200 square metre subterranean gallery and a semi-subterranean Turrell installation named The Dome which conceptually takes the form of a giant Skyspace. The collaboration was initiated as a way to develop more interest in the required extension of the ARoS gallery and consequently increased chances of investment (Sørensen, 2018). The decision by the gallery director to appoint Turrell is to some degree due to his presence on the world stage but as Sørensen (2018) indicates, the artist has a good understanding of architectural design, as previous installations have involved the construction of built form. SHL’s original sketches were drawn before Turrell was involved with the project and indicated that the only opportunity for extension was subterranean. Once this was established, a week-long workshop was carried out in Aarhus between SHL and Turrell in which design options were explored. Described by Sørensen (2018) as a ‘free-spirit,’ Turrell was very expressive and unconstrained with his initial design approach drawing freely with no regard for site-boundaries or technical constraints. This is a good example of what Fernie (2003) believes is one of the major benefits of collaborations between the two disciplines, allowing for greater exploration and freedom of expression, where architects may be embarrassed or feel they would be viewed as incompetent. This creative freedom opens more possibilities for the design team allowing exploration of ideas which would otherwise be untouched. In contrast to this, however, the artist is said to have an intrinsic understanding of the project as a piece of architecture, zooming in to intricate details which would be essential to the functioning of the art piece in the gallery setting (Sørensen, 2018). The period following the workshop, when Turrell returned to America, involved the refinement of ideas back and forth between both architect and artist. There appears to be no stubborn party, comparable to the relationship between a project architect and partner in which radical ideas are refined by the architectural team in line with site and economic constrains.

James Turrell Schmidt Hammer Lassen ARoS Next Level Site Plan

Figure 30

James Turrell Schmidt Hammer Lassen ARoS Next Level Aerial Visualisation

Figure 31

From the way that Sørensen (2018) talks about the project as a piece of architecture with an artistic foundation, it is evident that the design team are working to ensure that the building is much more than the traditional gallery extension: The shape, the way the detailing is done and the way that the lighting is placed gives the Turrell feeling of ‘the infinite light’. The dome […] follows the seasons and natural phenomena, bringing them into the museum and putting them on a pedestal. (Sørensen, 2018) As with Roden Crater, the ARoS extension features elements of Turrell’s work which have been present in previous projects and are tried and tested. The connection the project has to nature is key to a traditional Skyspace project, but will be unique to the gallery setting, with a strong relationship to the Heideggerian school of philosophy in which man is reminded of his relationship with the Earth. For this reason, one can assume that the phenomenological properties of Turrell’s art will be retained. However, due to the underground location of the building, the materiality may perhaps offer less to the experience of the visitor. Consisting of white render and concrete the building will likely lack the man-made craft element present in Roden Crater, and the associated properties which go with that. This ARoS extension project is incredibly different to Roden Crater and as such shows a contrast in the relationship between artist and architect. ARoS Next Level was set up as a collaboration from the outset and will be viewed that way after its completion. As the client, the ARoS museum decided to involve both artist and architect from the outset. This early partnership allows ideas from both parties to be embedded within the overarching concept, resulting in what Rendell (2006) views as the most productive form of collaboration. Neither party appears to have taken creative control and as such it can be expected that art and architecture in this situation will become inseparable: a ‘complete-artwork.’

Olafur Eliasson Your Rainbow Panorama (2011)

Figure 32

Olafur Eliasson Your Rainbow Panorama Aerial View

Figure 33

3. Olafur Eliasson Your Rainbow Panorama, Aarhus, Denmark (2011) Your Rainbow Panorama (2011) is a permanent artwork on top of the ARoS gallery, the same building as the aforementioned Turrell project. The museum, designed by Danish architecture firm SHL, is programmed conceptually around Date’s Divine Comedy, with the inferno located underground on the lower most level with a journey towards the light at the top of the building (Sørensen et al, 2011). Eliasson’s addition to the roof continues with this concept, placing light at the centre of the work. As a visitor walks around the 150m installation they experience a 360-degree view of the city whilst passing through a spectrum of coloured light. The journey around the continuous walkway is designed to ‘heighten the relationship between the visitor, the museum and the city of Aarhus’ (Eliasson, 2012). The colour, according to Eliasson, will intensify reality of those who are present. Adding to the introspective qualities of the piece, a visitor will become aware of their perception: an effect he describes as ‘see yourself seeing’ (Beccaria and Eliasson, 2013: 103). Although the art piece is popular and consequently often very busy, it remains possible to experience the intimacy which Eliasson refers to, due to the fragmentation of space created by each individually coloured pane of glass. Indeed, each piece visually contrasts with the one next to it creating pockets of space within an unobstructed structure. This is exaggerated by the continuous curve limiting views within the installation to around twenty metres. There are also factors affecting the experience that a visitor will be unaware of, especially in relation to colour. Eliasson is not interested in the symbolism which can be attached to specific colours (Beccaria & Eliasson, 2013), but in the way it alters perception: If you look at the city through the red glass, your eyes develop a green afterimage. If you maintain a quick pace, the colours remain vibrant. But if you pause in one colour zone, the hue around you grows pale while the colours in your peripheral vision, where the walkway curves, intensifies. Colour intensities depend on your speed. (Eliasson, 2012: 161) The way in which visitors view the city around them will also be affected by the use of colour. This is the same effect which Eliasson explores in his installation Room for one Colour (1997) in which monofrequency lights reduce the spectral range of a viewer to shades of yellow and black. With the potential distractions of multiple colours removed, focus is re-oriented. When looking out across the city of Aarhus, a viewer will only be able to see within a single spectrum, flattening the colour data of the surroundings. This alters the way we interpret what we see, placing greater importance on shape and movement.

