Enhancing Sensuous Experience: Peter Zumthor’s ‘Bruder Klaus Field Chapel’ by Peter Byrne

Enhancing Sensuous Experience: Peter Zumthor’s ‘Bruder Klaus Field Chapel’ in Wachendorf, Germany, 2007

With special thanks to Professor Florian Urban and Charlie Sutherland for the guidance and feedback they gave me during tutorial discussions. Also, to my Dad, Mum and brother for their support and accompanying me to visit the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel in July 2015.

Enhancing Sensuous Experience: Peter Zumthor’s ‘Bruder Klaus Field Chapel’ in Wachendorf, Germany, 2007

Peter Byrne | 17014484 Research Project 4 Module Coordinator | Professor Florian Urban Supervisor | Charlie Sutherland Word Count: 10,628 17.04.2018

Contents Introduction

Phenomenological discourse in architecture: The notion of dwelling in architecture during the second half of the 20th century and early 21st century

Zumthor’s contribution to the discourse through the integration of Martin Heidegger’s notions of ‘dwelling’ and the ‘fourfold’ at the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel (1998-2007): 12

I .

Design process: Evoking the senses through making

I I.

Construction process: Primitive methods and exploitation of the inherent sensory potential of materials

I II.

Visual analysis: Martin Heidegger’s philosophies in practice:

Creating place: A sensory journey and connection with the site

Spatial sequence: A vestibule, nave and oculus, including comparisons with past structures

Observable phenomena: The ‘fourfold’ and the four elements of earth, air, fire and water

I V.

Spirit, presence and memory: Narrative with the life of Bruder Klaus

Conclusion

Bibliography

Image Resource List

Introduction In 1998, an elderly German farming couple, named HermannJosef and Trudel Scheidtweiler, wrote a letter to, Swiss architect, Peter Zumthor asking if he would design a ‘plan’ for a chapel in their field in Wachendorf, Germany (see Fig. 1). The selection of Zumthor resulted from the architect’s previous success at the new Diocesan Museum competition in nearby Cologne, in 1997, which had gained him a substantial reputation in the local newspaper and the Scheidtweilers’ admiration.1 After numerous decades of affiliation with the Catholic Rural People’s Movement, the couple wished to honour the movement’s patron saint, Niklaus von Flüe, out of thankfulness for a good and fulfilling life as well as praising God and the earth.2 Despite having little time, due to his recent competition win, Zumthor accepted the commission, in a handwritten letter to the couple, outlining that the saint, also known as Bruder Klaus, was his mother’s favourite and is the patron saint of Switzerland.3 Zumthor asked the couple to pick him up on his next trip to Cologne but forewarned that he only created contemporary architecture and would be required to determine every component of the chapel’s construction, down to the last nail.4 The architect was in fact picked up several times by the couple, at the Diocesan Museum construction site in Cologne, and provided dinner whilst the trio endlessly discussed the project.5 However, in Zumthor’s relentless push to produce a suitable atmosphere for the chapel, through the choreography of a sensuous experience, he almost impaired his relationship with the Scheidtweilers despite admitting they were ideal clients.6 Zumthor worked on the chapel’s design for nine years, waiving his payment and only accepting a nominal fee for his atelier staff, until construction work began in October 2005, undertaken by the commissioning couple, alongside friends and local artisans.7 The Bruder Klaus Field Chapel was consecrated, by Cologne’s auxiliary bishop, on the 29th of May 2007 and has, since its completion, attracted the attention of as many architects, photographers and journalists as it has Catholic pilgrims.8 Today, the chapel is a notable example of contemporary sacred architecture, but many critics who have praised the chapel have not experienced it in person. Instead, basing their opinions on a particular string of photographs published in architectural journals or online, such as those by Hélène Binet, due to the instantaneous nature of global media (see Fig. 2). Thus, the chapel’s agreed noteworthiness is profoundly determined by the framing of a camera lens upon its photogenic flanks.9 Critics have had varied opinions of the chapel ranging from reverence to disgust. One local, named Alexandra Reucher, expressed that they had not even noticed the chapel despite living nearby whilst another expressed that the chapel did not fit in with the surrounding landscape.10 Similarly, a project architect at Zumthor’s atelier has noted that a monk expressed discontent

towards the completed structure as the interior did not relate to the exterior form and the chapel was not overtly Christian.11 However, impressions in the chapel’s guestbook praise the chapel as a “good place for prayer…[where] time is meaningless” and a “wonderful place where God can dwell”.12 By basing their opinions on published photographs, instead of personal experience, many critics fail to notice that the chapel’s sensuous experience is fundamentally linked to participation within the material context, comprising of building and landscape.13 The architecture and its setting offer sensory engagement through personal experience, but these experiential dimensions dissipate when the chapel is considered solely as a visual representation. Likewise, to consider the architecture through the complicit influence of a photographer is disparate from Zumthor’s belief that one can only truly understand a building through personal experience.14 In the same year of accepting the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel commission, in 1998, Zumthor’s architecture first became prominent through a monograph entitled ‘Peter Zumthor, Works: Buildings and Projects, 1979-1997’.15 The publication’s introduction discusses a quotation from, German philosopher, Martin Heidegger’s ‘Building Dwelling Thinking’ and thus indicates Zumthor’s knowledge of, and affinity with, the philosophical text.16 Zumthor, like Heidegger, has displayed anti-academic tendencies throughout his career, expressing disdain for ‘theory’ and preference for intuition.17 Furthermore, Zumthor has said that when he reads the philosopher’s writings, he understands Heidegger as “longing for the primeval, for a sense of belonging, of being at home” as well as looking for the essential and not for fashion.18 Current literature by Gunter Dittmar highlights that although Heidegger’s essay, ‘Building Dwelling Thinking’, is renowned amongst architectural circles, and frequently cited by architects, it has had curiously little impact upon the practice of architecture.19 However, conversely, it has been suggested that when Zumthor considers the sensuous and atmospheric potential of spaces and materials, he responds to Heidegger and his notions of dwelling and place.20 Most notably, Adam Sharr has suggested that there are “intriguing correspondences” between Heidegger’s writings and Zumthor’s earlier project for Thermal Baths in Vals, Switzerland, completed in 1996, but the author has not made an analogy with the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel.21 These interpretations by Dittmar and Sharr give validity for an investigation into the influence of the Heidegger’s ‘Building Dwelling Thinking’ at the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel. As such, this paper will investigate ‘How did Peter Zumthor create a space that enhances sensuous experience at the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel in Wachendorf, Germany, 2007?’ In this research question, ‘sensuous’ refers to the engagement with or gratification of one or more of the bodily senses and will be investigated concerning the chapel’s

Fig. 1: Farmer harvesting wheat at the Scheidtweilers’ farm in Wachendorf.

Fig. 2: Selective series of black and white photographs of the completed Bruder Klaus Field Chapel published by, architectural photographer, HĂŠlĂ¨ne Binet.

design process, chosen construction methods and materials, site context, spatial sequence, observable phenomena and narrative with the saint’s life. The research project will use methodology including a visual analysis of the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel conducted from a first-hand experience of the building, personal photographs alongside a literature review of published books, articles, interviews and archive materials. Additionally, to aid with answering the research question, comparisons and contrasts will be made with other structures, including castle ruins in Zumthor’s home region of Graubünden, the architect’s earlier project for the Chapel of Saint Benedict in Sumvitg as well as historic places of worship which make use of oculi. The paper will now begin by examining the phenomenological discourse in architecture, taking the publication ‘Building Dwelling Thinking’ written in 1951 by Heidegger as central to the discussion. It aims to highlight the text’s influence on not just thinkers but also architects, during the latter half of the 20th century and early 21st century, including Peter Zumthor in the years preceding the design of the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel.22

Beatrice Galilee, ‘Bruder Klaus Chapel’, Icon 50 (2007), https://www.iconeye. com/opinion/rethink/item/2360-bruder-klaus-chapel-%7C-icon-050-%7Caugust-2007. 9

Pallister, Sacred Spaces: Contemporary Religious Architecture, 126.

Adam Sharr, ‘Burning Bruder Klaus: Towards an Architecture of Slipstream’, in Virilio Now: Current Perspectives in Virilio, ed. John Armitage (Cambridge: Polity, 2011), 57. 10

Galilee, ‘Bruder Klaus Chapel’.

Fritzsche, ‘Wie ein Bauer aus Wachendorf in der Eifel den Schweizer Stararchitekten Peter Zumthor dazu bewegte, eine Kapelle für sein Feld zu entwerfen’. 11

Pavlina Andrea Lucas, ‘Bruder Klaus Feldkapelle’, Pavlina Andrea Lucas, accessed 18 January 2018, http://www.pavlinalucas.com/1993-2010/fbk.html. 12

Signer, ‘Die Bruder Klaus-Kapelle von Peter Zumthor in Der Eifel’, 2.

Mark Wynn, ‘Phenomenology of Religion’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 28 January 2018, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ phenomenology-religion/. 14

Alireza Khodadadian, ‘Sensuality | Architecture: Bruder Klaus Chapel by Peter Zumthor’ (Issuu, 2016), 17, https://issuu.com/alireza110/docs/theory_ assignment_1_final_final. 15

Lara Fritzsche, ‘Wie ein Bauer aus Wachendorf in der Eifel den Schweizer Stararchitekten Peter Zumthor dazu bewegte, eine Kapelle für sein Feld zu entwerfen’, Die Zeit, 19 April 2007, 17 edition, http://www.gat.st/news/ sonntag-177. Peter Davey, ‘Zumthor’s Diocesan Museum Shows Clearly and Movingly the Continuity of Christian Faith’, The Architectural Review, no. 1373 (July 2011): 37. 2

Markus Juraschek-Eckstein and Bergisch Gladbach, ‘Mechernich-Wachendorf | Bruder-Klaus-Kapelle: Der Weg Heraus Nach Innen’, Straße Der Moderne: Kirchen in Deutschland, accessed 30 September 2017, http://www.strasse-dermoderne.de/portfolio/wachendorf-bruder-klaus/. James Pallister, Sacred Spaces: Contemporary Religious Architecture (London: Phaidon, 2015), 126–31. 3

Juraschek-Eckstein and Gladbach, ‘Mechernich-Wachendorf | Bruder-KlausKapelle: Der Weg Heraus Nach Innen’. Wallfahrt Sachseln, ‘The Life of Brother Klaus’, Bruder Klaus, accessed 22 October 2017, http://www.bruderklaus.com/?id=209. Layla Dawson, ‘Refusing the Spotlight, Peter Zumthor Designs Quiet Buildings That Still Attract Devotees’, Architectural Record 196, no. 1 (January 2008): 48. 4

Walter Signer, ‘Die Bruder Klaus-Kapelle von Peter Zumthor in Der Eifel’, Bruder Klaus Rundbrief, September 2014, 4, http://bruderklaus.com/download/ verschiedenes/000293.pdf. 5

Fritzsche, ‘Wie ein Bauer aus Wachendorf in der Eifel den Schweizer Stararchitekten Peter Zumthor dazu bewegte, eine Kapelle für sein Feld zu entwerfen’. 6

Patrick Lynch, ‘Peter Zumthor Speaks to the Architects’ Journal’, Architects Journal, accessed 3 January 2018, https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/peterzumthor-speaks-to-the-architects-journal/5200097.article. 7

Michael Kimmelman, ‘The Ascension of Peter Zumthor’, The New York Times Magazine, accessed 11 January 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/ magazine/mag-13zumthor-t.html. 8

Dawson, ‘Refusing the Spotlight, Peter Zumthor Designs Quiet Buildings That Still Attract Devotees’.

Peter Zumthor and Hélène Binet, Peter Zumthor, Works: Buildings and Projects, 1979-1997 (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998). 16

Adam Sharr, Heidegger for Architects, Thinkers for Architects: (London and New York: Routledge, 2007), 91–92. 17

Ibid., 4.

Michael Badu, ‘Peter Zumthor: The Swiss Shaman’, The Architectural Review, Think Piece, 2014, https://www.architectural-review.com/rethink/reviews/peterzumthor-the-swiss-shaman/8667039.article. Paul Clemence, ‘Q&A: Swiss Master Peter Zumthor on the Importance of Beauty and Relying on Intuition’, Metropolis: Architecture Design, accessed 28 February 2018, http://www.metropolismag.com/architecture/swiss-master-peter-zumthorimportance-of-beauty-relying-intuition/. 18

Hanno Rauterberg, ‘Schutzbauten des Widerstands’, Die Zeit, 31 October 2001, sec. Kultur, http://www.zeit.de/2001/45/Schutzbauten_des_Widerstands. Bernhard E. Bürdek, Design: History, Theory and Practice of Product Design (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005), 384. Zumthor goes to the essence of things: An Interview with Peter Zumthor, interview by Jeremy Melvin, 2006, Royal Academy of Arts, http://www.royalacademy.org. uk/architecture/interviews/zumthor,267,AR.htm. 19

Gunter A. Dittmar, ‘Architecture as Dwelling and Building: Design as Ontological Act’, in Bauen Und Wohnen: Martin Heideggers Grundlegung Einer Phänomenologie Der Architektur (Münster and New York: Waxmann, 2000), 165–66. 20

Richard Coyne, ‘Inconspicuous Architecture’, Reflections on Technology, Media & Culture, accessed 1 January 2018, https://richardcoyne.com/2011/12/31/ inconspicuous-architecture/. 21

Sharr, Heidegger for Architects, 92.

Zumthor and Binet, Peter Zumthor, Works: Buildings and Projects, 1979-1997, 154. 22

Sharr, Heidegger for Architects, 5.

Jonas Holst, ‘Rethinking Dwelling and Building. On Martin Heidegger’s Conception of Being as Dwelling and Jørn Utzon’s Architecture of Well-Being’, ZARCH, Rethinking, remaking, 2 (2014): 53.