Figure 34 Olafur Eliasson Room for one Colour (1997)

Figure 35, 36 & 37 Olafur Eliasson Your Rainbow Panorama Views inside installation

It is apparent to the viewer that their experience is unique. The walkway is wide enough to pass others, allowing a visitor to control their pace, as well as where they walk, at what speed and which direction they look. It is this ‘movement [which] becomes a vehicle of the visitors’ colour perception’ (Schmidt Hammer Lassen, 2008). This control places the viewer in the present, captivated by their ability to manipulate the horizon. The importance of movement within the piece relates to Holl’s writing of movement as a vehicle for strengthening the relationship between ourselves and architecture, resulting in a more complete experience (Holl, 2000). Once the journey around the installation is complete it seems necessary to, at least briefly, observe the surrounding landscape from beneath the structure, away from the colour filtration provided by the glass. Linking to the philosophy of Merleau-Ponty (1962), this acts as a way of clarifying the perceptual uncertainties which were previously presented, a final act which completes the experience. It could be said that Your Rainbow Panorama is more art than architecture. However, the installation has a clear function and a direct connection with the public realm, as well as a seamless link to the rest of the museum. Sørensen agrees: It is a very good example of how to integrate art, architecture and public space. It really has a clear function, but it also has an artistic presence. (Sørensen, 2018) Although this project is also an extension to the existing ARoS gallery, it is a different type of collaboration to that at play in the ARoS Next Level project, as SHL only played the part of design consultant with Eliasson very much the design lead. Nevertheless, the project remains a good example of how an artwork can be integrated into architectural design. It works conceptually and functionally with the existing architecture, integrating into and not disrupting the flows of people throughout the museum. Adding to this, Your Rainbow Panorama works as a piece of experiential artwork in which a visitor truly becomes aware of their own perception. Taking forward many themes from his previous artworks, particularly with relation to the use of colour and movement, it can certainly be said that this installation retains the phenomenological properties for which Eliasson is most famous. This is achieved whilst integrating into the existing architecture to create an extension to the gallery which is greater than ornament.

Figure 38

Olafur Eliasson Henning Larsen Architects Harpa Concert Hall Front Elevation

Figure 39 Olafur Eliasson Einar Thorsteinn 5-Dimensional Pavilion (1998)

Figure 40 Olafur Eliasson Einar Thorsteinn 8900054 (1996)

“One fact that fascinates me in particular is that Einar has a gift; an ability to think spatially – and this – without his thoughts being based on the dominant Cartesian or Euclidean space-time conception.” (Thorsteinn and Eliasson, 2002: 135)

4. Olafur Eliasson & Henning Larsen Architects Harpa Concert Hall, Reykjavik, Iceland (2007) With similar materiality to Your Rainbow Panorama, Eliasson’s involvement in the Harpa Concert Hall project was in the design of its façade, inspired by Iceland’s volcanic geology (Moore, 2011). This was a winning competition entry in collaboration with Danish architecture firm Henning Larsen Architects. Eliasson was brought onto the project for the second phase of the competition after the team were marked poorly for the visual aesthetic. Eliasson recalls comments from the project team in a tongue in cheek manner: Why don’t you put some fancy art around that structure so that we can win the bloody competition? (Olafur Eliasson in Conversation with Tim Marlow, 2016) This statement is at odds with Rendell’s (2006) views of what makes a successful collaboration, leaning towards artistic input as decoration. Eliasson did not wish his artwork to be an afterthought and instead proposed that it would replace the structural columns and carry the weight of the roof. This idea was taken forward and in doing so, making the artwork indistinguishable from the architecture. In addition to its structural properties, the façade also functions climatically, helping to regulate the internal environment of the lobby and circulation spaces. The façade is made up of stackable, modular, geometric shapes. Named ‘quasi-bricks,’ the twelve-sided form is used in many of Eliasson’s artworks and was originally developed by Icelandic architect and long-term collaborator Einar Thorsteinn (1942 - 2015). Studying with Frei Otto, Thorsteinn focused on geometric, structurally efficient forms with many parallels to the work of Buckminster Fuller (Grima, 2011). Having first met Eliasson in 1996, Thorsteinn began working on structural installations and pavilions. Although this style of geometric architecture may seem at odds with the work of an artist who concerns himself with human perception and physical experience, this in-house collaboration allowed Eliasson to make his first steps towards the construction of physical structures. It was this which lead to projects such as Harpa and it could be argued that the strong, existing collaboration with Thorsteinn is a reason why Eliasson may be more willing to involve himself in a deeper form of collaboration with architects despite not having full creative control.

Figure 41 Olafur Eliasson Henning Larsen Architects Harpa Concert Hall View across harbour

Olafur Eliasson Henning Larsen Architects Harpa Concert Hall Rear Elevation

Figure 42 Olafur Eliasson Henning Larsen Architects Harpa Concert Hall Foyer

Figure 43

Depending on the time of day or the time of year, the façade is designed to accentuate the effects of the natural light from outside. This is something that changes dramatically in Iceland, from 23 hours of daylight in the summer, to just 1 hour in the winter. Consisting of glass and steel, coloured panels are dotted seemingly randomly within. Much like with Your Rainbow Panorama, the environment changes in response to the movements of the viewer through the space and therefore people are, as Eliasson puts it, ‘co-producers’ of their experience. When several people are experiencing these incredibly personal and individual experiences simultaneously, they experience a connection and a sense of community (Moore, 2011). The filtration of light through coloured panels will also affect the perception of the surrounding harbour area. At night the building transforms from an absorber of light into a beacon, utilising LED lights built into the steel of the modular structure, programmed in sequences designed by Eliasson himself. Although there may be a phenomenological experience with light within the building, the glass and steel façade is something that Pallasmaa would describe as an ‘unyielding surface,’ unable to convey a sense of time or history (Holl et al, 1994: 29) and therefore relinquishing a degree of groundedness. Perhaps this is not Eliasson’s decision, as a curtain walling system may have been part of the design when he joined the project, however, the extensive use of glass in his oeuvre would suggest that he was not opposed to this design choice. The Harpa façade is vast and therefore could be said to be at odds with the relationship to the human scale. Yet, it can be seen that the individual shapes which make up the artwork help to strengthen the dialogue between the viewer and their environment due to the creation of individual pockets of space. Although this experience is not as personal as that atop the ARoS gallery, the interaction of visitor and artwork will be more surprising due to its non-gallery context and therefore potentially more powerful. Eliasson is quick to distance himself from conversations concerning what is art and what is architecture (Grima, 2011). But, for the purposes of this dissertation it is of interest to compare Harpa to the ARoS Next Level extension as they share many similarities and are both cases in which the artist has been invited to collaborate with large Scandinavian architecture practices as a way to make architectural projects more exciting. With Harpa, Eliasson was keen to embrace engineering challenges, offering to fulfil structural requirements within the artwork. This seamless integration of art lifts it far beyond decoration, despite the reasons for Eliasson’s involvement on the project, bringing the building close to the concept of ‘gesamtkunstwerk’. With the ARoS extension, Turrell’s art is also integrated far beyond mere embellishment, but he does not appear to concern himself with engineering in the same way as Eliasson. Perhaps this is due to the involvement of structural thinkers such as Thorsteinn which Eliasson has at his disposal, or purely the decreased involvement Turrell had after the concept stages of design.

Figure 44

Olafur Eliasson Fjordenhus (2018)

Figure 45 Olafur Eliasson Fjordenhus View from roof a.

Figure 46 Olafur Eliasson Fjordenhus Brick Vaulting

5. Studio Other Spaces Fjordenhus, Vejle, Denmark (2018) In 2014, after increased involvement in architectural projects, Eliasson set up Studio Other Spaces in partnership with German architect, and in-house collaborator Sebastian Behmann. The office is a fully licensed architecture practice, created to allow Eliasson’s studio to bid on architectural competitions and shows a certain level of commitment within the studio towards creating architectural projects (Olafur Eliasson in Conversation with Tim Marlow, 2016). However, before this, in 2011, Studio Olafur Eliasson began work on what was to be their first solo architecture venture with the design of the new headquarters for Danish investment company Kirk Kapital. Given the title ‘Fjordenhus,’ translating literally as ‘fjord house’ the building sits within the harbour of Vejle in East Jutland, Denmark. Although the building is funded by and will host the offices of Kirk Kapital from the first floor upwards, the ground floor will be left open to the public and will feature several artworks by Eliasson. This will, according to Kirk Kapital CEO Kim Gulstad, make Vejle a destination for art and architecture enthusiasts worldwide (Johansen, 2016). This building is certainly the most traditionally architectural project that has been created by Eliasson’s studio with regards to its function. It should be noted however that whenever Eliasson refers to the project in the media he calls it an artwork, not a piece of architecture and truly believes that the building is an art project (Grima, 2011). Without being distracted once more by the definitions of art and architecture it is a definite and deliberate stance for him to take. Perhaps he sees similarities between the process of designing this building and that of his artistic ventures, or maybe he is nervous about the building being critiqued as a functional piece of architecture as opposed to a piece of conceptual art. It could also be argued that the reason for this language is purely a way for Eliasson to draw comparisons between the perception-based artworks he is most famous for, and the new architectural ventures he is involved with.

Figure 47 Olafur Eliasson Fjordenhus Brick details - exterior

Figure 48 Olafur Eliasson Fjordenhus View from roof b.

Figure 49 Olafur Eliasson Fjordenhus Brick details - interior

In stark contrast to the Harpa Concert Hall faรงade, this project adopts a completely different tectonic strategy. The use of natural materials such as hand laid brick will help portray a sense of history as the building ages, as well as indicating how it was constructed (Holl et al, 1994). As the project is incomplete and little information about it has been released, commenting on how the building will make one feel, how it will relate to the body, to light and to space is difficult at this point. However, it is noteworthy that his use of materials has moved away from an extensive use of glass, in line with the views of Holl and Pallasmaa, who concern themselves with a phenomenology relating specifically to architecture. Situating the structure within water also relates to the writings of these authors, with reflection and refraction likely to alter the quality of light around and within the building (Holl et al, 1994: 82). Although it would be presumptuous to assume that Eliasson is moving towards a form of architecture more akin to Peter Zumthor or Steven Holl, it will be interesting to see how his built projects develop moving forward. What can be said for sure is that this project will seamlessly merge art and architecture, and this will likely be the case for future projects by Studio Other Spaces. As the practice is partnered by an artist and an architect, collaboration between the two disciplines will be constant. This will allow for continual questioning of their traditional assumed roles, with the sharing of ideas possible from the earliest stages of a project. According to Fernie (2003) and Rendell (2006), this should result in the most beneficial of partnerships.