Phenomenological discourse in architecture:

The notion of ‘dwelling’ in architecture during the second half of the 20th century and early 21st century Predominantly, the phenomenological discourse in architecture has been defined by two main figures, namely, German philosopher, Martin Heidegger and, French philosopher, Maurice MerleauPonty.23 As a student, Heidegger studied under Edmund Husserl, a German philosopher and founder of the phenomenology movement, whose 20th century theories suggested that “pure phenomenology is the science of pure consciousness” (see Fig. 6).24 Heidegger’s work in the 21st century built upon Husserl’s earlier philosophies but predominantly focused on ontology, the study of being, which Heidegger accessed through a phenomenological analysis of human existence and the sensory experiences within it.25 The phenomenological approach to architecture aims at recapturing a sense of the world whilst it was still full of the unknown, such as mystery, magic, the sacred and when humanity engaged directly with the world through stimulation of all the senses rather than only through the eye and mind at an intellectual distance. The movement adopts this position in order to counter the ocularcentrism of modernism, which prioritised science and technology in its world-view and inspired the rigid, geometrical aesthetics of the modernist city that was dissatisfactory to the existential reality of a person’s being in the world. Furthermore, architectural phenomenology focuses on instinct and experience, rather than academic knowledge, and can be understood as a conscientious response to philosophical challenges.26

The essay ‘Building Dwelling Thinking’ was later published, in 1954, and became one of the most influential texts not only for philosophical thinkers but also architects, during the latter half of the 20th century and early 21st century.31 The text’s popularity has been equated by, architectural historian, Mark Jarzombek to the fact it was over one hundred years since a major philosopher had expressed themselves on the topic of architecture. Undoubtedly, a concernment with the architectural underpins aspects of the philosophical text as Heidegger believed the metaphysical condition of being situated in the world was intrinsically linked with the question of dwelling. Furthermore, Jarzombek believes that “after Heidegger all architecture, philosophically speaking, underwent a transformation.”32 The publication begins by expressing that a structure is fundamentally designed for man’s dwelling. Yet, Heidegger soon undermines the simplicity of his initial statement by arguing that not all structures are designed for dwelling, which may seem apparent if one considers factories or office buildings. Within this context, Heidegger examines the relationship between building and dwelling, questioning what it means to dwell, how does the act of building relate to dwelling as well as whether building, in itself, allows for dwelling?

Arguably, one of the most significant of these challenges originated from the text ‘Bauen Wohnen Denken’ (Building Dwelling Thinking) first presented by Martin Heidegger as a lecture at a conference, entitled ‘Mensch und Raum’ (Man and Space), in Darmstadt in 1951 (see Fig. 3).27 The given title, ‘Man and Space’, attracted a broad academic audience, consisting of architects, engineers as well as philosophers, and included a photographic exhibition of work by some of the most prolific 20th century modernist architects including Le Corbusier, Adolf Loos and Walter Gropius amongst others.28 Nevertheless, the real purpose of the Darmstadt conference was to examine the problems of post–World War II reconstruction and the ongoing lack of housing.29

Heidegger argues that the modern world has muddled up the understanding of the relationship between building and dwelling, with building not being associated with our state of existence in the world. The act of building, strictly speaking, is not just a solution to the functional need of providing shelter. Rather, building constitutes as a part of tradition, bestowing upon communities and enabling them to experience a shared sense of the present, shaped by the past and likely future. At the time of writing, in the aftermath of World War II, Heidegger believed that there was a harmful division occurring between the act of building and dwelling.33 The philosopher’s feelings pertained to the postwar German housing crisis in which he believed the observable problem of a lack of houses, built of bricks and mortar, was not the real problem for humanity but rather the need to re-examine the nature of dwelling.34

Heidegger’s lecture surpassed the practical issues of tackling the housing shortage and instead questioned whether the houses reconstructed by modernist architects, which he acknowledged as well planned, attractively cheap and open to light, would hold any guarantee that dwelling occurs in them. Due to the provocative nature of the question posed, there was a mixed reaction from the architects attending the conference, varying from a sense of discomfort and questioning of the validity of the philosopher’s contribution to others, like Hans Scharoun, who could barely contain their enthusiasm.30

In rebuilding, modernist architects had not produced places ‘to dwell’, but rather a continuous extent of housing, factories and roads.35 There was too much emphasis placed upon technical progress, aesthetics and the ability to build in demand rather than questioning what the eventual quality of life and ‘being’ would be for the inhabitants of these spaces.36 This evaluation parallels one of the repeatedly critiqued aspects of modernism that in architects’ overarching search for new ideas and original visuals, they lost touch with the people who would inhabit their constructed reality.37 This disconnect was epitomised by Le Corbusier, whom

Fig. 3: Martin Heidegger discussing his philosophical writings during a lecture.

Sky

Gods

Mortals

Earth

Fig. 4 (Above): Diagram illustrating the relationships between the four elements of earth, sky, divinities and mortals in Heidegger’s ‘fourfold’. Fig. 5 (Right): Heidegger’s hut, in the Black Forest village of Todtnauberg, with a sloped roof gathering the sky and low eaves offering allegiance to the earth.

Fig. 6 (Below): Edmund Husserl in discussion with his student, Martin Heidegger, 1921.

Heidegger distrusted even at his most poetic, and his notion of a house as “a machine for living in”, in his manifesto ‘Towards a New Architecture’.38

who experience it. As such it can be said that a human being’s relationship with ‘space’, and thus ‘places’, exists in their dwelling or thought effectively.46

For Heidegger, the priorities of architecture should instead lie with the people who inhabit the spaces hence his deliberate preference for the words ‘bauen’ (building) and ‘wohnen’ (dwelling). It is by scrutinising the etymology of these German verbs that Heidegger discovers a more satisfactory relationship between ‘building’ and ‘dwelling’ as well as a fundamental difference in people’s current understanding of the terms.39 The philosopher reasons that these words have lost their original meaning ‘to dwell’, coming from the Old English and High German word ‘Buan’.40 Heidegger continues to argue that the way in which we dwell is the manner which we are, as beings, and how we exist on the face of the earth. Therefore, since dwelling is concerned with the way in which we exist, our ‘being in the world’, the philosopher deems that issues of building are essentially issues of dwelling. As such it can be said, the act of building, in itself, is simultaneously the act of dwelling and pertains to how human beings relate to the world around them.

In the latter example of the farmhouse in the Black Forest, comparable to the philosopher’s own writing retreat, Heidegger demonstrates how building and dwelling can be harmonious, with both actions adjoining as an ongoing activity (see Fig. 5). The farmhouse dwellers design in response to their own needs as well as cultural aspirations and then build with materials, gathered from their immediate surroundings, in a manner learnt from others’ houses rather than trying to invent new forms.47 Their activity of dwelling is not confined to the farmhouse, or any specific physical space, but instead can be understood as a nonstationary state of being; in which they remain, stay in a place and be settled with existing and upholding the earth as it is. Whilst Heidegger does not advocate for a return to such houses, he believes in the ethos the farmhouse demonstrates. That is to say, building and dwelling should occur simultaneously and must be something which is nurturing, natural or man-made, and that upholds the ‘fourfold’ in which mortals stay.48

Within ‘Building Dwelling Thinking’, ‘building’ and ‘dwelling’ are fundamentally interlinked with Heidegger’s notion of the ‘fourfold’. The four elements of the ‘fourfold’ are the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals (see Fig. 4).41 The nature of the relationship of these elements means they cannot be divided and as such they unite as a simple oneness. Their close association becomes apparent when one thinks about one element of the ‘fourfold’ and requires thought about the other three elements. For this reason, Heidegger claims humankind is not only a ‘being in the world’ but is a finite part of the ‘fourfold’ as mortals. It is our acknowledgment of the ‘fourfold’ and role mortals play within it that establishes dwelling. To maintain unity of the four elements, Heidegger believes we, as mortals, must dwell properly by sparing the earth and up keeping its true nature. Likewise, mortals dwell by receiving the sky, awaiting the divinities and accepting their limited existence.42 Heidegger clarifies his arguments with examples including a hypothetical bridge and an 18th century farmhouse in the Black Forest. In the example of the bridge, Heidegger suggests the bridge acts as a ‘thing’ gathering the four elements, the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals, in such a manner that allows for a ‘space’ in which the relationship of ‘fourfold’ can be admitted. By developing his bridge exemplar, Heidegger presents the notion of ‘place’, which he believes should be comprehended through use and experience, rather than through scientific or mathematical concepts.43 He argues that humanity dwells in ‘places’ as opposed to abstract ‘space’, which is merely a framework in which people identify ‘places’ for themselves and others to dwell.44 This identification of a ‘space’ as a ‘place’ by one person, through intellectual or physical demarcation, allows somewhere to become a ‘place’ for others where the ‘fourfold’ can be admitted.45 For instance, there are many spots, in ‘space’, along the stream which could be occupied by the bridge. However, only one of the spots comes into existence as a ‘place’ by virtue of the placement of the bridge and it is subsequently understood differently by others

However, building today, in terms of physical construction, does not intrinsically encapsulate the notion of building and dwelling co-occurring. Moreover, it is noteworthy that Heidegger’s seminal text was increasingly under criticism, during the 1990s, with deliberations over the validity of his building and dwelling model. The debates revolved around the respective importance, to architecture, of phenomenology and critical theory. It remains commonplace today, amongst architects, to assume these approaches are in opposition, with phenomenology advocating the value of the immediate bodily experience versus critical theory’s priority with the political aspect of human activities.49 Conversely, in support of Heidegger’s thinking, some phenomenological architects have responded to the notions of dwelling and place in their architecture. For example, Steven Holl evokes architectural experiences through watercolour paintings and Christian Norberg-Schulz investigated the spirit of place.50 Likewise, in the late 1990s and early 21st century, Peter Zumthor responded to Heidegger’s text as a fundamental aspect of his building projects including the Poetic Landscape in Bad Salzuflen, Germany (1998-1999) and the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel in Mechernich, Germany (1998-2007).51 Zumthor believes that culture within southern Germany, Heidegger’s homeland, and Switzerland, Zumthor’s birthplace, has a tradition of going into the essences of things.52 Additionally, the architect has stated at the time of designing the field chapel he was thinking of the aforementioned example of a bridge in the Heidegger’s text ‘Building Dwelling Thinking’.53 As such, Zumthor’s use of Heidegger’s notions of ‘dwelling’, ‘place’ and the ‘fourfold’ at the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel, as critical to defining and understanding the chapel’s design, will now be the focus of this paper.

M. Reza Shirazi, ‘On Phenomenological Discourse in Architecture’, Environmental and Architectural Phenomenology, no. 23 (2012): 13–14. Włodzimierz Julian Korab-Karpowicz, ‘Martin Heidegger’, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 30 September 2017, http://www.iep.utm.edu/ heidegge/. Jack Reynolds, ‘Maurice Merleau-Ponty’, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 10 October 2017, http://www.iep.utm.edu/merleau/. 24

Neil Leach, Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory (London and New York: Routledge, 1997), 98. Daniel Copitch, ‘The Authenticity of Phenomenological Architecture’ (Issuu, 2012), 2, http://issuu.com/danielcopitch/docs/phenomenology. Peter McCleary, ‘Performance (and Performers): In Search of Direction (and a Director)’, in Performative Architecture: Beyond Instrumentality (New York and London: Spon Press, 2005), 218. Heidegger studied at the University of Freiburg, and assumed the role of chair of philosophy following Husserl’s retirement. 25

Korab-Karpowicz, ‘Martin Heidegger’.

Copitch, ‘The Authenticity of Phenomenological Architecture’, 2. 26

Simon Richards, Architect Knows Best: Environmental Determinism in Architecture Culture from 1956 to the Present (London and New York: Routledge, 2016), 104. 27

Holst, ‘Rethinking Dwelling and Building. On Martin Heidegger’s Conception of Being as Dwelling and Jørn Utzon’s Architecture of Well-Being’, 53. Mark Jarzombek, ‘The Cunning of Architecture’s Reason’, Footprint, Transdisciplinary, 1 (Autumn 2007): 31,44. Sharr, Heidegger for Architects, 22. Richards, Architect Knows Best: Environmental Determinism in Architecture Culture from 1956 to the Present, 104. In the same year as Darmstadt conference, Heidegger was allowed to return as a professor at the University of Freiburg following a ban from teaching in 1945 for implementing Nazi policy. His essay ‘Building Dwelling Thinking’ was later translated into English in 1971 and published in ‘Poetry Language Thought’

replenishment of them would not solve the problem. Nonetheless, these concerns about humankind’s ‘being in the world’ would have been of little comfort to those without a roof over their head, in German society. 35 36

Bryan Shields and Jennifer Shields, ‘Placemaking: Introduction’ (University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 2009), https://placemaking09.files.wordpress. com/2009/01/_introductionnotes.pdf. 37

Holst, ‘Rethinking Dwelling and Building. On Martin Heidegger’s Conception of Being as Dwelling and Jørn Utzon’s Architecture of Well-Being’, 53. 38

Karen Lykke Syse and Martin Lee Mueller, eds., Sustainable Consumption and the Good Life: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (London and New York: Routledge, 2015), 194–95. Paul Davies, ‘Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)’, Architectural Review, accessed 6 January 2018, https://www.architectural-review.com/rethink/reputations-penportraits-/martin-heidegger-1889-1976/10018213.article. Heidegger showed a disinterest in Le Corbusier’s Chapelle Notre-Dame-duHaut in Ronchamp. 39

Heidegger, Basic Writings, 348.

The shifting connotation of these words demonstrates the changing nature of language and emphasises Heidegger’s believe that language is the master of man and not vice versa. 41

Ibid., 351–52.

Ibid., 353.

Sharr, Heidegger for Architects, 59.

Sharr, Heidegger for Architects, 36.

Sharr, Heidegger for Architects, 23.

Etymology is the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history.

McCleary, ‘Performance (and Performers): In Search of Direction (and a Director)’, 218.

Jarzombek, ‘The Cunning of Architecture’s Reason’, 36.

Pavlos Lefas, Dwelling and Architecture: From Heidegger to Koolhaas (Berlin: Jovis, 2009), 8. Sharr, Heidegger for Architects, 58.

Richards, Architect Knows Best: Environmental Determinism in Architecture Culture from 1956 to the Present, 104.

Intellectual demarcation relates to creating a boundary in our mind where as physical demarcation relates to the construction of a wall, path or building.

Heidegger, Basic Writings, 356–59.

Sharr, Heidegger for Architects, 68.

Heidegger, Basic Writings, 350.

Sharr, Heidegger for Architects, 112.

Ibid., 1–5.

Ibid., 104–5.

Jarzombek, ‘The Cunning of Architecture’s Reason’, 31. 31

Holst, ‘Rethinking Dwelling and Building. On Martin Heidegger’s Conception of Being as Dwelling and Jørn Utzon’s Architecture of Well-Being’, 52. Leach, Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory, 98. Sharr, Heidegger for Architects, 91. 32

Jarzombek, ‘The Cunning of Architecture’s Reason’, 31.

Martin Heidegger, Basic Writings, ed. David Farrell Krell (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1993), 343–64. Lynne Sharon Schwartz, ed., The Emergence of Memory: Conversations with W.G. Sebald (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2007), 135. In Germany, World War II caused 3.5 million homes to be destroyed and resulted in around 7.5 million people becoming homeless.