Figure 50 & 51 Olafur Eliasson Room for one Colour (1997)

Figure 51 & 52 Olafur Eliasson Multiple Shadow House (2010)

NOTES ON TECHNOLOGY AND PERCEPTION This section of writing acts as a cursory supplement to the main body of this dissertation, intended to raise questions about how technology influences the way we interact with art and architecture. The theme of technology features strongly in the writings of Heidegger, Holl and Pallasmaa and is also touched upon by Merleau-Ponty. The idea of modern technology serving as a distraction from existential meaning is becoming increasingly relevant today, especially with the proliferation of mobile phones, as perceiving an environment through a screen is at odds with true phenomenological experience. Merleau-Ponty writes about our perception of space being mediated through bodily interaction, so surely our connection with the environment is reduced when we are subject to filtration through a gadget. As soon as a mobile phone is taken out of a pocket, we detach ourselves from the present moment, ever more enhanced if the content is being immediately uploaded. In this situation we are no longer â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;in the roomâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and are transported to another place, a digital place. Turrell is from a pre-social-media generation and it is notable that he and Eliasson generally have a contrasting approach to technology within their artwork. With Turrell, photography is often banned, with entry restricted to small groups. With Eliasson, this is seldom the case and can be seen when visiting his exhibitions, sometimes with people queuing to have the same picture taken within an installation. So perhaps this is an argument for the proliferation of experiential art which is enmeshed within architecture. If the phenomenological experience is not confined to a single place or room, we may become more engaged with the piece due to the subconscious nature of the interaction. Not only will a visitor be within an environment geared towards their perceptual experience, but without an obvious photo opportunity, distraction from the present is much less likely.

Figure 53 & 54 Olafur Eliasson Your Rainbow Panorama (2011)

Figure 55 & 56 Olafur Eliasson Henning Larsen Architects Harpa Concert Hall (2007)

With the use of social media, our experience is less personal. For Holl, Pallasmaa and Perez-Gomez, true perceptual interaction relies on solitude: Our experience and sensibilities can evolve through reflective and silent analysis. To open ourselves to perception, we must transcend the mundane urgency of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;things to do.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; We must try to access that inner life which reveals the luminous intensity of the world. Only through solitude can we begin to penetrate the secret around us. (Holl et al, 1994: 40) The images to the left are taken from Instagram uploads from various Eliasson projects and give a brief insight into the experience of the visitors. There appears to be a degree of engagement, but how would their interaction differ if photography was prohibited? It might well be more personal and surely more introspective if the thoughts of the viewer remained in the room. (The full sample of social media data can be found in the appendix). A great deal more research would be needed to explore truly how technology is affecting peoples experience of art and architecture. This could involve first hand data collection, recording how people interact with the environment and the proliferation of technology interference. Interviews could also be carried out, asking people what they thought of their experience, why they decided to record it and what effect they thought this had. One interesting thing to note about the social media data is the level of recognition of the artist. For the photos taken within the gallery setting, over 80% of people recognised the name of the artwork or artist as opposed to just 5% of the visitors to Harpa. Although they may not be aware of who designed the building, there is still a clear expression of enthusiasm towards it. These people, who may not usually visit galleries, are being exposed to phenomenological artwork and therefore to new perceptual experiences. This must surely be an argument for art which is enmeshed within architecture, something best achieved through collaboration.

CONCLUSION The very nature of the ‘Light and Space’ movement makes the progression of its artists into the field of sensory architecture understandable, if not inevitable. As this is a relatively new development, the shortcomings within this piece of writing centre mainly around the incomplete status of some of the projects. Although analysis can be carried out and helpful insights into the collaboration process are possible, the architectural experience can often only be assessed through assumption and speculation. The obvious way to progress this research would be to visit each project once completed and draw comparisons based on personal experience: only then can a true assessment of the works’ phenomenological properties be possible. This could be expanded upon by interviewing a cross section of visitors about their experiences. However, at this point, it is still possible to draw some conclusions. The architecture which Turrell has created is a clear progression from his installation artwork. It could be said that these buildings are purely scaled up artworks and therefore will undoubtedly retain phenomenological properties, however, with enhanced connections with Earth and time due to their relationship with celestial events. The status of architecture as a large-scale artwork is important for the context in which it will be viewed. A person visiting Roden Crater or ARoS Next Level will, even if they do not know exactly what to expect, be approaching the pieces from within an artistic context. This is likely to allow for a greater introspective experience, but will not be encountered by chance, and therefore only seen by those with a pre-existing interest in art. Although this is not a problem, it could be said that the most exciting part of art and architecture coming together is the opportunity to expose people who would not seek out art, to new phenomenological experiences. The same could be said of Your Rainbow Panorama due to its gallery setting, but for Harpa and Fjordenhus, the interaction between building and user are likely to be very different. People will interact with these buildings in a more day-to-day context, resulting in what is likely to be a more unexpected encounter. Even though Heidegger’s concerns of ‘distractions of everyday life’ may impede on the contemplative experience, the fact that a wider range of people will be exposed to such phenomena is surely a positive thing and perhaps people will interact with these works in a different manner. If someone was to experience an intense perceptual environment in a more unexpected way, outside of a gallery setting, would they be less likely to get out their mobile phones and record their experience? If this is the case, our sense of being in the moment and consequently being in the world is surely to be heightened. For both artists it seems, in the most part, that the increased constraints applied to their work due to the architectural context have not impeded on their creative vision and they have used collaboration to create integrated artwork which far surpasses mere decoration. It is not possible to say how far these artists will venture into the field of architecture would Turrell ever design an office building? What is certain is that Eliasson, through Studio Other Spaces, is officially committed to the practice of architecture and appears to be embracing the challenges that come with it; the more he builds, the greater the number of people that will be exposed to multi-sensory experiences. In a world which is becoming increasingly saturated by technology, reminders of our place on Earth and in time are ever more important.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Auping, M., Clark, R. (2011). Phenomenal: California light, space, surface. London: University of California Press. Bachelard, G. (1994). The poetics of space. Boston: Beacon Press. Baldwin, T. (2007). Reading Merleau-Ponty: on phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge. Beccaria, M., Eliasson, O. (2013). Olafur Eliasson: OE, modern artists. London: Tate Publishing. Bjone, C. (2009). Art + architecture: strategies in collaboration. Basel: Birkhäuser. Bonnemaison, S., Eisenbach, R. (2009). Installations by architects: experiments in building and design. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Brown, J. (1985). Occluded front: James Turrell. Los Angeles: The Lapis Press. Butterfield, J. (1993). The art of light + space. New York: Abbeville. Descottes, H., Ramos, C.E., (2011). Architectural lighting: designing with light and space. Enfield: Princeton Architectural Press, Enfield. Eliasson, O., Thorsen, K. (2007). Serpentine gallery pavilion 2007: Olafur Eliasson and Kjetil Thorsen. Baden: Lars Müuller. Eliasson, O. (2012). Leer es respirar, es devenir: escritos de Olafur Eliasson. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili. Eliasson, O., Behmann, S. (2014). ‘Studio Other Spaces’. [Online]. Available at http://www.studiootherspaces.net (Accessed: February 14 2018) Eliasson, O. (2016). Unspoken spaces: Studio Olafur Eliasson. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd. Feldman, M.E. (2015). Another minimalism, art after California light and space. Edinburgh: Fruitmarket Gallery. Fernie, J. (2006). Two minds: artists and architects in collaboration. London: Black Dog. Gilbert, C. (2004). ‘Olafur Eliasson by Chris Gilbert’. Bomb Magazine. 1 July [Online]. Available at https://bombmagazine.org/ articles/olafur-eliasson/ (Accessed: 04 March 2018) Govan, M., Kim, C.Y. (2013). James Turrell: a retrospective. London: Prestel. Grima, J. (2011). ‘Eliasson’s Kaleidoscope’. Domus. 8 September [Online]. Available at https://www.domusweb.it/en/ architecture/2011/09/08/eliasson-s-kaleidoscope.html (Accessed: 12 February 2018) Grynsztejn, M., Speaks, M., Birnbaum, D., 2002. Olafur Eliasson, Contemporary artists. London: Phaidon. Grynsztejn, M., Bal, M. (2007). Olafur Eliasson: Take your time. London: Thames & Hudson. Hale, J. (2016). Merleau-Ponty for architects. London: Routledge. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time, trans. Macquarrie, J & Robinson, E. New York: HarperColins. Haddad, E. (2010). ‘Christian Norberg-Schulz’s phenomenological project in architecture’, Architecture Theory Review 15(1), pp. 88–101. Holl, S., Pérez-Gómez, A., Pallasmaa, J. (1994). Questions of perception: phenomenology of architecture. Tokyo: A & U Publishing. Holl, S. (2000). Parallax. Boston: Princeton Architectural Press. Irwin, R., Weschler, L. (1985). Being and circumstance: notes toward a conditional art. Calif: Lapis Press. Johansen, C.G. (2016). ‘Kirk Kapital - Et kunstværk med egen adresse – og glade naboer’. Mirkopol. [Online]. Available at: http:// www.mikropol.dk/nyheder/et-kunstvaerk-med-egen-adresse-og-glade-naboer/ (Accessed: 12 March 2018). Kahn, L.I., Latour, A. (1991). Louis I. Kahn: writings, lectures, interviews. New York: Rizzoli International Publications. Kuma, K. (2008). Anti-object: the dissolution and disintegration of architecture. London: Architectural Association. ‘Landmarks Features: A Conversation with James Turrell’. (2013). added by LandmarksUT. [Online Video]. 25 October 2013. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsGxFiFsxY8. [Accessed: 14 February 2018]. Larson, K. (2004). ‘I Slept in Roden Crater’. ARTnews. 6 January [Online]. Available at http://www.artnews.com/2004/06/01/i-slept- in-roden-crater/ (Accessed: 28 January 2018) Lewis, M., Staehler, T. (2010). Phenomenology: an introduction. London: Continuum.