Shields and Shields, ‘Placemaking: Introduction’. 51

Jeremy Till, Architecture Depends, vol. 55 (Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press, 2009), 131. 52

Zumthor goes to the essence of things: An Interview with Peter Zumthor.

Peter Zumthor, Peter Zumthor: Buildings and Projects. 1998-2001, ed. Thomas Durisch, vol. 3 (Zürich: Scheidegger & Spiess, 2013), 121.

Ultimately, if the real issue was not the mere lack of houses, then full

Michael Woessner, Heidegger in America (Cambridge, MA and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 242.

David Simpson, 9/11: The Culture of Commemoration (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 55.

Fig. 7: Model of the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel in its landscape context.

Zumthor’s contribution to the discourse through the integration of Martin Heidegger’s notions of ‘dwelling’ and the ‘fourfold’ a the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel (1998-2007):

Design process: Evoking the senses through making The Bruder Klaus Field Chapel’s design process was as much about reduction as creation, aiming to produce a building that exists free of presuppositions and as described. Zumthor refined and shaped the chapel in its own time and tried to take the structure to a state of being exactly right, where nothing could be added or taken away without compromising the design.54 This relentless methodology parallels his belief that a building should match its use, like a glove fits a hand, and so requires repetitive thinking.55 The architect has recognised Heidegger’s observation that although thinking may appear abstract, it is in fact intimately connected to one’s experience of place. Thus, Zumthor’s thoughts during the design process are not abstract but rather spatial images with sensuous components.56 Zumthor has stated in his monograph, mentioned earlier, that his work on design is “a process which begins with and returns to dwelling”, much like how Heidegger equates ‘building’ with ‘dwelling’.57 The chapel’s architecture could not be resolved following a solely pragmatic approach, as modernist architects once used, but instead required thinking and language to bring meaning as well as allowing for dwelling to occur. The architect reflects upon Heidegger’s observations of experience, using his emotions, alongside those of his small team of fifteen people, to test the potential success of the architecture.58 Zumthor considers a resonance with the mind as an essential component of design, believing a building’s form and atmosphere must tug at personal experience, memory or imagination to appeal to a broader audience.59 In this sense, Zumthor is perceivable as preoccupied with his notion of ‘atmosphere’, seeking to project past and imagined experiences onto his designs. He holds, like Heidegger, a preference for experience and memory rather than any mathematical and scientific data. Supportively, the architect has expressed that he draws plans and sections as a mere matter of convention, to help build a structure with ease, but only after a long design process do these scale drawings obtain a real purpose.60 Zumthor has testified that it took several years to find the right interior for the field chapel, which eventually became about the elemental, in which there is “light and shade, water and fire, material and transcendence, the earth below and the open sky above.”61 This lengthy process of choreographing the right form and atmosphere was highly testing of his clients’ patience, and the Scheidtweilers have recounted that everything was redesigned and built several times.62 As part of his “holistic” approach to design, and as a method of evoking the senses, Zumthor used modelling and sketching during the chapel’s conception.63 The architect used physical models, of a large scale, to explore interior spaces and to understand the context of the field chapel within its landscape setting (see Fig. 7 & 8). By making models to a level of constructible detail, Zumthor

and his team were able to capture and convey the proposed atmosphere of the chapel with a remarkable sense of exactness.64 Early studies for the chapel, undertaken between 2001 and 2002, highlight moments of intuition accompanied by the sudden emergence of an inner womb-like form lit by a single artificial source (see Fig. 9 & 10). Also, touch becomes evidently integral to test material possibilities, arguably becoming as essential as when used during construction and experience of the finished building. Furthermore, the chosen modelling materials act in a similar nature to how the construction materials would act in reality, enabling tests between the interaction of light with the materials and structural details.65 In one maquette, pieces of bamboo are securely tied together and then cast upon, as both a way to communicate the internal atmosphere of the chapel and to carry out a scaled test of the method of constructing a tepee and burning it out of its cast exterior shell (see Fig. 11).66 The farming couple even have a chest height wall in their garden, as a remnant of one of the many rammed concrete trials (see Fig. 12).67 Zumthor goes to such extents of modelling to avoid any surprises occurring in the final constructed building, including not merely visual misconceptions but also those relating to the haptic and olfactory senses.68 Similar to how his compatriot Alberto Giacometti would have worked, when making a sculpture, Zumthor believes his models are not a representation but instead are the building itself, albeit at a smaller scale to be constructed at a larger scale.69 In support of this idea, Zumthor distrusts computer renderings and instead often uses photography to remove the unwanted scale which a model gives to an observer, deceiving the mind into looking at reality (see Fig. 13).70 Zumthor believes that completed details must reflect ideas instilled within his initial sketches, expressing that a “sketch refers to a reality which is situated in the future.”71 The architect’s articulation comes from his sketch work which he develops up until an atmosphere emerges, stopping before unrequired elements interrupt its initial impact. The jagged lines of his early sketch plan and sections for the field chapel are full of inferences, with many aspects already appearing to be intended for different artisans and builders (see Fig. 14). In the plan, a swollen organic interior is defined by two areas, namely a nave and a vestibule, with the narrowest face of the mass influencing the position of the entry. It seems that only once the right quality of prospective interior emerges, does Zumthor attempt to encapsulate it with a rigid angular exterior form, as evident from the sharp intersecting lines. In the sections, a carved mass is already noted to be divided into twenty-four layers, of fifty centimetres, adding to a height of twelve metres, which is a significant number regarding the number of apostles and months in a year.72 There are also indications of a place to sit, light candles

Fig. 8: Large scale study models and plan of the field chapel in Zumthor’s atelier.

and a dip in the floor, akin to a water font, within the conical opentop volume. Throughout the design process at Peter Zumthor’s atelier, it is common for unbuilt schemes to influence new projects, as is the case for many architectural practices. Zumthor has noted that his discarded project, entitled ‘Poetic Landscape’ from 1998, had a strong influence upon the design of the field chapel. This previous project led the architect to closely consider architecture with a direct relationship to a landscape, creating buildings from poems to fulfil a spiritual need more than a practical one.73 Zumthor and his team followed the trails of places, written about by poets, identifying their favourite spots and introducing large hollow vessels upon them, in an attempt to intensify the spirit of the place.74 It is thus likely that the definitive location for the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel was decided upon by, Zumthor and his atelier, roaming the client’s field in search of possible spots to create a ‘place’, in a manner akin to Heidegger’s example of situating a hypothetical bridge along a stream. Supporting this interpretation is the known delay in the chapel’s setting out, which postponed the field chapel’s construction until the ideal location was found (see Fig. 17).75 The chapel’s primitive construction process began in 2005, nearly seven years after Zumthor accepted the com-mission, exploiting the inherent sensory potential of materials, and will now be considered in this paper.

Mairs, ‘Peter Zumthor Interview’.

Timothy Nawrocki, ‘Architecture Influenced by Landscape - Landscape Influenced by Architecture’ (The 111th John Stewardson Fellowship in Architecture, 2012), 140–42. 66

Ibid.

Fritzsche, ‘Wie ein Bauer aus Wachendorf in der Eifel den Schweizer Stararchitekten Peter Zumthor dazu bewegte, eine Kapelle für sein Feld zu entwerfen’. 68

Howett, ‘An Interview with Peter Zumthor’.

Ibid.

Peter Zumthor, Thinking Architecture (Zürich: Lars Müller, 1998), 12–13.

Francesco Della Casa, ‘Peter Zumthor, Architecture as a Spiritual Exercise’, L’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui 383 (2011): 51. 72

Signer, ‘Die Bruder Klaus-Kapelle von Peter Zumthor in Der Eifel’, 6.

Ana Teresa Rosendo Pereira, ‘Two Chapels of Peter Zumthor: Perception, Place and Construction’ (Master Thesis, Universidade Lusíada de Lisboa, 2015), 45–46. 74

Zumthor, Peter Zumthor: Buildings and Projects. 1998-2001, 3:11–12.

Signer, ‘Die Bruder Klaus-Kapelle von Peter Zumthor in Der Eifel’, 4.

Jonathan Glancey, ‘Solitary Refinement’, The Guardian, accessed 26 September 2017, http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2007/jun/11/architecture.

Fig. 9 & 10 (Below & Top Middle): Early model studies of an inner womb-like form lit by a single artificial source, 2001-2002.

Fig. 11 (Bottom Middle): Bamboo tepee model study.

Peter Zumthor, Peter Zumthor: Buildings and Projects. 1985-1989, ed. Thomas Durisch, vol. 1 (Zürich: Scheidegger & Spiess, 2013), 11. 56

Zumthor and Binet, Peter Zumthor, Works: Buildings and Projects, 1979-1997,

7. 57

Ibid., 8.

Jessica Mairs, ‘Peter Zumthor Interview: I’m Trying to Change My Mysterious Reputation’, Dezeen, accessed 12 January 2018, https://www.dezeen. com/2017/05/12/peter-zumthor-interview-trying-to-change-mysteriousreputation-architecture/. 59

Peter Davey, ‘Peter Zumthor’, The Architectural Review 189, no. 1227 (1991): 61. 60

Nicholas Howett, ‘An Interview with Peter Zumthor’, Thinking/Making Architecture, accessed 13 January 2018, http://thinkingmakingarchitecture. blogspot.com/2010/04/interview-with-peter-zumthor.html. 61

Zumthor, Peter Zumthor: Buildings and Projects. 1998-2001, 3:121.

Ibid.

Fritzsche, ‘Wie ein Bauer aus Wachendorf in der Eifel den Schweizer Stararchitekten Peter Zumthor dazu bewegte, eine Kapelle für sein Feld zu entwerfen’. 63

‘Exploring Peter Zumthor’s “holistic Approach” to Design’, The Culture Show (BBC World News, 8 February 2013), http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/worldradio-and-tv-21894859/exploring-peter-zumthor-s-holistic-approach-to-design.

Fig. 12 (Right): Trial samples of rammed concrete.

Fig. 13 (Right): Photography used to remove the unwanted scale which a model gives to an observer. Fig. 14 (Above): Early sketch plan and sections.

Construction process: Primitive methods and exploitation of the inherent sensory potential of materials Not dissimilar to Heidegger’s hypothetical farmhouse in the Black Forest, the farming couple built the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel alongside close friends, local artisans and builders.76 Zumthor connected numerous people in the local community to build the chapel, connecting human beings in a Heideggerian manner for the creation of a space that, in itself, connects to being. The architect has deemed his buildings as “resistance[s] to the increasing division of labour in construction”, and the field chapel does not follow the usual present-day procurement route in which an architect designs, contractor builds and only afterwards can clients dwell.77 Thus, it appears that Zumthor advocates for the processes of ‘building’ and ‘dwelling’ to coincide, just as Heidegger expressed these acts should. Similarly, Zumthor believes, like Heidegger, that technological advances and mass production are partly responsible for the profanation of construction materials and diminishing ability of buildings to evoke meaning.78 As a likely dismissal of today’s overcomplicated technologies, supported by the architect’s removal of solar panels from the project, Zumthor chose a primitive construction process in which the materials were gathered from the immediate surroundings, just as Heidegger’s hypothetical dwellers did to construct their Black Forest farmhouse.79 Photographs in the client’s hallway confirm the different stages of the construction process, which began with the felling of one hundred and twelve pine trees from a forest in the nearby town of Bad Münstereifel (see Fig. 15).80 The trees were hauled to the Scheidtweilers’ farm, before being hand sawn by the couple, under the direction of a master carpenter, into logs retaining their bark.81 Thereafter, the trunks were tilted upright, with the assistance of a crane, and arranged following Zumthor’s scale plan, forming a tepee reminiscent of a primitive hut or home for a hermit (see Fig. 16 & 18). Zumthor’s decision to clear part of a local forest to build the tepee structure is comparable with Heidegger’s understanding that a ‘place’ can be created as a result of clearing away and bringing forth locality.82 The architect further considered ‘place’ with regard to regional identity, by using concrete consisting of white cement mixed Rhine river gravel and red-yellow sand taken from a pit in the nearby village of Erp.83 By adding the aggregates to the concrete, Zumthor gives equal importance to site and material, unlike the majority of his modernist predecessors who used concrete in a superficially omnipresent manner. However, the technique could be likened to modernist I.M. Pei’s red-hued concrete at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, which was mixed with crushed local stones to blend into the surrounding Rocky Mountains (see Fig. 19).84 Zumthor settled upon a pouring and ramming procedure for the concrete as it is an ancient, local building technique that can be carried out by unskilled laymen (see Fig. 20).85 This method also fitted with the clients’ wish to minimise the project’s cost by carrying out as much of the construction work that they could themselves.86 As such, the concrete was poured by Hermann-Josef Scheidtweiler, alongside family and a master builder, over a period of twenty-four non-consecutive days between October 2005 and September 2006.87 On each designated day, a fifty-centimetre layer of the concrete mix was poured by hand and rammed by feet over the tepee structure, slowly accumulating a stratified yet indivisible twelve-metre high mass.88 The last ramming session even involved the architect himself, bonding material to locale and creating a connection with the spirit of the place or moreover a poetic quality.89 Once the concrete had set, in Autumn 2006, the wooden tepee beneath was set alight by a charcoal-ignited fire and left to smoulder for three weeks, in the hermetically closed interior.90 The fire was fed by air drawn through three hundred and fifty holes which were necessary to connect the inner and outer timber formwork. There is an amount of unpredictability in this process, as it is unlikely that Zumthor could anticipate the outcome of a three-week fire, which goes against the architect’s previously mentioned desire to be in control of everything so that there are no surprises in the completed building.91 When the fire went out, a crane removed the singed tree trunks, and hollow stainlesssteel tubes plugged with mouth-blown glass optics, made by Eisch Glassworks in Frauenau, filled the formwork holes of the chapel’s charred interior faces (see Fig. 21).92 Within the interior, a specified gradient of concrete was poured to form a base for the floor (see Fig. 22). Afterwards, a two-centimetre layer of molten lead, containing four tons of recycled tin-lead, was hand poured by local foundry artists, Miroslav Stransky and his wife, and disturbed with hand trowels before it solidified to leave an uneven surface. Following Zumthor’s initial sketch sections, Miroslav also cast a small bronze wheel and stand for a sculpture, by Hans Josephsohn, alongside metalwork moulded by master locksmiths including an entrance door and votive candle stand. In addition to these few metal adornments, a small bench was made from a single piece of linden wood by Markus Rebmann.93 These lengthy processes, undertaken by artisans, indicate that the field chapel is as much about the act of building as it is about the finished artefact. The architect believes the core of all architecture manifests during the act of construction, emphasising the chapel’s inseparability from the processes that went into its production, which are contemporary and innovative yet speak of the traditional and archaic.94 The choice of timber construction and ancient concrete ramming technique are likely the results of Zumthor’s’ early developed relationship with wood, being the son of a cabinet maker, as well as restoring historic buildings in the early years of his career.95 In his “holistic approach”, the architect is devoted to arousing the truth of materials and has evidently tried to exploit their inherent sensory potential, in the chapel’s architecture. Whilst the materials themselves are not sensuous; it is the meaningful situation which the architect places them in that gives them sensuousness. As such, the paper will continue by examining Zumthor’s creation of ‘place’ through a sensory journey and connection with the site.