Mallgrave, H.F. (2011). The architect’s brain: neuroscience, creativity, and architecture. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Margolius, I. (ed.). (2003). Art and architecture, architectural design profile. London: Wiley-Academy. Moore, R. (2011). ‘Harpa – review’. Observer. 28 August [Online]. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/ aug/28/harpa-concert-hall-eliasson-reykjavik (Accessed: 29 December 2017) Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). The primacy of perception. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2013). Phenomenology of perception, trans. M. Landes. London: D.A Routledge. Muschamp, H., Wines, J. (1989). SITE. New York: Rizzoli. Norberg-Schulz, C. (1965). Intentions in architecture. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Norberg-Schulz, C. (1974). Existence, space & architecture. New York: Praeger. Norberg-Schulz, C. (1980). Genius loci: towards a phenomenology of architecture. New York: Rizzoli. Olafur Eliasson in Conversation with Tim Marlow. (2016). added by Royal Academy of Arts. [Online Video]. 4 May 2016. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KmUFPZxp6E&t=5s. [Accessed: 4 March 2018]. Pallasmaa, J. (2005). The eyes of the skin: architecture and the senses. Chichester: Wiley-Academy. Plummer, H. (2012a). Nordic light: modern Scandinavian architecture. London: Thames & Hudson. Plummer, H. (2012b). The architecture of natural light. London: Thames & Hudson. Ramos, E.V. (2015). Light in architecture: the intangible material. Newcastle upon Tyne: RIBA Publishing. Rasmussen, S.E. (1962). Experiencing architecture. Cambridge, Mass: MIT. Rendell, J. (2006). Art and architecture: a place between. London: I. B. Tauris. Schmidt Hammer Lassen. (2008). Outline: Architecture by Schmidt Hammer Lassen. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag AG. Sokolowski, R. (2000). Introduction to phenomenology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sørensen, J. (2018) Conversation with Matthew Wreglesworth, 14 March. Sørensen, J., Svendler, H., Thau, C., Nipper, M., Eliasson, O. (2011). Olafur Eliasson your rainbow panorama. Aarhus: Realdania. Sharr, A. (2007). Heidegger for architects. London: Routledge. Speirs, J., Major, M., Tischhauser, A. (2004). Made of light: the art of light and architecture. Basel: Birkhauser. Tamari, T. (2016). ‘The phenomenology of architecture: a short intodruction to Juhani Pallasmaa’, Body & Society 23(1), 91–95. Tanizaki, J. (2001). In praise of shadows. London: Vintage. Thorsteinn, E., Eliasson, O. (2002). To the habitants of space in general and the spatial inhabitants in particular. Vienna: BAWAG Foundation Edition Tuchman, M. (1971). A report on the art and technology program of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1967-1971. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Turrell, J., Schütze, P., Bright, R. (1999). James Turrell: eclipse. London: Michael Hue-Williams Fine Art. Turrell, J., Wolfsburg, K. (2009). James Turrell: the Wolfsburg Project. Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz. Weber, E., Bauman, I., Eliasson, O. (2014.) ‘Can art inspire climate change action? An ice installation aims to do just that’. the Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/oct/23/climate-change-ice- watch-installation-art-greenland-copenhagen-ipcc (Accessed: 09 March 2018). Weschler, L. (2008). Seeing is forgetting the name of the thing one sees: over thirty years of conversations with Robert Irwin. Berkeley: University of California Press. Zumthor, P. (2006). Atmospheres: architectural environments; surrounding objects. Basel: Birkhauser. Zumthor, P. (2010). Thinking architecture. Boston: Birkhauser.

IMAGE REFERENCES Figure 1. James Turrell, Afrum (White) (1966) [Online]. Available at: http://jamesturrell.com/work/afrum-white/ [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 2. James Turrell, Mendota Stoppages (1969) [Online]. Available at: http://media.rhizome.org/blog/2689/ MendotaStoppageturrell.jpg [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 3. James Turrell, Wedgework 3 (1974) [Online]. Available at: http://jamesturrell.com/work/wedgework3/ [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 4 & 5. James Turrell, The Colour Inside (2013) [Online]. Available at: https://turrell.utexas.edu/ [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 6 & 7. James Turrell, Deer Shelter (2007) [Online]. Available at: http://archive.jamesturrell.com/artwork/deershelter/ [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 8. Olafur Eliasson, Suney (1995) [Online]. Available at: http://olafureliasson.net/archive/artwork/WEK101782/suney [Accessed 5 April 2018]. Figure 9. Olafur Eliasson, Your Sun Machine (1997) [Online]. Available at: http://olafureliasson.net/archive/artwork/WEK101686/ your-sun-machine [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 10. Olafur Eliasson and, Kjetil Thorsen, Serpentine Pavilion (2007) [Online]. Available at: http://olafureliasson.net/archive/ artwork/WEK100452/serpentine-gallery-pavilion [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 11. Herzog & de Meuron and Thomas Ruff, Eberswalde Senior Technical School (1996) [Online]. Available at: https://www. herzogdemeuron.com/index/projects/complete-works/101-125/105-eberswalde-technical-school-library.html [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 10. Olafur Eliasson, Your Body of Work (2011) [Online]. Available at: http://olafureliasson.net/archive/artwork/ WEK107097/seu-corpo-da-obra-your-body-of-work [Accessed 6 April 2018]. Figure 11. Olafur Eliasson, Riverbed (2014) [Online] Available at: http://olafureliasson.net/archive/exhibition/EXH102282/ riverbed [Accessed 6 April 2018]. Figure 12. James Turrell, The Light Inside (1999) [Online]. Available at: https://www.behance.net/gallery/29351019/Into-The- Heart-The-Light-Inside-James-Turrell [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 13. Olafur Eliasson, The Weather Project (2004) [Online]. Available at: http://olafureliasson.net/archive/exhibition/ EXH101069/the-weather-project [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 14. Olafur Eliasson, Your Embodied Garden (2013) [Online]. Available at: https://twitter.com/guymannesabbott/ status/331022147759779841 [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 15. Olafur Eliasson, Ice Watch (2014) [Online]. Available at: http://olafureliasson.net/archive/artwork/WEK109190/ice- watch [Accessed 6 April 2018]. Figure 16. James Turrell, Roden Crater (1977 - ) [Online]. Available at: http://rodencrater.com/about / [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 17. James Turrell, Roden Crater, (1977 - ) Site Plan 1983 [Online]. Available at: https://theredlist.com/wiki-2-19-879-606- 201931-view-turrell-james-1-profile-turrell-james-roden-crater-project.html [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 18. James Turrell, Roden Crater (1977 - ), North Space Model [Online]. Available at: http://rodencrater.com/spaces/north- spaces/ [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 19. James Turrell, Roden Crater (1977 - ), South Space Model [Online]. Available at: http://rodencrater.com/spaces/south- space/ [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 20. James Turrell, Roden Crater (1977 - ), South Space Celestial Diagram [Online]. Available at: http://rodencrater.com/ celestial-events/ [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 21. James Turrell, Roden Crater (1977 - ), Crater Bowl [Online]. Available at: http://rodencrater.com/spaces/crater-bowl/ [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 22. James Turrell, Roden Crater (1977 - ), Crater Bowl [Online]. Available at: http://rodencrater.com/spaces/crater-bowl/ [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 23. James Turrell, Roden Crater (1977 - ), Viewing Benches [Online]. Available at: https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/ ondemand/index.php/prog/00BFD708?bcast=30891149 [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 24. James Turrell, Roden Crater (1977 - ), Celestial Vaulting [Online]. Available at: https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/ ondemand/index.php/prog/00BFD708?bcast=30891149 [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 25. James Turrell, Roden Crater (1977 - ), Eastern Portal [Online]. Available at: http://rodencrater.com/spaces/east-portal/ [Accessed 1 April 2018].

Figure 26. Schmidt Hammer Lassen and James Turrell, ARoS Next Level (2020), External Visualisation [Online]. Available at: http://www.shl.dk/aros-the-next-level/ [Accessed 1 April 2018]. Figure 27. Schmidt Hammer Lassen and James Turrell, ARoS Next Level (2020), Internal Visualisation [Online]. Available at: http://www.shl.dk/aros-the-next-level/ [Accessed 1 April 2018]. Figure 28. Schmidt Hammer Lassen and James Turrell, ARoS Next Level (2020), Site Plan [Online]. Available at: http://www.shl.dk/ aros-the-next-level/ [Accessed 1 April 2018]. Figure 29. Schmidt Hammer Lassen and James Turrell, ARoS Next Level (2020), Aerial Visualisation [Online]. Available at: http:// www.shl.dk/aros-the-next-level/ [Accessed 1 April 2018]. Figure 30. Olafur Eliasson, Your Rainbow Panorama (2011) [Online]. Available at: http://olafureliasson.net/archive/artwork/ WEK100551/your-rainbow-panorama [Accessed 6 April 2018]. Figure 31. Olafur Eliasson, Your Rainbow Panorama (2011) External View [Online]. Available at: http://olafureliasson.net/archive/ artwork/WEK100551/your-rainbow-panorama [Accessed 6 April 2018]. Figure 32. Olafur Eliasson, Room for one Colour (1997) [Online]. Available at: http://olafureliasson.net/archive/artwork/ WEK101676/room-for-one-colour [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 33. Olafur Eliasson, Your Rainbow Panorama (2011) [Online]. Available at: http://olafureliasson.net/archive/artwork/ WEK100551/your-rainbow-panorama [Accessed 6 April 2018]. Figure 34. Henning Larsen Architects and Olafur Eliasson, Harpa Concert Hall (2007) [Online]. Available at: https:// henninglarsen.com/en/projects/featured/0676-harpa-concert-hall-and-conference-center [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 35. Olafur Eliasson, 5-Dimensional Pavilion (1998) [Online]. Available at: http://olafureliasson.net/archive/artwork/ WEK101537/5-dimensionel-pavillon [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 36. Olafur Eliasson, 8900054 (1996) [Online]. Available at: http://olafureliasson.net/archive/artwork/WEK101537/5- dimensionel-pavillon [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 37. Henning Larsen Architects and Olafur Eliasson, Harpa Concert Hall (2007), View across harbour [Online]. Available at: https://www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/2011/09/08/eliasson-s-kaleidoscope.html [Accessed 8 April 2018]. Figure 38. Henning Larsen Architects and Olafur Eliasson, Harpa Concert Hall (2007), Foyer [Online]. Available at: https://www. domusweb.it/en/architecture/2011/09/08/eliasson-s-kaleidoscope.html [Accessed 8 April 2018]. Figure 39. Henning Larsen Architects and Olafur Eliasson, Harpa Concert Hall (2007), Rear Elevation [Online]. Available at: https://www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/2011/09/08/eliasson-s-kaleidoscope.html [Accessed 8 April 2018]. Figure 40. Olafur Eliasson, Fjordenhus (2018) [Online]. Available at: http://www.olafureliasson.net/current/page/2 [Accessed 10 April 2018]. Figure 41. Olafur Eliasson, Fjordenhus (2018), View from roof a. [Online]. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/p/ BgOhUiqnxHm/?hl=en&taken-by=studioolafureliasson [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 42. Olafur Eliasson, Fjordenhus (2018), Brick vaulting [Online]. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/p/ BexVZBBnNCH/?hl=en&taken-by=studioolafureliasson [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 43. Olafur Eliasson, Fjordenhus (2018), Brick details - exterior [Online]. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/p/ BexXmxPHm3o/?hl=en&taken-by=studioolafureliasson [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 44. Olafur Eliasson, Fjordenhus (2018), View from roof b. [Online]. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/pg/ studioolafureliasson/photos/ [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 45. Olafur Eliasson, Fjordenhus (2018), Brick details- interior [Online]. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/pg/ studioolafureliasson/photos/ [Accessed 2 April 2018]. Figure 50 & 51. Olafur Eliasson, Room for one Colour (1997) [Online]. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/ roomforonecolour/?hl=en [Accessed 8 April 2018]. Figure 52 & 53. Olafur Eliasson, Multiple Shadow House (2010) [Online]. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/ multipleshadowhouse/?hl=en [Accessed 8 April 2018]. Figure 54 & 55. Olafur Eliasson, Your Rainbow Panorama (2011) [Online]. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/ yourrainbowpanorama/?hl=en [Accessed 8 April 2018]. Figure 56 & 57. Olafur Eliasson, Harpa Concert Hall (2010) [Online]. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/ harpaconcerthall/?hl=en [Accessed 8 April 2018].