‘Bruder Klaus Field Chapel’, WikiArquitectura, accessed 29 September 2017, https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/bruder-klaus-field-chapel/. 77

Bürdek, Design: History, Theory and Practice of Product Design, 384.

Sharr, Heidegger for Architects, 99. 78

Luis Diego Quiros, David Burns, and Ethan Repp, ‘Achieving the Metaphysics of Architecture: The Architecture of Peter Zumthor’, Quirpa, accessed 29 January 2018, http://www.quirpa.com/docs/achieving_the_metaphysics_of_ architecture__peter_zumthor.html. 79

Lynch, ‘Peter Zumthor Speaks to the Architects’ Journal’.

Fritzsche, ‘Wie ein Bauer aus Wachendorf in der Eifel den Schweizer Stararchitekten Peter Zumthor dazu bewegte, eine Kapelle für sein Feld zu entwerfen’. Danny Te Kloese and Korab Ramadani, ‘Perception: The Impact of an Impairment’ (Master Thesis, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 2013), 96. 81

Ross Jenner, ‘Production of Site and Site of Production: Herzog & de Meuron’s Schaulager and Zumthor’s Feldkapelle’, Arq 20, no. 4 (2016): 316. Khodadadian, ‘Sensuality | Architecture: Bruder Klaus Chapel by Peter Zumthor’, 11. 82

Richards, Architect Knows Best: Environmental Determinism in Architecture

Culture from 1956 to the Present, 106. 83

Khodadadian, ‘Sensuality | Architecture: Bruder Klaus Chapel by Peter

Zumthor’, 10–11. 84

Jenner, ‘Production of Site and Site of Production: Herzog & de Meuron’s Schaulager and Zumthor’s Feldkapelle’, 314. Ross Jenner, ‘Inner Poverty: A Setting of Peter Zumthor’s Brother Klaus Field Chapel’, Interstices 12 (2011): 35. 85

Fig. 15 (Above): Peter Zumthor gathering pine trees from the nearby forest. Fig 16 (Below): Example of a primitive hut reminiscent of the field chapel’s tepee.

Thierry Greub, ‘Zumthor’s Zitate’, in Kreativität Des Findens Figurationen Des Zitats, ed. Martin Roussel and Christina Borkenhagen (Wilhelm Fink: Munich, 2012), 302. 86

Hans W. Hubert, ‘Annäherung an Einen Muße-Ort. Die Feldkapelle Bruder-

Klaus von Peter Zumthor’, Muße. Ein Magazin, 2016, 58. 87

Khodadadian, ‘Sensuality | Architecture: Bruder Klaus Chapel by Peter

Zumthor’, 11. 88

Glancey, ‘Solitary Refinement’.

Hubert, ‘Annäherung an Einen Muße-Ort. Die Feldkapelle Bruder-Klaus von Peter Zumthor’, 59. 90

Zumthor goes to the essence of things: An Interview with Peter Zumthor.

Howett, ‘An Interview with Peter Zumthor’.

Khodadadian, ‘Sensuality | Architecture: Bruder Klaus Chapel by Peter Zumthor’, 12. 93

Ibid., 11–12.

Zumthor, Peter Zumthor: Buildings and Projects. 1998-2001, 3:122. 94 Peter Davey, ‘Zumthor the Shaman’, The Architectural Review 205, no. 1220 (October 1998): 69. 95

Peter Buchanan, ‘The Big Rethink Part 8: Lessons from Peter Zumthor and Other Living Masters’, Architectural Review, accessed 11 February 2018, https:// www.architectural-review.com/rethink/campaigns/the-big-rethink/the-bigrethink-part-8-lessons-from-peter-zumthor-and-other-living-masters/8634689. article. Davey, ‘Zumthor the Shaman’, 68.

Fig. 17: Setting out of the field chapel.

Fig. 21: Singed tree trunks and charred concrete.

Fig. 22: Pouring of concrete to specified floor gradient.

Fig. 18: Tepee structure made from tilted tree trunks.

Fig. 20: Pouring and ramming of concrete.

Fig. 19: I.M. Peiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s red-hued concrete blends into the surrounding Rocky Mountains.

Wachendorf (site of the field chapel)

Erp pit (source for the red-yellow sand used in the concrete aggregate)

Bad MĂźnstereifel forest (source for the trees used as the tepee structure)

Cologne

Bonn

Rhine river (source for the river gravel used in the concrete aggregate)

Fig. 23: Aerial view illustrating the journey from city to field and highlighting the proximity of chosen construction materials.

Visual analysis: Martin Heidegger’s philosophies in practice:

Creating place: A sensory journey and connection with the site The approach to the site begins via train or car along streets and railway tracks, which run like veins out of the surrounding cities of Cologne or Bonn, prior to vast expanses of empty fields near the tranquil farming village of Wachendorf (see Fig 23). Thereafter, the chapel is only reachable on foot via a seven-kilometre walk, from the nearest train station or a fifth of this distance from the car park, which acts as a natural decompressor separating one from previous concerns (see Fig 24). Walking can animate our senses in ways which the three other primary postures, namely sitting, standing and lying, do not.96 Equally, the path leading to the chapel is not linear but winding, which is not surprising considering that it is rare to encounter straight lines in the natural world. This sensuously curved path, leading to an object in the landscape, helps one to enter into the flow of things and discover one’s natural bodily rhythm.97 Additionally, the act of walking prompts one’s natural tendency to look down towards the earth and the metaphysical habit to gaze up towards the sky.98 Thus, the intuitive notion of Heidegger’s ‘fourfold’ is continuously stimulated by one’s bodily motions whilst walking. The long walk is repetitive but sense-orientated, making one aware of tonal nuances in the landscape, and there is a subtle interchange between comfort and vulnerability because of exposure to the elements. The body and mind are in continuous exchange with their surroundings, forming a relationship with the site and its materials before any connection with the architecture. An occasional tractor can be observed creating tracks in the wheat field, up keeping the earth as Heidegger desires, and capturing a visitor’s charm. When the chapel does eventually come into view, it creates a new reference point in the landscape, like Heidegger’s hypothetical bridge in the river valley, and gives the field something that it never had before, including a near and far, left and right as well as an up and down (see Fig. 25).99 There is no visible boundary to the site, and a limit is only accountable for where the chapel begins its presence through a distant visual connection. The chapel presents a solidity and stands resolutely upwards, dominating the low mountain range of the Eifel, but at the same time blends into its surroundings of green pastures or golden wheat fields, depending on the time of year (see Fig. 26 & 27). The monolithic structure rises mysteriously from the undulating planes of farmland, appearing to grow naturally from the earth yet reaches to the sky (see Fig. 28). Its flat-topped form stands in contrast to the normative field chapel typology and the rusted red rooftops of the surrounding farmhouses (see Fig. 29). The building’s exterior appears unadorned, and a continued lack

of detail promotes a desire through anticipation. From afar, the chapel appears to stand in the centre of the field, but as the path is not direct but winding, the visitor is forced to perceive the structure from different points of view whilst approaching. Through observation, it soon becomes clear that the building is an asymmetric composition composed out of five irregular sides. The five-sided nature of the field chapel’s plan is comparable to Haldenstein castle, situated in the same town as Zumthor’s atelier in the canton of Graubünden (see Fig. 30). The region contains several ruined castles that are known to have been visited by the architect shortly after he moved to the area in 1967, at the age of 24.100 Zumthor has spoken about a feeling of spatial and material presence he obtains in the mountains surrounding his home; however, he is likely referring to these ruins.101 Haldenstein castle seemingly grows naturally out of a rocky mountainside outcrop similar to the field chapel growing out the farmland’s soil. The castle, also in tower typology, was extended vertically in several stages over the centuries to meet the expanding needs of the owners.102 These building phases can be read in the fortress walls and are analogous with the stratifications of the chapel’s rammed concrete. Another ruin of comparable qualities, named Lichtenstein Castle, is visible from the large kitchen window in Zumthor’s home (see Fig.31). The castle has eroded over centuries, due to weathering, adding to the uniqueness of each of its faces, which is also a characteristic of the field chapel (see Fig. 32). At different points throughout the journey, the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel is mistakable as a pile of haystacks, a silo, a tower or a smooth wall, with these varied forms becoming emphasised by the change of directional light cast upon the polygonal structure (see Fig 33 - 36). Despite a meandering path, the field chapel always remains in the forefront of one’s vision. This visibility contrasts with the situation of Zumthor’s Chapel of Saint Benedict in Sumvitg, Switzerland, completed in 1988, which is precariously perched on a steep mountain edge and is approached via a rural path from the village below, causing the chapel’s presence to be concealed many times by the surrounding context.103 Similar to the locality of tones imbued at the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel, the Chapel of Saint Benedict takes its colours from the surroundings with the weathered wood shingle cladding recalling the tree barks of the nearby forest (see Fig. 37). Notably, this wooden frame chapel and bell tower could also be misread, as an agricultural silo and electricity pylon (see Fig. 38).104

Fig. 24: the chapel is only reachable on foot via a seven-kilometre walk.

Despite the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel’s winding gravel path, there is no designated manner to approach the structure, allowing one to divert from the path to wander in the field. Moreover, towards the end of the journey, the narrow gravel path succumbs to the golden wheat field, slowing one’s walking pace before reaching the chapel. As one draws closer, the smoothness of exterior dissolves and one’s attention is brought to the stratified nature of the rammed concrete, identifiable as twenty-four layers, as well as an array of stainless steel tubes puncturing this surface (see Fig. 41) These blemishes reveal traces of the ramming, trampling and treading process which occurred during construction and display the building’s authenticity and purity. Three flanks of the chapel comprise of perimeter benches, which offer a moment to rest in the shade, after an arduous journey, and appreciate different views of the surrounding landscape (see Fig. 39 & 40). Thus, it is possible to draw some spiritual nourishment before even entering the chapel. From close-up, nothing initially indicates the structure’s function and only when the visitor draws in front of the narrowest face of the chapel does a small iron cross present itself, pointed to by a triangular door. Every aspect of the chapel’s exterior appears deeply rooted in the earth except this portal, which is composed of a three-metre-high isosceles triangle made of steel and hints at the slanted walls beyond. A cold, metal spherical handle reflects the traversed landscape back to the visitor before entry and alludes to the mouth-blown hemispheres only visible within the interior (see Fig. 42). The portal is hefty, forcing the visitor to pause whilst pulling its resisting weight, but pivots open smoothly despite having no visible connections to the rammed concrete. Its mechanism magically operates on a pin rotation, with a concealed tube sank directly into the soil below that is entirely separate from the rest of the building’s structure.105

Field Chapel, the entry sequence is understandable as marking and protecting the sacred ground, separating the chapel from the merely profane spaces of the surrounding farmhouses, as well as creating an enduring test for pilgrims searching for the spiritual. As such, Zumthor appears to uphold the belief that to approach a sacred space; one must be required to cross several thresholds and undertake an arduous journey across the topography of a place.109 Equally, it is arguable that visitors need their attention suitably focused, before entering a sacred space, which is achievable through various thresholds and the challenges they present for the body. Furthermore, the architect evidently makes a visitor walk the surface of the earth, to elevate their senses, before permitting an experience of the chapel’s sensuous man-made surfaces. Firstly, walking activates one’s distal senses, of sight and hearing which operate at a distance, followed by one’s proximate senses, of touch, smell and taste which function close to one’s body and will be required to experience the interior. These preparatory activities give rise to an appropriate type of emotional response, from reverence to solemnity, and allow for a proper appreciation of the chapel’s sensuous inner realm. As such, the paper will continue by exploring the chapel’s interior through the inner spatial sequence and serrated edged oculus.

Fig. 25 (Below): The field chapel acts as a reference point in the landscape. Fig. 26 (Middle Left): Tracks left behind by a tractor in the golden wheat fields. Fig. 27 (Bottom Left): Tracks left behind by a tractor in the green pastures. Fig. 28 (Middle): The structure rises mysteriously from the undulating planes. Fig. 29 (Top Left): Rusted red rooftops of surrounding farmhouses.

Touch, by its specific nature, involves elemental contact with the stainless-steel surface and introduces one’s body to the world whilst inviting into another realm. Zumthor has affirmed that “a particular door handle in my hand…seems…like a special sign of entry into a world of different moods and smells.”106 Using the door handle as the field chapel’s handshake parallels the technique used at Zumthor’s Chapel of Saint Benedict. Its elongated handle does not solely increase leverage or functionality but also creates unconventionality, deviating from what one usually expects of a handle and increasing one’s awareness of it as an object (see Fig 47).107 Both doors are constructed of metal, but the Chapel of Saint Benedict hides the entry’s actual material under slatted pinewood. In contrast to the flush recessed door of the Bruder Klaus chapel, the Chapel of Saint Benedict’s entrance protrudes out of its dropshaped body and a visitor is required to ascend a shallow concrete staircase, elevating them from the ground before going inside. The Chapel of Saint Benedict’s does staircase not come into contact with the building, being held off by a narrow gap that separates it from the wood structure, in a manner akin to the door and concrete of the Bruder Klaus chapel (see Fig. 43 - 46).108 To reach both chapels’ entrance, an apparent series of events unfold which gradually become more sacred. Regarding the Bruder Klaus

Fig. 30 (Above): Haldenstein castle grows naturally out of rocky mountainside. Fig. 31 (Top Right): Lichenstein castle visible from Zumthorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s home. Fig. 32 (Bottom Right): Lichenstein castle ruin has eroded over centuries.

Fig. 33 (Top Right): Chapel is mistakable as a pile of haystacks. Fig. 34 (Top Left): Chapel is mistakable as an agricultural silo. Fig. 35 (Bottom Left): Chapel is mistakable as a tower. Fig. 36 (Bottom Right): Chapel is mistakable as a smooth wall.