APPENDIX

Olafur Eliasson Your Rainbow Panorama

Photos from Instagram with the hashtag #yourrainbowpanorama 32 most recent photos as of 08/04/2018

Olafur Eliasson/Henning Larsen Architects Harpa Concert Hall

Photos from Instagram with the hashtag #harpaconcerthall 32 most recent photos as of 08/04/2018

Olafur Eliasson Room For One Colour

Photos from Instagram with the hashtag #roomforonecolour 32 most recent photos as of 08/04/2018

Olafur Eliasson Multiple Shadow House

Photos from Instagram with the hashtag #multipleshadowhouse 32 most recent photos as of 08/04/2018

Conversation between Matthew Wreglesworth and Jacob Sørensen of Schmidt Hammer Lassen Architects. 14/03/2018 Matthew Wreglesworth: Could you give me an overview of the project in which Schmidt Hammer Lassen (SHL) are talking working with James Turrell?

Jacob Sørensen: We are building an extension to the ARoS Museum and it is a large underground exhibition space which consists of a large gallery and a quite significant dome which breaks the surface and becomes visible in the city space. M: Was it the museum who organised the collaboration between SHL and Turrell? J: Yes it was. Initially it started off with the museum needing additional exhibition space and then the museum got a new director and he came up with the idea of turning the new exhibition space into a collaboration with an artist. That could be to get more attention from the significant funders who are willing to go into a venture like this. M: Who did the initial sketches for this project? J: With the old director we did the initial drawings and sketches for an extension, but then came along the new director and James Turrell and they took up the idea that we needed to do an underground excavation, an extension for the museum, because the museum today is above the surface and it is impossible to add any more to it. First of all, the museum is a clean cube standing on the terrain with the Eliasson rainbow (Your Rainbow Panorama) hovering above it, so we knew instantly that we couldn’t do anything on the exterior part of the existing museum. The sloping terrain becomes beneficial to the extension because we can expand the museum quite a lot underground, but that is not an easy task. Turrell came up with the idea of a dome, which is something that he had done studies of at a much smaller scale - so we had that as a carrot to chase. First we did a sphere and then we did a dome and it ended up with the dome. M: I think I saw some drawings where there was a sphere and a dome. Is that no longer the case? J: Yes, but the sphere was too radical as it would have involved too much excavation. But that is where it is today. It still has this intermediate large gallery which has no columns and is almost the same size as the existing footprint of the museum, which is quite a unique exhibition space. Of course you can exhibit when you have columns but you can exhibit much larger items here. M: What has Turrell’s input been in the design process? J: We had some initial sketches and we had been working a lot in section because it is an underground project and then we made a lot of models of different sizes of domes. Then we took all of this to ARoS where we had a workshop week and Turrell came over to see the city and the museum and also PR-wise it was good to have him here. There was a lot of media and press attention that week. Then in the free time between all of these meetings and media things we got him one-on-one to evaluate what we needed to do and what we shouldn’t do. He came up with a lot of ideas, he is a free-spirit, so he says whatever he wants of course, and some of the ideas were quite bold - he doesn’t look at who owns which plot of land, he just put in strokes and lines and heights some of which were a bit too radical. He works in the large scale but then he will also zoom in to a very specific detail in the building which are very much needed in order to fulfil the art installation. He works in both the specific and abstract scale. We received a lot of input from him during those meetings - we had a lot of things to do and a lot of ideas to chase and when he went back to America we corresponded with him. M: Following the workshop and after you had developed the initial ideas, was Turrell happy with how the design we progressing?

J: Of course there is always back and forth. That’s why we design and spend so much time adjusting or design and being critical at all stages - so that was quite natural. The tricky part for us as architects is that we have to maintain the economy within the project or at least have an idea of “if we do this, that will cost a certain amount, but how does that affect the overall economy?” This meant we had to adjust the ambitions quite a lot, but still ended up with the large gallery and the dome. M: Do you know why it was Turrell who was the chosen artist for this project? J: I don’t know exactly why. He is one of the big names out there, and they already had Eliasson on the roof. But I think it is important for them to have an artist who is able to manoeuvre within the field of architecture. He does a lot of interesting things with his installations and they require the construction of physical space so of course that would narrow down the gallery’s choices. I still think it is quite a new thing to do a collaboration with an artist on a specific building which is quite cool. Normally it involves buying a big installation or doing something temporary like the Serpentine Gallery has done for many years and also museums in Japan do similar things - but this is doing something different. M: So that is what I am really interested with this project, for example Eliasson’s work on the Harpa Concert Hall in Reykjavik, where that art is integrated into the architecture rather than being an add-on or purely for decoration. J: You could say that Eliasson managed to do the same with the Rainbow on top of the museum. It is a very good example of how to integrate art, architecture and public space. It really has a clear function, but it also has an artistic presence. M: Would you say that the new extension with Turrell is a piece of architecture, a piece of art, or somewhere in-between? J: I would call it a piece of architecture. But a piece of architecture that has an artistic foundation. The shape, the way the detailing is done and the way that the lighting is placed gives you the Turrell feeling of ‘the infinite light’. The dome is an open space and therefore not climatized and follows the seasons and natural phenomena, taking them into the museum and putting them on a pedestal. For instance, when it snows, the snow will be lit up from the dome, looking as if the snow is appearing from one point - the point where the light meets the dome. Similar to when you drive in snowy weather with the lights turned on and it looks like the now it is appearing from nowhere - that is just one of the phenomena you will be able to see from within the museum - that is the art part of it. M: And does Turrell have other creative people working with him? J: Of course, he has other people working in his studio, but none of them attended the workshop here is Aarhus. I’m not sure if the people working with him are artists or architects but he has someone doing the technical drawings for him as he is not familiar with Revit or AutoCAD or those sorts of things.