Fig. 37 (Top Left): Weathered wood shingles at the Chapel of Saint Benedict. Fig. 38 (Bottom Left): Chapel is mistakable as a silo and electricty plyon. Fig. 39 (Top Right): Three flanks of the chapel comprise of perimeter benches. Fig. 40 (Bottom Right): A moment to rest in the shade after an arduous journey.

Fig. 41: The rammed concrete is identifiable as twenty-four layers as well as an array of stainless steel tubes puncturing this surface.

Fig. 42: A cold, metal spherical handle at the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel reflects the traversed landscape back to the visitor.

Fig. 43 & 44: The portal at the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel is hefty but pivots open smoothly despite having no visible connections to the rammed concrete.

Fig. 47: The elongated handle at the Chapel of Saint Benedict deviates from what one usually expects of a handle and increases oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s awareness of it as an object.

Fig. 45 & 46: The shallow concrete staircase at the Chapel of Saint Benedict does not come into contact with the wooden structure, being held off by a narrow gap.

Fig. 48: Stepping into the chapelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vestibule, a euphoric clang echoes throughout the space as the door shuts.

Spatial sequence: A vestibule, nave and oculus, including comparisons with past structures Stepping into the chapel’s vestibule, a euphoric clang echoes throughout the space as the door shuts and plunges one into complete darkness as the imprint of daylight is still on one’s retina (see Fig. 48). One is forced to rely on other senses as the eyes take time to adjust to the darkness and find light through immersion, in a somewhat primitive process. At this moment one smells the odour of the burnt trees which still lingers in the chapel, evoking to the visitor a remnant of its construction process. One can also sense a temperature drop, particularly in summer, from the sun-exposed exterior to the shaded interior and one’s body accordingly reacts, as our nerves can distinguish between temperature fluctuations up to a tenth of a degree.110 After a moment, one’s eyes gradually adjust to reveal a thin low-lying slither of light, which passes through the narrow gap in the door, directing one around a slight bend towards a shell-shaped nave (see Fig. 49). Continuing this way compresses the visitor, who likely needs to tilt their head to pass through the claustrophobic space, and in the circumstance of two people passing one another, rubbing up against the rough vertical surfaces is inevitable. It is possible to lose touch with one’s immediate surroundings if the architecture ignores the haptic senses. This concern is likely why Zumthor employs wall and floor surfaces which are sensuous, attracting one at a curiously instinctive and imaginative level. The surfaces suggest more than what initially meets the sensing eyes, hands or feet by initially withholding from fully expressing themselves. Upon the first encounter, it is possible to overlook the undetectable structures which give the surfaces their aesthetic qualities, including texture, colour, gradient and illuminance. The walls vary from shades of brown, sand and ochre to black where the rammed concrete has oozed or dripped between the formwork causing it to char and obtain a humanising character. Within the walls, there is a glint and residue that hints at a superior dimensionality, namely the natural light that comes through the glass hemispheres inserted in the formwork holes and the char of the wooden tepee (see Fig. 50). Whilst the initial timber tepee structure is no longer visible; it is detectable through tracery and almost acts like a God that is not seen but supports the identity of the place, defining its visual, haptic and olfactory qualities. The channelled imprints unavoidably state an absence of structure which once existed, however, those who are not aware of the chapel’s construction process may not be able to make a definitive reading of the cause of the charred grooves, adding to the mystery of the space. Likewise, the three hundred and fifty luminous glass beads, which sparkle against the blackened walls, may not be recognisable

Fig. 49: After a moment, one’s eyes gradually adjust to reveal a thin low-lying slither of light, which passes through the narrow gap in the door.

as the stainless-steel tubes that puncture the exterior walls. These small illuminated incisions encourage a visitor to follow their pattern, and as one traverses the graded non-uniform lead floor, one is stimulated by the resistance and friction which keeps a visitor closely attuned with their own body. Even with shoes on, one can differentiate between the rough and smooth as well as wet and dry aspects of the floor (see Fig. 51). There is a change of emphasis from the horizontal floor to the vertical ceiling as it gradually expands and gives way to an oculus (see Fig. 52). Simultaneously the visitor’s eyes, searching for light, are pulled skyward towards this oculus which is initially blinding and possesses an unmistakably spiritual quality, suggesting the presence of a divinity or God (see Fig. 53). This illuminance parallels Zumthor’s belief that daylight can help one feel a spiritual quality as if there is something beyond us and our understanding of the world.111 The intense burst of light cascades down the rough moulded walls before dispersing on the coarse lead floor and reflecting on a pool of rainwater which intentionally gathers upon the floor, like a water font (see Fig. 54). The cavernous nature of the chapel’s interior recalls the cave-like interior of another ruin near Zumthor’s home named Grottenstein castle. The ruin’s damp irregular surfaces disperse sunlight into what is otherwise an utterly dark interior (see Fig. 55). The Bruder Klaus Field Chapel is equally numinously dark, providing protection, privacy and silence, which is crucial to Zumthor as it “allows people to inhabit space in an undisturbed way”.112 Whilst the chapel is protected from the outside world, through its dense concrete construction which separates earthly and spiritual realms, it is uninsulated from the weather conditions. The oculus is open to the sky, defining the chapel’s character, and creates not a single atmosphere but rather a range of possibilities due to the changing weather which affects the tone of the interior and manner of human occupation. Feelings of amazement, surprise and pleasure are combined as one contemplates the oculus overhead which lets in the rain, snow, stars and sunlight depending on the season and time of day. The sunlight which falls into the brooding space casts exaggerated shadows upon the charred walls which seemingly dematerialise so that only the earth and sky are observed, promoting Heidegger’s ‘fourfold’, between a mortal and divinity. This illumination juxtaposes the sunlight received from the clerestory windows at the Chapel of Saint Benedict, which warms the wooden interior by bouncing off the metallic painted walls and polished pews (see Fig. 56 & 57). The Chapel of Saint Benedict explicitly expresses its timber construction as an assembled monolith whereas the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel only leaves traces of a wooden tepee and is perceived as a poured monolith. Equally, the dissimilarity between the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel’s exterior tower form and cave-like interior contrasts with the idea that an outer form can define an inner form which fascinated the architect, ten years prior, during his project for the Chapel of Saint Benedict (see Fig. 58 & 59).113 The spatial sequence at the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel, from exterior to interior, is more comparable with that which occurs at the Pantheon in Rome. The Pantheon, built as a Pagan temple, has a comparable duality between its interplay of light and dark as well

as a juxtaposition between striated and smooth on the exterior and interior surfaces. The Pantheon’s spatial sequence also leads to an open-air oculus, albeit at a broader nine-metre diameter, placed centrally in a forty-three-metre diameter concrete dome in the rotunda.114 The scale of the Pantheon appears to dwarf visitors, making them feel distant to any divinity compared with the close connection afforded at the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel. However, both interiors are spiritual affairs which make use of oculi to signify ‘God’s eye’ (see Fig. 60 & 61). There also is a frequent occurrence of oculi in centrally planned churches, during the second half of the 20th century in the wake of World War II, in Western Germany, where the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel is situated. These churches include Gottfried Böhm’s Church of Saint Albert in Saarbrücken in 1952, Rudolf Schwarz’s Church of St Anna in Düren in 1956 and Klaus Franz’s Church of Maria Regina in Fellbach in 1967 (see 62 - 64).115 Just as Heidegger stood in opposition to modernist architects during his aforementioned ‘Man and Space’ lecture in 1951, these German architects appear to have avoided reverting to the revered Bauhaus style by building churches. Although built during a postwar era frequently labelled as being devoid of memories, these churches make strong references to the past with Rudolf Schwarz’s Church of St Anna using the stones of the former church destroyed during an air raid.116 Schwarz’s Church, alongside its oculi, one of which is above a water font, uses circular glass openings to bring light into the interior, akin to the hemispherical beads plugged into the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel’s formwork holes (see Fig. 63 & 64). Similarly, the earlier work of the Church of Saint John the Baptist in Neu-Ulm in 1927, by Gottfried Böhm’s father Dominikus Böhm, draws a striking comparison to the Bruder Klaus chapel.117 The Church of Saint John the Baptist is composed of a narrow corridor connected to a larger space of striated surfaces, with a single light source placed above a water font (see Fig. 65 - 68). Using an architectural language similar to these German churches and the Pantheon, Zumthor can closely link the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel to an extensive collection of historic places of worship, without the need for religious iconography. The Bruder Klaus Field Chapel, as revealed in its design process, was reduced to its essentials by Zumthor and this is evident in the chapel’s apparent lack of liturgical symbols or furnishings. A single narrow wooden bench, capable of seating a maximum of two people, hints at a tendency for individual worship and compels a visitor to dwell before returning to the outside world. Thus, this bench can be read in contrast to the numerous pews offered to the congregation at Zumthor’s Chapel of Saint Benedict, which draw the visitor’s attention horizontally forward to the altar (see Fig. 69 & 70). Correspondingly, there is no altar at the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel but instead a trio of architectural features, including a guest book holder, a votive candle tray and bronze wheel. Alongside these objects, a bronze bust of Bruder Klaus rests upon a narrow, cuboidal pedestal and seemingly meditates upon the wheel fixed directly below the oculus.118 As evident from this openair oculus, Zumthor is not concerned with providing shelter but instead allowing the chapel to receive Heidegger’s notion of the ‘fourfold’ and evoke the spiritual essences associated with the four elements of earth, air, fire and water.

Fig. 50 (Below): Natural light that comes through the glass hemispheres inserted in the formwork holes of the charred walls.

Fig. 51 (Right): Even with shoes on, one can differentiate between the rough and smooth as well as wet and dry aspects of the floor.

Fig. 52: The vertical ceiling gradually expands.

Fig. 53: The oculus is initially blinding and possesses an unmistakably spiritual quality.

Fig. 54: Rainwater gathers upon the floor like a water font.

Fig. 55: Grottenstein castle ruinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s damp irregular surfaces.

Fig. 56: The sunlight which falls into the brooding space casts exaggerated shadows upon the charred walls.

Fig. 57: The sunlight received from the clerestory windows at the Chapel of Saint Benedict warms the wooden interior by bouncing off the metallic painted walls.

Fig. 58 (Above): Comparative scale plans of the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel and the Chapel of Saint Benedict. Fig. 59 (Left): Cave-like interior contrasts with exterior tower form.

Fig. 60: Close connection afforded at the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel.

Fig. 61: The Pantheon dwarf visitors making them feel distant to any divinity.

Fig. 62: Gottfried Böhm’s Church of Saint Albert in Saarbrücken.

Fig. 63: Rudolf Schwarz’s Church of St Anna in Düren with an oculus and water font.

Fig. 64: Rudolf Schwarzâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Church of St Anna uses circular glass openings to bring light into the interior, akin to the hemispherical beads at the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel.

Fig. 65: Oculus above sculpture at the Church of Saint John the Baptist.

Fig. 67: Dominikus Böhm’s water font at the Church of Saint John the Baptist.

Fig. 66: Oculus above sculpture at the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel.

Fig. 68: Peter Zumthor’s water font at the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel.

Fig. 69 (Right): A single narrow wooden bench hints at a tendency for individual worship. Fig. 70 (Above): Pews offered to the congregation draw the visitorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s attention horizontally forward to the altar.

Observable phenomena: The ‘fourfold’ and the four elements of earth, air, fire and water As a consequence of reading Heidegger’s ‘Building Dwelling Thinking, Zumthor appears to deduce that the main purpose of building is to gather the ‘fourfold’ and permit the elements, namely the earth, sky, mortals and divinities, to exist in unison.119 The field chapel gathers the ‘fourfold’, helping a visitor become closer to their surroundings and connect with nature, as a physical phenomenon, that one can experience through the senses.120 The five senses primarily act as our tools for perception; however, there are spiritual sensations associated with touch, sight, taste, smell and hearing.121 Zumthor employs the ‘fourfold’ to achieve elemental sensuousness, seeking to gratify all the senses and produce an experience which goes beyond the tangible world into a spiritual realm. A visitor is made aware of a growing closeness to a divinity, when they experience themselves within their body, through the stimulation of their senses relating to hearing, smell and temperature changes.122 The essential auditory experience created in the chapel is that of silence and solitude. In the midst of the field, the ears listen to silence with only the occasional sounds of the door closing or rainwater dripping upon the floor. One’s sense of smell is also heightened in silence and darkness as one’s olfactory organs take over to smell the aroma of burnt wood from the fire. The temperature change occurs between the chapel’s exposed exterior faces and shaded interior, meaning that a visitor can never be truly comfortable and is encouraged to feel one’s immediate presence which is crucial for self-reflection. Heidegger’s concept of the ‘fourfold’ follows the Greek theories, devised by Empedocles and expanded by Aristotle, of the four elements, namely earth, air, fire and water. These components of the elemental world do not only manifest themselves physically and materially but also have spiritual essences, which Empedocles associated with their respective Greek Gods and Goddesses. Similar to the nature of relationships in Heidegger’s ‘fourfold’, fire and air can be understood as outward or upward reaching elements whereas earth and water are inward and downward (see Fig. 71 & 72).123 The use of these four classical elements at the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel enables Zumthor to create a connection with God, or a divinity, without the use of symbols, due to their association with spiritual essences. In this manner, Zumthor can maintain an anonymous

aspect to worship by not explicitly creating the chapel for devotion by a specific religion. This multi-faith approach aligns with Heidegger’s belief about God as a poetic fiction, an anonymous creator and provider who sets the standards for dwelling in the world through his anonymity.124 Furthermore, by utilising these four elements, which are understandable as archetypes of nature, Zumthor makes a visitor face up to their finite existence. The earth, sky and divinities shape one’s daily life and merely accommodate mortals, as the fourth component, to exist and dwell. The field chapel is experienced through ageing of the materials, which is visible in the weaving of spiders’ webs or fading of the soot washed away by precipitation, reminding a visitor of the all-encompassing influence of nature (see Fig. 73). By embracing the passing of time, the architecture encourages a visitor to realise that they are in the presence of something that will surpass their own time on earth. Earth is present as the elemental connection to the landscape and surrounding ‘place’ as part of one’s navigational journey to the chapel. Moreover, the rammed concrete suggests the strata of the soil, further relating the chapel to the earth (see Fig. 74). Air is present as wind passing over the chapel and entering through the oculus, affecting the chapel’s atmosphere with an occasional passing cloud (see Fig. 75). Also, air drawn in through formwork holes was also required to maintain the fire used sacrificially to create the chapel’s interior. Although the olfactory effects of this fire are dissipating, after several years of precipitation, its presence lives on in the burnt, sooty mould and is echoed in the offertory candles (see Fig. 76). Water adds to the elemental nature of the chapel and becomes an emotional companion which encourages the visitor to look inside themselves due to its reflective quality. Water interacts with the chapel in the form of rainfall which gradually drips through the oculus, gathering in a tear-shaped pool upon the lead floor (see Fig. 77). When glancing upon this pool, or water font, the oculus appears like the glow of a star and is likely a reference to Bruder Klaus’ earliest vision which took place in his mother’s womb when he witnessed a star which lit up the world.125 Fig. 71: Fire and air are outward or upward reaching elements whereas earth and water are inward and downward.

Fire

Hot

Dry

Air

Earth

Wet

Cold

Water

Fig. 72 (Above): Diagram illustrating Aristotleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s model of the basic elements.

Fig. 73: The weaving of spidersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; webs or fading of the soot, washed away by precipitation, reminds a visitor of the all-encompassing influence of nature.

Fig. 74: Earth is suggested in the strata of the rammed concrete.

Fig. 75: Air is present passing over the chapel and entering through the oculus.

Fig. 76: Fire is echoed in the offertory candles.

Fig. 77: Water gathers in a tear-shaped pool upon the floor.

Spirit, presence and memory: Narrative with the life of Bruder Klaus Zumthor appears in numerous ways to have translated the fifteenthcentury saint’s visions and life story into an architectural language in which light, darkness and sensory materials obtain symbolic meaning. The architect has admitted that during his observations of a specific site or place for a building, he tries to plumb into its depth, form, history and sensuous possibilities; however, images of other places invade this process.126 The towering form of the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel which reigns over Wachendorf, known as a guard village, evokes Bruder Klaus’ teenage vision in which he envisaged a tower that he would someday dwell within serving God.127 The chapel’s tower form also aligns with Bruder Klaus’s role as a peacemaker, giving orientation to many people, as well as Zumthor’s perception of the saint as an upright figure who stayed true to himself and did not make any compromises, undeterred by opposition from the church at that time.128 Bruder Klaus was never satisfied with his early life, despite having a wife and ten children, and felt his careers as a farmer and soldier were superficial.129 After getting the approval of his wife, much like Hermann-Josef Scheidtweiler had to for the construction of the chapel, the saint left behind his belongings and fir wood home in Flüeli-Ranft, Switzerland, beginning an intense period of searching.130 He lived for a short time in a cave before settling not far from his home, where four lights guided him. He constructed a simple hut of branches and leaves before being built a modest monastic cell and chapel by farmers the following winter, in 1469, much like the construction of Zumthor’s field chapel.131 The Bruder Klaus Field Chapel, with its oculus and triangular portal, is understandable as a contemporary interpretation of Bruder Klaus’ cell and chapel, which still stands today, containing two windows, with one shining light upon an altar and another opening out to the people (see Fig. 80 & 81).132 Additionally, the sacrificial fire during the field chapel’s construction, which created a cave through the burning of a wooden tepee, is interpretable as Bruder Klaus forfeiting his first family home before inhabiting a cave.

central pole, a votive candle tray and bronze wheel fixed to the wall with a single spike. The bronze wheel suggests an image depicted by the illiterate saint, in one of his books which he used to convey his thoughts through drawings, in which three spokes equally stem to and from the centre, or Godhead, and signifies a turning to God (see Fig. 82).133 Alongside the triptych of elements, a bronze bust of Bruder Klaus is not there to honour the saint but instead acts as a reminder of human mortality, completing the ‘fourfold,’ and prompts a visitor to dwell upon their finite existence (see Fig. 79). In the chapel’s blackened interior, all of these components appear to be floating, alluding to the mysticism associated with the saint. The floating effect occurs due to the careful placement of the supporting substructures that emphasise the centred, the uncompromising and the essential, which are also characteristics attributable to both the saint, Bruder Klaus, and the architect, Peter Zumthor.134 Furthermore, like the saint, Zumthor is often viewed as a reclusive figure, working from his isolated atelier in Haldenstein despite practising in the age of the ‘starchitect’.135 Zumthor’s remote chapel induce feelings about the isolation that Bruder Klaus would have faced, in the latter years of his life, and calls a visitor to a slow experience of being present in the moment akin to the saint’s measured life of reflection.136 The chapel’s materials echo the saint’s close connection to nature, and the oculus gives significance to the sky with the passing of a cloud conveying a slowed sense of time, contributing to the deceleration of one’s natural bodily rhythm. As such, the chapel can be understood as a vessel creating a narrative with the spirit of Bruder Klaus and conveying hope about human existence through a focus on place, the senses and memory.

Fig. 78: Saint’s tablespoon consisting of a teardrop form with a slightly bent handle.

Whilst there is a distinct difference between the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel’s exterior and interior forms, with a tower encapsulating a cave, these unique forms come together in a complementary duality analogous with body and spirit. The saint’s previously mentioned visions evidently inspired the tower and womb-like form, and the chapel’s floor plan is comparable with the saint’s tablespoon which consists of a teardrop form with a slightly bent handle (see Fig. 78). Although the field chapel was consecrated, and dedicated to the Swiss saint, it is not a space for church service as it lacks an altar. Instead, the chapel has a trio of architectural components consisting of a guest book holder supported by a

Fig. 79 (Left): Bust of Bruder Klaus acts as a reminder of human mortality, completing the ‘fourfold,’ and prompts a visitor to dwell upon their finite existence.

Fig. 80 & 81: Bruder Klausâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; chapel and monastic cell, containing two openings, in FlĂźeli-Ranft, Switzerland.

113

Pereira, ‘Two Chapels of Peter Zumthor: Perception, Place and Construction’, 127. 114

Copitch, ‘The Authenticity of Phenomenological Architecture’, 3.

115

Mehmet Kerem Özel, ‘Peter Zumthor’s Bruder Klaus Field Chapel as a Part of the History of Religious Architecture’, Mimar.Ist, February 2016, 84–85. 116

Kathleen James-Chakraborty, ‘Abstract Forms Were Espoused More Quickly by the German Church than by Industries’, Architectural Review, accessed 30 March 2018, https://www.architectural-review.com/rethink/viewpoints/ abstract-forms-were-espoused-more-quickly-by-the-german-church-than-byindustries/10004809.article. 117

Muriel Emanuel, Contemporary Architects (London and Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1980), 106. 118

Fig. 82: Bronze wheel with three spokes equally stemming to and from the centre.

119

33. 96

Linda Ardito and John Murungi, eds., Elemental Sensuous: Phenomenology and Aesthetics (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016), 35–36.

Josep Lluis Mateo and Florian Sauter, eds., The Fourth Elements and Architecture. Earth, Water, Air, Fire (Barcelona: Actar, 2014), 6. 121

Wynn, ‘Phenomenology of Religion’. Ibid.

Ibid., 40.

122

Ibid., 32.

123

Zumthor, Peter Zumthor: Buildings and Projects. 1998-2001, 3:121. Greub, ‘Zumthor’s Zitate’, 314.

Davey, ‘Zumthor the Shaman’, 68–70.

Tracy Marks, ‘Elemental: The Four Elements From Ancient Greek Science and Philosophy to Ancient Sites Poetry’, WebWinds, accessed 7 January 2018, http:// www.webwinds.com/myth/elemental.htm. 124

Heidegger, Basic Writings, 351–52.

125

Glancey, ‘Solitary Refinement’.

126

Zumthor, Thinking Architecture, 41.

127

Glancey, ‘Solitary Refinement’.

101

Gili Merin, ‘Peter Zumthor: Seven Personal Observations on Presence In Architecture’ (Presence in Architecture, Seven Personal Observations, Tel Aviv University: ArchDaily, 2013), https://www.archdaily.com/452513/peter-zumthorseven-personal-observations-on-presence-in-architecture. 102

André Locher and Eli Lipski, ‘Graubünden: Schloss Haldenstein’, Swiss Castles, accessed 2 January 2018, http://www.swisscastles.ch/Graubuenden/ haldenstein_d.html. 103

Taylor Medlin, ‘Holy Zumthor Battle Royal’, Remote Controlled: Building in Areas of Isolation, accessed 2 March 2018, http://constructionculture.blogspot. com/2009/07/holy-zumthor-battle-royal.html. 104

Davey, ‘Peter Zumthor’, 60.

Ardito and Murungi, Elemental Sensuous: Phenomenology and Aesthetics,

120

100

Zumthor, Peter Zumthor: Buildings and Projects. 1998-2001, 3:122.

Greub, ‘Zumthor’s Zitate’, 298. 128

Lynch, ‘Peter Zumthor Speaks to the Architects’ Journal’.

129

Sachseln, ‘The Life of Brother Klaus’.

130

Thomas Dietrich, ‘Die Landzeit’ (Kirche und Ländlicher Raum, 2016), 4–5, http://www.landpastoral.de/html/content/archiv_die_landzeit.html. David J. Collins, Reforming Saints: Saints’ Lives and Their Authors in Germany, 1470-1530 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 109.

Lilli Carr, ‘Zumthor’s Door’ (Architectural Association, 2013), 4–5, https://issuu. com/aaschool/docs/3rdyrlilicarr.

131

Sachseln, ‘The Life of Brother Klaus’.

132

Glancey, ‘Solitary Refinement’.

106

Zumthor, Thinking Architecture, 7–8.

107

Collins, Reforming Saints: Saints’ Lives and Their Authors in Germany, 14701530, 109.

Copitch, ‘The Authenticity of Phenomenological Architecture’, 3.

108

Medlin, ‘Holy Zumthor Battle Royal’.

109

Wynn, ‘Phenomenology of Religion’.

110

Ardito and Murungi, Elemental Sensuous: Phenomenology and Aesthetics,

105

39. 111

Peter Zumthor, Atmospheres: Architectural Environments, Surrounding Objects (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2006), 61. 112

Peter Zumthor, Thermal Bath at Vals (London: Architectural Association, 1996), 59.

133

Matthew Pearson, ‘Atmospheric Monk: Peter Zumthor’s Bruder Klaus Field Chapel’, accessed 29 January 2018, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ atmospheric-monk-peter-zumthors-bruder-klaus-field-chapel-pearson. 134

Sharr, ‘Burning Bruder Klaus: Towards an Architecture of Slipstream’, 50.

135

Peter Dumbadze, ‘Architecture for the Present: Peter Zumthor’, Architonic, accessed 27 January 2018, https://www.architonic.com/en/story/tlmagarchitecture-for-the-present-peter-zumthor/7001438. 136

Sharr, ‘Burning Bruder Klaus: Towards an Architecture of Slipstream’, 48–50.

Sachseln, ‘The Life of Brother Klaus’.

Conclusion Conclusively, Zumthor promotes separation from the haste of modern-day life by taking a visitor on a journey to the remote village of Wachendorf. This arduous journey to the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel forces a visitor to participate in their immediate environment and makes them contemplate the most fundamental components of life. The physical earth, with Zumthor’s architecture part of it, arouses sensuous reactions for a visitor including thoughts and innate memories. The chapel acts as a vessel for life intensifying one’s situated sense of being in the world and achieves a heightened awareness of self which is, after all, vital during the act of prayer. Although the primary purpose of the architecture should be, on a physical level, to provide shelter, the chapel neglects this function and instead acts as a container to admit Heidegger’s ‘fourfold’. Zumthor dialogues with Heidegger’s philosophies through a phenomenological approach to architecture, promoting the essential aspect of ‘dwelling’ which is to preserve the ‘fourfold’ through ‘building’. From one perspective, the chapel refers to Heidegger’s philosophical text, ‘Building Dwelling Thinking, whilst from another viewpoint, the chapel becomes a philosophical experience in itself. Zumthor’s process of ‘building’ is guided not only by Heidegger’s notion of ‘dwelling’ but also by a desire to evoke a visitor’s bodily senses, in an elemental manner, through the direct interaction of mind, body and physical components of landscape and architecture. The field chapel is not predominantly concerned with its form but instead its site, materials and construction process. Zumthor successfully intensifies the sensuous and mysterious nature of ‘place’ through the careful arrangement of materials according to their inherent sensory potential as well as by adding a few extra ingredients to the concrete mix. The use of concrete, lead, and smouldering of local forest trees does not entirely follow Heidegger’s belief that to dwell properly one must cherish and preserve the earth. However, the involvement of the clients in the primitive construction process dismisses today’s overcomplicated technologies, which obscure one’s state of existence in the world. Likewise, this method suggests Zumthor wishes, like Heidegger, for the acts of ‘building’ and ‘dwelling’ to coincide, rather than occur separately, as had been the case with the modernist housing which prevailed in post–World War II Germany. Furthermore, the separation between the field chapel’s material body and a visitor’s physical body dissipates through immersion in context and stimulation of the senses. As a result of attending to the entire human sensorium, Zumthor creates a sensuous awareness of what lies near, namely mortals and the earth, as well as what remains on the peripheries of our perception, namely divinities and the sky. The chapel’s architecture reconciles us with our inner being, by dismissing the sole pleasurement of the eyes in favour of gratifying of all the senses. One is lured along by sensuous phenomena which unexpectedly appear such as unfamiliar textures, shapes, colour tones, fluctuating shadows and atmospheric weather conditions. The stimulation of bodily senses, particularly sight and smell, awakens one’s mind of memories and imagination, allowing the chapel to acquire symbolic meaning. By embracing Bruder Klaus’ life story and visions, Zumthor manages to create an architectural language, without symbols, which imbues a visitor with the phenomenal qualia of an otherworldly experience. The chapel acquires a sense of being out of time, by alluding to the myths of the fifteenth-century saint, and is placed in a state of uncertainty, between history and present-day, despite its construction not being entirely timeless. Although some interpretations of the chapel would require a visitor to know about the Swiss saint’s life, there is assured isolation, silence and mysticism akin to the hermit’s situation, which is rarely encounterable today. Similar to Bruder Klaus, many present-day people are searching for spirituality, meaning and fulfilment. In today’s fast-paced world, full of movement and agitation, the field chapel offers a place of solace which emphasises the notion of being present in the moment and allows for ‘dwelling’ to take place (see Fig. 83). Despite consisting of just one space which affords no apparent sense of comfort, due to a lack of any practical services such as a lavatory, electricity or plumbing, the chapel still possesses the ability to move a visitor emotionally. The architecture connects a visitor with the world and helps to centre oneself within it, by reminding a visitor of their existence. By basing the design on experiences shared by all, such as a person’s innate memory of the womb instilled as an open-air oculus, Zumthor enables the architecture to promote feelings of being alive. Moreover, Zumthor links the elemental with the sensual by considering light’s ability to provide a sensory reverence and manipulates daylight into a sequence in which a visitor is firstly deprived and then rewarded with light. In this manner, the chapel is understandable as simultaneously protecting and exposing a visitor to the elemental and the spiritual as well as guiding them through a sensuous experience.

Fig. 83: Visitors ‘dwell’, from earth, upon the sky and await a divinity.

Bibliography Ardito, Linda, and John Murungi, eds. Elemental Sensuous: Phenomenology and Aesthetics. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016. Badu, Michael. ‘Peter Zumthor: The Swiss Shaman’. The Architectural Review, Think Piece, 2014. https://www.architectural-review.com/ rethink/reviews/peter-zumthor-the-swiss-shaman/8667039.article. ‘Bruder Klaus Field Chapel’. WikiArquitectura. Accessed 29 September 2017. https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/ bruder-klaus-field-chapel/. Buchanan, Peter. ‘The Big Rethink Part 8: Lessons from Peter Zumthor and Other Living Masters’. Architectural Review. Accessed 11 February 2018. https://www.architectural-review.com/rethink/ campaigns/the-big-rethink/the-big-rethink-part-8-lessons-frompeter-zumthor-and-other-living-masters/8634689.article. Bürdek, Bernhard E. Design: History, Theory and Practice of Product Design. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005. Carr, Lilli. ‘Zumthor’s Door’. Architectural Association, 2013. https://issuu.com/aaschool/docs/3rdyrlilicarr. Clemence, Paul. ‘Q&A: Swiss Master Peter Zumthor on the Importance of Beauty and Relying on Intuition’. Metropolis: Architecture Design. Accessed 28 February 2018. http://www. metropolismag.com/architecture/swiss-master-peter-zumthorimportance-of-beauty-relying-intuition/.

Review. Accessed 6 January 2018. https://www.architecturalreview.com/rethink/reputations-pen-portraits-/martinheidegger-1889-1976/10018213.article. Dawson, Layla. ‘Refusing the Spotlight, Peter Zumthor Designs Quiet Buildings That Still Attract Devotees’. Architectural Record 196, no. 1 (January 2008): 48. Della Casa, Francesco. ‘Peter Zumthor, Architecture as a Spiritual Exercise’. L’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui 383 (2011): 51–52. Dietrich, Thomas. ‘Die Landzeit’. Kirche und Ländlicher Raum, 2016. http://www.landpastoral.de/html/content/archiv_die_ landzeit.html. Dittmar, Gunter A. ‘Architecture as Dwelling and Building: Design as Ontological Act’. In Bauen Und Wohnen: Martin Heideggers Grundlegung Einer Phänomenologie Der Architektur, 165–74. Münster and New York: Waxmann, 2000. Dumbadze, Peter. ‘Architecture for the Present: Peter Zumthor’. Architonic. Accessed 27 January 2018. https://www.architonic. com/en/story/tlmag-architecture-for-the-present-peterzumthor/7001438. Emanuel, Muriel. Contemporary Architects. Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1980.

London

and

‘Exploring Peter Zumthor’s “holistic Approach” to Design’. The Culture Show. BBC World News, 8 February 2013. http:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-radio-and-tv-21894859/exploringpeter-zumthor-s-holistic-approach-to-design.

Collins, David J. Reforming Saints: Saints’ Lives and Their Authors in Germany, 1470-1530. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Fritzsche, Lara. ‘Wie ein Bauer aus Wachendorf in der Eifel den Schweizer Stararchitekten Peter Zumthor dazu bewegte, eine Kapelle für sein Feld zu entwerfen’. Die Zeit. 19 April 2007, 17 edition. http://www.gat.st/news/sonntag-177.

Copitch, Daniel. ‘The Authenticity of Phenomenological Architecture’. Issuu, 2012. http://issuu.com/danielcopitch/docs/ phenomenology.

Galilee, Beatrice. ‘Bruder Klaus Chapel’. Icon 50 (2007). https:// www.iconeye.com/opinion/rethink/item/2360-bruder-klauschapel-%7C-icon-050-%7C-august-2007.

Coyne, Richard. ‘Inconspicuous Architecture’. Reflections on Technology, Media & Culture. Accessed 1 January 2018. https:// richardcoyne.com/2011/12/31/inconspicuous-architecture/.

Glancey, Jonathan. ‘Solitary Refinement’. The Guardian. Accessed 26 September 2017. http://www.theguardian.com/ artanddesign/2007/jun/11/architecture.

Davey, Peter. ‘Peter Zumthor’. The Architectural Review 189, no. 1227 (1991): 59–64.

Greub, Thierry. ‘Zumthor’s Zitate’. In Kreativität Des Findens Figurationen Des Zitats, edited by Martin Roussel and Christina Borkenhagen, 295–392. Wilhelm Fink: Munich, 2012.

———. ‘Zumthor the Shaman’. The Architectural Review 205, no. 1220 (October 1998): 68–74. ———. ‘Zumthor’s Diocesan Museum Shows Clearly and Movingly the Continuity of Christian Faith’. The Architectural Review, no. 1373 (July 2011): 36–41. Davies, Paul. ‘Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)’. Architectural

Heidegger, Martin. Basic Writings. Edited by David Farrell Krell. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1993. Holst, Jonas. ‘Rethinking Dwelling and Building. On Martin Heidegger’s Conception of Being as Dwelling and Jørn Utzon’s Architecture of Well-Being’. ZARCH, Rethinking, remaking, 2 (2014): 52–61.

Howett, Nicholas. ‘An Interview with Peter Zumthor’. Thinking/ Making Architecture. Accessed 13 January 2018. http:// thinkingmakingarchitecture.blogspot.com/2010/04/interviewwith-peter-zumthor.html.

Lynch, Patrick. ‘Peter Zumthor Speaks to the Architects’ Journal’. Architects Journal. Accessed 3 January 2018. https://www. architectsjournal.co.uk/peter-zumthor-speaks-to-the-architectsjournal/5200097.article.

Hubert, Hans W. ‘Annäherung an Einen Muße-Ort. Die Feldkapelle Bruder-Klaus von Peter Zumthor’. Muße. Ein Magazin, 2016.

Mairs, Jessica. ‘Peter Zumthor Interview: I’m Trying to Change My Mysterious Reputation’. Dezeen. Accessed 12 January 2018. https://www.dezeen.com/2017/05/12/peter-zumthor-interviewtrying-to-change-mysterious-reputation-architecture/.

James-Chakraborty, Kathleen. ‘Abstract Forms Were Espoused More Quickly by the German Church than by Industries’. Architectural Review. Accessed 30 March 2018. https://www. architectural-review.com/rethink/viewpoints/abstract-formswere-espoused-more-quickly-by-the-german-church-than-byindustries/10004809.article.

Marks, Tracy. ‘Elemental: The Four Elements From Ancient Greek Science and Philosophy to Ancient Sites Poetry’. WebWinds. Accessed 7 January 2018. http://www.webwinds.com/myth/ elemental.htm.

Jarzombek, Mark. ‘The Cunning of Architecture’s Reason’. Footprint, Trans-disciplinary, 1 (Autumn 2007): 31–46.

Mateo, Josep Lluis, and Florian Sauter, eds. The Fourth Elements and Architecture. Earth, Water, Air, Fire. Barcelona: Actar, 2014.

Jenner, Ross. ‘Inner Poverty: A Setting of Peter Zumthor’s Brother Klaus Field Chapel’. Interstices 12 (2011): 35–47.

McCleary, Peter. ‘Performance (and Performers): In Search of Direction (and a Director)’. In Performative Architecture: Beyond Instrumentality, 215–24. New York and London: Spon Press, 2005.

———. ‘Production of Site and Site of Production: Herzog & de Meuron’s Schaulager and Zumthor’s Feldkapelle’. Arq 20, no. 4 (2016): 313–23. Juraschek-Eckstein, Markus, and Bergisch Gladbach. ‘MechernichWachendorf | Bruder-Klaus-Kapelle: Der Weg Heraus Nach Innen’. Straße Der Moderne: Kirchen in Deutschland. Accessed 30 September 2017. http://www.strasse-der-moderne.de/portfolio/ wachendorf-bruder-klaus/. Khodadadian, Alireza. ‘Sensuality | Architecture: Bruder Klaus Chapel by Peter Zumthor’. Issuu, 2016. https://issuu.com/ alireza110/docs/theory_assignment_1_final_final. Kimmelman, Michael. ‘The Ascension of Peter Zumthor’. The New York Times Magazine. Accessed 11 January 2018. https://www. nytimes.com/2011/03/13/magazine/mag-13zumthor-t.html. Korab-Karpowicz, Włodzimierz Julian. ‘Martin Heidegger’. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed 30 September 2017. http://www.iep.utm.edu/heidegge/. Leach, Neil. Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory. London and New York: Routledge, 1997. Lefas, Pavlos. Dwelling and Architecture: From Heidegger to Koolhaas. Berlin: Jovis, 2009. Locher, André, and Eli Lipski. ‘Graubünden: Schloss Haldenstein’. Swiss Castles. Accessed 2 January 2018. http://www.swisscastles. ch/Graubuenden/haldenstein_d.html. Lucas, Pavlina Andrea. ‘Bruder Klaus Feldkapelle’. Pavlina Andrea Lucas. Accessed 18 January 2018. http://www.pavlinalucas. com/1993-2010/fbk.html.

Medlin, Taylor. ‘Holy Zumthor Battle Royal’. Remote Controlled: Building in Areas of Isolation. Accessed 2 March 2018. http:// constructionculture.blogspot.com/2009/07/holy-zumthor-battleroyal.html. Merin, Gili. ‘Peter Zumthor: Seven Personal Observations on Presence In Architecture’. Tel Aviv University: ArchDaily, 2013. https://www.archdaily.com/452513/peter-zumthor-sevenpersonal-observations-on-presence-in-architecture. Nawrocki, Timothy. ‘Architecture Influenced by Landscape Landscape Influenced by Architecture’. The 111th John Stewardson Fellowship in Architecture, 2012. Özel, Mehmet Kerem. ‘Peter Zumthor’s Bruder Klaus Field Chapel as a Part of the History of Religious Architecture’. Mimar.Ist, February 2016. Pallister, James. Sacred Spaces: Architecture. London: Phaidon, 2015.

Contemporary

Religious

Pearson, Matthew. ‘Atmospheric Monk: Peter Zumthor’s Bruder Klaus Field Chapel’. Accessed 29 January 2018. https://www. linkedin.com/pulse/atmospheric-monk-peter-zumthors-bruderklaus-field-chapel-pearson. Pereira, Ana Teresa Rosendo. ‘Two Chapels of Peter Zumthor: Perception, Place and Construction’. Master Thesis, Universidade Lusíada de Lisboa, 2015. Quiros, Luis Diego, David Burns, and Ethan Repp. ‘Achieving the Metaphysics of Architecture: The Architecture of Peter Zumthor’. Quirpa. Accessed 29 January 2018. http://www.quirpa.com/docs/ achieving_the_metaphysics_of_architecture__peter_zumthor.html.

Rauterberg, Hanno. ‘Schutzbauten des Widerstands’. Die Zeit. 31 October 2001, sec. Kultur. http://www.zeit.de/2001/45/ Schutzbauten_des_Widerstands. Reynolds, Jack. ‘Maurice Merleau-Ponty’. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed 10 October 2017. http://www.iep.utm.edu/ merleau/. Richards, Simon. Architect Knows Best: Environmental Determinism in Architecture Culture from 1956 to the Present. London and New York: Routledge, 2016.

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed 28 January 2018. https:// plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology-religion/. Zumthor goes to the essence of things: An Interview with Peter Zumthor. Interview by Jeremy Melvin, 2006. Royal Academy of Arts. http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/architecture/interviews/ zumthor,267,AR.htm. Zumthor, Peter. Atmospheres: Architectural Surrounding Objects. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2006.

Environments,

Sachseln, Wallfahrt. ‘The Life of Brother Klaus’. Bruder Klaus. Accessed 22 October 2017. http://www.bruderklaus.com/?id=209.

———. Peter Zumthor: Buildings and Projects. 1985-1989. Edited by Thomas Durisch. Vol. 1. 5 vols. Zürich: Scheidegger & Spiess, 2013.

Schwartz, Lynne Sharon, ed. The Emergence of Memory: Conversations with W.G. Sebald. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2007.

———. Peter Zumthor: Buildings and Projects. 1998-2001. Edited by Thomas Durisch. Vol. 3. 5 vols. Zürich: Scheidegger & Spiess, 2013.

Sharr, Adam. ‘Burning Bruder Klaus: Towards an Architecture of Slipstream’. In Virilio Now: Current Perspectives in Virilio, edited by John Armitage. Cambridge: Polity, 2011.

———. Thermal Bath at Vals. London: Architectural Association, 1996.

———. Heidegger for Architects. Thinkers for Architects: London and New York: Routledge, 2007. Shields, Bryan, and Jennifer Shields. ‘Placemaking: Introduction’. University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 2009. https:// placemaking09.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/_introductionnotes. pdf. Shirazi, M. Reza. ‘On Phenomenological Discourse in Architecture’. Environmental and Architectural Phenomenology, no. 23 (2012): 11–15. Signer, Walter. ‘Die Bruder Klaus-Kapelle von Peter Zumthor in Der Eifel’. Bruder Klaus Rundbrief, September 2014. http:// bruderklaus.com/download/verschiedenes/000293.pdf. Simpson, David. 9/11: The Culture of Commemoration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006. Syse, Karen Lykke, and Martin Lee Mueller, eds. Sustainable Consumption and the Good Life: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge, 2015. Te Kloese, Danny, and Korab Ramadani. ‘Perception: The Impact of an Impairment’. Master Thesis, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 2013. Till, Jeremy. Architecture Depends. Vol. 55. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press, 2009. Woessner, Michael. Heidegger in America. Cambridge, MA and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Wynn, Mark. ‘Phenomenology of Religion’. The Stanford

———. Thinking Architecture. Zürich: Lars Müller, 1998. ———, and Hélène Binet. Peter Zumthor, Works: Buildings and Projects, 1979-1997. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998.

Image Resource List

Fig. 14: Early sketch plan and sections in Zumthor, Peter Zumthor: Buildings and Projects. 1998-2001, 3:1, 112 & 114.

Cover Photo: Author’s own photograph, Wachendorf, July 2015.

Fig. 15: Peter Zumthor gathering pine trees from the nearby forest. In: Wiki Arquitectura, https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/wp-content/ uploads/2017/01/Bruder_Klaus_3.jpg.

Contents Photo: Author’s own photograph, Wachendorf, July 2015. Fig. 1: Farmer harvesting wheat at the Scheidtweilers’ farm in Wachendorf. Author’s own photograph, Wachendorf, July 2015. Fig. 2: Selective series of black and white photographs of the completed Bruder Klaus Field Chapel published by, architectural photographer in Peter Zumthor, Peter Zumthor: Buildings and Projects. 1998-2001, ed. Thomas Durisch, vol. 3 (Zürich: Scheidegger & Spiess, 2013), 124-127. Fig. 3: Martin Heidegger discussing his philosophical writings during a lecture. In: Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages. co.uk/detail/news-photo/martin-heidegger-during-a-discussionin-tuebingen-news-photo/56458562#martin-heidegger-during-adiscussion-in-tuebingen-photography-1961-picture-id56458562. Fig. 4: Diagram illustrating the relationships between the four elements of earth, sky, divinities and mortals in Heidegger’s ‘fourfold’. Author’s own diagram, March 2018. Fig. 5: Heidegger’s hut, in the Black Forest village of Todtnauberg, with a sloped roof gathering the sky and low eaves offering allegiance to the earth in Adam Sharr, Heidegger’s Hut (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006), Front cover. Fig. 6: Edmund Husserl in discussion with his student, Martin Heidegger, 1921 in Ibid, 50. Fig. 7: Model of the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel in its landscape context in Zumthor, Peter Zumthor: Buildings and Projects. 19982001, 3:1, 110. Fig. 8: Large scale study models and plan of the field chapel in Zumthor’s atelier in Ibid, 113. Fig. 9 & 10: Early model studies of an inner womb-like form lit by a single artificial source, 2001-2002. In: Pavlina Andrea Lucas, http:// www.pavlinalucas.com/1993-2010/fbk.html. Fig. 11: Bamboo tepee model study. In: Archello, https://archello. com/project/bruder-klaus-field-chapel. Fig. 12: Trial samples of rammed concrete. In: Pavlina Andrea Lucas, http://www.pavlinalucas.com/1993-2010/fbk.html. Fig. 13: Photography used to remove the unwanted scale which a model gives to an observer in Peter Zumthor, Atmospheres: Architectural Environments, Surrounding Objects (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2006), 24.

Fig 16: Example of a primitive hut reminiscent of the field chapel’s tepee in Ross Jenner, ‘Inner Poverty: A Setting of Peter Zumthor’s Brother Klaus Field Chapel’, Interstices 12 (2011): 43. Fig. 17: Setting out of the field chapel in Zumthor, Peter Zumthor: Buildings and Projects. 1998-2001, 3:1, 113. Fig. 18: Tepee structure made from tilted tree trunks. In: Pinterest, https://i.pinimg.com/736x/83/e8/e3/83e8e3a06f1311f0ef537592 a77ba33d--temple-architecture-concrete-architecture.jpg. Fig. 19: I.M. Pei’s red-hued concrete blends into the surrounding Rocky Mountains. In: National Center for Atmospheric Research, http://www.nar.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/ncar/DI02483-ncar%20 wide%20efforts.jpg. Fig. 20: Pouring and ramming of concrete in in Zumthor, Peter Zumthor: Buildings and Projects. 1998-2001, 3:1, 120. Fig. 21: Singed tree trunks and charred concrete in Ibid, 123. Fig. 22: Pouring of concrete to specified floor gradient in Ibid, 120. Fig. 23: Aerial view illustrating the journey from city to field and highlighting the proximity of chosen construction materials. In: Apple Maps, 2016. Fig. 24: the chapel is only reachable on foot via a seven-kilometre walk in Ibid. Fig. 25: The field chapel acts as a reference point in the landscape. In: Aldo Amoretti, http://www.aldoamoretti.it/reportagebruder-klaus-chapel-courtesy-of-atelier-peter-zumthor-partnermechernich-germany-aldo-amoretti/. Fig. 26: Tracks left behind by a tractor in the golden wheat fields. Author’s own photograph, Wachendorf, July 2015. Fig. 27 : Tracks left behind by a tractor in the green pastures. In: Flickr, https://farm8.static.flickr.com/7093/7035706911_8044e2e5 7b_b.jpg. Fig. 28: The structure rises mysteriously from the undulating planes in Hans W. Hubert, ‘Annäherung an Einen Muße-Ort. Die Feldkapelle Bruder-Klaus von Peter Zumthor’, Muße. Ein Magazin, 2016, 57. Fig. 29: Rusted red rooftops of surrounding farmhouses.Author’s own photograph, Wachendorf, July 2015.

Fig. 30: Haldenstein castle grows naturally out of rocky mountainside. In: Flickr, https://www.flickr.com/photos/40826712@ N00/4023510780.

Fig. 48: Stepping into the chapel’s vestibule, a euphoric clang echoes throughout the space as the door shuts. Author’s own photograph, Wachendorf, July 2015.

Fig. 31: Lichenstein castle visible from Zumthor’s home. In: Metalocus, https://www.metalocus.es/es/noticias/la-materialidadde-peter-zumthor-en-dos-de-sus-obras-mas-personales-22.

Fig. 49: After a moment, one’s eyes gradually adjust to reveal a thin low-lying slither of light, which passes through the narrow gap in the door in Ibid.

Fig. 32: Lichenstein castle ruin has eroded over centuries. In: Chur, https://chur.graubuenden.ch/sites/chur/files/styles/grf_gallery_ large/public/oa_import/24096798.jpg?itok=7p3h0gFK.

Fig. 50: Natural light that comes through the glass hemispheres inserted in the formwork holes of the charred walls. In: Coast Studio, http://coastarc.com/f-e-l-d-k-a-p-e-l-l-e.

Fig. 33: Chapel is mistakable as a pile of haystacks. In: Aldo Amoretti, http://www.aldoamoretti.it/reportage-bruder-klauschapel-courtesy-of-atelier-peter-zumthor-partner-mechernichgermany-aldo-amoretti/.

Fig. 51: Even with shoes on, one can differentiate between the rough and smooth as well as wet and dry aspects of the floor. In: Flickr, https://www.flickr.com/photos/20318800@N08/3764605229.

Fig. 34: Chapel is mistakable as an agricultural silo. Author’s own photograph, Wachendorf, July 2015.

Fig. 52: The vertical ceiling gradually expands. Author’s own photograph, Wachendorf, July 2015.

Fig. 35: Chapel is mistakable as a tower in Ibid.

Fig. 53: The oculus is initially blinding and possesses an unmistakably spiritual quality in Ibid.

Fig. 36: Chapel is mistakable as a smooth wall in Ibid.

Fig. 54: Rainwater gathers upon the floor like a water font in Ibid.

Fig. 37: Weathered wood shingles at the Chapel of Saint Benedict. In Flickr, https://www.flickr.com/photos/20318800@N08/ albums/72157621441519439/page2.

Fig. 55: Grottenstein castle ruin’s damp irregular surfaces. In Wikimedia commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Grottenstein_innen.jpg.

Fig. 38: Chapel is mistakable as a silo and electricty plyon in Ibid.

Fig. 56: The sunlight which falls into the brooding space casts exaggerated shadows upon the charred walls. In: Remote Controlled: Building in Areas of Isolation, http://constructionculture. blogspot.com/2009/07/holy-zumthor-battle-royal.html.

Fig. 39: Three flanks of the chapel comprise of perimeter benches. Author’s own photograph, Wachendorf, July 2015. Fig. 40: A moment to rest in the shade after an arduous journey in Ibid. Fig. 41: The rammed concrete is identifiable as twenty-four layers as well as an array of stainless steel tubes puncturing this surface in Ibid. Fig. 42: A cold, metal spherical handle at the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel reflects the traversed landscape back to the visitor in Ibid. Fig. 43 & 44: The portal at the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel is hefty but pivots open smoothly despite having no visible connections to the rammed concrete in Ibid. Fig. 45 & 46: The shallow concrete staircase at the Chapel of Saint Benedict does not come into contact with the wooden structure, being held off by a narrow gap. In Flickr, https://www.flickr.com/ photos/20318800@N08/albums/72157621441519439/page2. Fig. 47: The elongated handle at the Chapel of Saint Benedict deviates from what one usually expects of a handle and increases one’s awareness of it as an object. In: Flickr, https://www.flickr.com/ photos/patchworks66/3011178145/in/photolist-JTBLY9-5A65mz8dwD3M.

Fig. 57: The sunlight received from the clerestory windows at the Chapel of Saint Benedict warms the wooden interior by bouncing off the metallic painted walls in Ibid. Fig. 58: Comparative scale plans of the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel and the Chapel of Saint Benedict in Benoît Vandenbulcke, ‘Concretion, Abstraction: The Place of Materials in Architectural Design Processes. Case Study: Peter Zumthor’ (Reflecting upon Current Themes in Architectural Research | Lawrence Tech, Lawrence Technological University: Architectural Research Centers Consortium, 2011), 683, http://www.arcc-journal.org/index.php/ repository/article/view/375. Fig. 59: Cave-like interior contrasts with exterior tower form in in Zumthor, Peter Zumthor: Buildings and Projects. 1998-2001, 3:1, 131. Fig. 60: Close connection afforded at the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel. In: Coast Studio, http://coastarc.com/f-e-l-d-k-a-p-e-l-l-e. Fig. 61: The Pantheon dwarf visitors making them feel distant to any divinity. In Gallery rambleon, http://gallery.rambleon.dk/ d/1681-2/pantheon_inside.jpg.

Fig. 62: Gottfried Böhm’s Church of Saint Albert in Saarbrücken. In: Flickr, https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8606/28372652791_ e640e5b067_b.jpg. Fig. 63: Rudolf Schwarz’s Church of St Anna in Düren with an oculus and water font. In: Straße der Moderne, http://www.strasse-dermoderne.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/77947_Dueren_Anna. jpg. Fig. 64: Rudolf Schwarz’s Church of St Anna uses circular glass openings to bring light into the interior, akin to the hemispherical beads at the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel. In: Raumplan, https:// www.raumplan.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/85_RudolfSchwarz_Pfarrkirche-St.-Anna-Du--ren_-1951---1956-.jpg. Fig. 65: Oculus above sculpture at the Church of Saint John the Baptist in Mehmet Kerem Özel, ‘Peter Zumthor’s Bruder Klaus Field Chapel as a Part of the History of Religious Architecture’, Mimar.Ist, February 2016, 86. Fig. 66: Oculus above sculpture at the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel. In: Pavlina Andrea Lucas, http://www.pavlinalucas.com/19932010/fbk.html. Fig. 67: Dominikus Böhm’s water font at the Church of Saint John the Baptist. In: Flickr, https://www.flickr.com/photos/ dteil/5488313307.

Fig. 76: Fire is echoed in the offertory candles in Ibid. Fig. 77: Water gathers in a tear-shaped pool upon the floor. In: Architecture Ireland, http://architectureireland.ie/a-journey-topeter-zumthors-bruder-klaus-feldkappelle. Fig. 78: Saint’s tablespoon consisting of a teardrop form with a slightly bent handle in in Thierry Greub, ‘Zumthor’s Zitate’, in Kreativität Des Findens Figurationen Des Zitats, ed. Martin Roussel and Christina Borkenhagen (Wilhelm Fink: Munich, 2012), 327. Fig. 79: Bust of Bruder Klaus acts as a reminder of human mortality, completing the ‘fourfold,’ and prompts a visitor to dwell upon their finite existence. In: Aldo Amoretti, http://www.aldoamoretti.it/ reportage-bruder-klaus-chapel-courtesy-of-atelier-peter-zumthorpartner-mechernich-germany-aldo-amoretti/. Fig. 80 & 81: Bruder Klaus’ chapel and monastic cell, containing two openings, in Flüeli-Ranft, Switzerland. In: Riot Media, https:// www.riot.ch/en/gallery/luftaufnahme-klause-bruder-klaus-flueeliranft/. Fig. 82: Bronze wheel with three spokes equally stemming to and from the centre. Author’s own photograph, Wachendorf, July 2015. Fig. 83: Visitors ‘dwell’, from earth, upon the sky and await a divinity. In: Coast Studio, http://coastarc.com/f-e-l-d-k-a-p-e-l-l-e.

Fig. 68: Peter Zumthor’s water font at the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel. Author’s own photograph, Wachendorf, July 2015. Fig. 69: A single narrow wooden bench hints at a tendency for individual worship in Ibid. Fig. 70: Pews offered to the congregation draw the visitor’s attention horizontally forward to the altar. In: Pinterest, https:// www.pinterest.ie/pin/406379566347177277/. Fig. 71: Fire and air are outward or upward reaching elements whereas earth and water are inward and downward. In: WouterHabets, http://www.wouterhabets.nl/pdf/Frame_the_ place_identity_©WouterHabets.pdf. Fig. 72: Diagram illustrating Aristotle’s model of the basic elements. Author’s own diagram, March 2018. Fig. 73: The weaving of spiders’ webs or fading of the soot, washed away by precipitation, reminds a visitor of the all-encompassing influence of nature. Author’s own photograph, Wachendorf, July 2015. Fig. 74: Earth is suggested in the strata of the rammed concrete in Ibid. Fig. 75: Air is present passing over the chapel and entering through the oculus in Ibid.

Mackintosh School of Architecture - Glasgow School of Art

Declaration of Originality Form This form must be completed and signed and submitted with all assignments. Please complete the information below (using BLOCK CAPITALS).

Name: PETER BYRNE Course Title – Academic Year: DIPLOMA IN ARCHITECTURE – YEAR 1 Title of Work: ENHANCING SENSUOUS EXPERIENCE: PETER ZUMTHOR’S ‘BRUDER KLAUS FIELD CHAPEL’ IN WACHENDORF, GERMANY, 2007

I confirm that this assignment is my own work and that I have: Read and understood the guidance on plagiarism in the Programme Handbook and other programme documentation

☑

Clearly referenced, in both the text and the bibliography or references, all sources used in the work ☑ Fully referenced (including page numbers) and used inverted commas for all text quoted from books, journals, web etc. ☑ Provided the sources for all tables, figures, data etc. that are not my own work ☑ Not made use of the work of any other student(s) past or present without acknowledgement. This includes any of my own work, which has been previously, or concurrently, submitted for assessment, either at this or any other educational institution, including school ☑ Not sought or used the services of any professional agencies to produce this work ☑ In addition, I understand that any false claim in respect of this work will result in disciplinary action in accordance with University regulations ☑

DECLARATION: I certify that this assignment is my own work, except where indicated by referencing, and that I have followed the good academic practices noted above

Signed:

If you are still unsure or unclear about what plagiarism is or need advice on how to avoid it, you should contact your Course tutor or Programme leader