Intentions in Architecture Christian Norberg-Schulz

sken_ http://doxbox.bloger.hr ContentsPreface1. IntroductionII. Background1. Perceprion2. SymbolizationIII. Theory1. Towards anintegratedtheoryof architecture.2. Thebuildingtask3. Form4. Technics5. Semant ics6. The architectural totalityIV. Outlook .1. Experience2 . Production3. Analysis4. EducationBibliographyIndexIll ustrations7II53' 95201225233243PrefaceThepresent study has grown out of the concrete problemsan architectencountersinhisprofession. Wedonot, inthefirst place. thinkof thetechnical difficulties which have to be surmounted in connection withanybuildingtask, but werather haveinmindtheproblemof definingthe task, and of deciding whether a planned or completed solution issatisfactory. Inbothcases wehaveto takeintoconsideration ' practical 'and "artistic ' needswhich concern thearchitect aswell associetyandtheindividual client . Todaywelackareal basisfor thisprocedure, andtheresult is arather discouraging' debate' wherethe parties talkat crosspurposes without arri vingat fruitful , mutuallyhelpful approachestotheproblem. In other words, welack a satisfactorytheory of architecture.Under thecontinual pressureof newdemands, most professions haveinourtime hadto develop comprehensive theoretical' tools' . Our architectu-ral solutions, however, are still the result of more or less accidentalimprovisations. The architects have shown themselves rather unwillingtoworkout atheoretical basisfor their field, mostlybecause of thepre-judice that theory kills the creative facult y. In the present study anattempt will bemade toprovethat this viewis erroneous.While our practical problemshavetoacertaindegreebeenanalyzed,architecture also comprises important' environmental ' problems whichsofarhave by no means been adequately investigated. Therefore, I originallyassignedmyself thetaskof discussi ng' thepsychological backgroundofarchitecture '. Duringthis work, however, it became clear thatthis aspectcannot be separatedfromthepracticalside of thematter, andthat archi-tecturebothas aproblemandasreadysolutions, must beconsideredasawhole, of whichtheindividual partsaremutuallyinterdependent. Thepresent study has therefore developed into an attempt to present an orderedsurvey ofall the' dimensions ' whichmay be imaginedtoenter awork7ofarchitecture. It aimsat general validity. andany architectural solutionmaybe understood asaspecial case whichiscoveredbythe theory. Inotherwords, I attempt to bring order into thatcomplex of ends and meanswhich the concept ' architecture ' comprises. The studytherefore givestheoutlines ofaconceptual schemewhichmaybeusedtoanalyzebuildingtasks as well as finished works; and I address myself both to the practisingarchitect andtothearchitectural historian. It must be stressedthat thepurpose is not tosolve theproblems. Thestud)' isneither a' textbook 'of architecture, noranhistorical survey. The intention is only to organizethesubject-matterinorder toarriveat acommonbasisforcollaborationinsolvingthe problems. Thestudy, therefore. istheoretical in therealsense of theword. Thetheoryshouldopenour eyes' totherichness ofthepossibilities, rather thansupport ready-maderules andcliches.To enableus toseethe connections betweenthetheory andour con-creteempirical problems, the studyopenswith a short account of thepresent architectural situation, andconcludeswithan ' outlook ' onthepcwibleapplicationsof thetheory. Thesepartsof thestudy(I andIV)pretend neither tobeexhaustive, nor to 'explain' the actual situation.They only have the purpose of giving the study a wider frame of reference.Onlyinpart III, thetheoryproper, haveI attemptedtocarrythroughacomprehensivepresentation. Because of thevastness oftheproblem, itnaturally remains a 'skeleton ' which should be completed through future,more detailed research. Part II results fromthe necessity of applyingscientific methods, andof basingthearchitectural theoryoninformationfromother fields. Hence, methodological, psychological, sociological andsemioticalinformationispresented, whichinmy opinionshouldbelongtothegeneral educational backgroundof anyarchitect or architecturalhistorian. It was foundconvenient to separate these topics from the theoryproper, in orderto make the lattermore lucid. All comments andquota-tionsarecollected in notes. These have become rather numerous, butonly inthis way couldthe main text be givena coherentandclearform.The theoryisderived frommyknowledgeof architecture, that is,froma limited knowledge ofalimitednumber ofexamples. Thetheorytherefore has to be tried out andrefined throughapplication inthe largestpossible number of concrete cases. This 'successive approximation' is8necessaryifasatisfactory theoretical tool is tobefound. I believeIhaveestablisheda point of departure, and given the opportunityI shall continuetheresearchthroughextensiveinvestigations ofancient andcontemporaryarchitecture.I wishtoexpress mythanks toTheNorwegianResearchCouncilforScienceand the Humanities for atwo-year travellingfellowship, whichmade it possible tocollect the historical material whichgives substanceto the study. The work would hardlyhave been possible without theinspiration I received as a pupil of S. Giedion at the EidgenossischeTechnische Hochschule in Zurich. The idea of seeing architectureas ageneral cultural phenomenonhas beenbornthroughinnumerablediscus-sions withDipl. Ar ch. E.Neuenschwander (Zurich) , ProfessorA. Korsmo(Trondheim), Professor A. Dorner (ex-Bennington College), H. MjcIva(Oslo), S. Fehn(Oslo), ProfessorB. L. Mohr (Tro ndheim), H. Ryvarden(Trondheim), andDr. A. Brenna(Oslo). Special thanksgotoProfessorH. P. L' Or ange (Rome), Professor Mies van der Rohc (Chicago), ProfessorPh. Frank(Cambridge, Mass.), ProfessorT. Parsons (Cambridge, Mass.),Professor T. Maldonado(Ulm), andaboveall toO. Skardal (Oslo), whomade the author understand the fruitfulness of the psychological andsociological approachtoart andarchitecture. Thanks arealso duetotheauthorsof thosewr itingswhichhavebeenof special importance tothestudy, above all E. Brunswik, C. Morris, G. Paulsson, H. Sedlmayr, R.Wittkower, D. Frey, L. Mumford, J. Piaget, J. Jorgensen, M. Wertheimer,andL. Wittgenstein. The studyisfurthermorebasedonmyexperienceasateacher andlecturer at TheStateSchool of Artsand Crafts(Oslo),Hochschule fur Gestaltung (U1m),TheUniversity of Oslo, The TechnicalUniversity of Norway (Trondhcim), and as a Smith-Mundt-Fulbrightscholar at Harvard University(Cambridge. Mass.).Rome, December I I1. Introduction------------------The present situationofarchitecture is confusedandpuzzling. Fromth,client wehear constant complaintsabout the architects' lack of ability[ 0 satisfy him, froma practicalas well as fromanaesthetical and econo-mical point of view.I The authoritiesgive us tounderstandthat it isoftendoubtfulwhether thearchitectsqualifiedtosolvetheproblemswhichsociety poses. 2Andthearchitectsthemselves disagreeonissues sofundamental that their discussionmust be interpreted asan expressionof groping uncertainty. The disagreement does not only concern theso-calledaesthetic' problems, butalso the fundamental questions ofhowman shouldlive andworkin buildings andcities. l Itis also characteristicthat architectural educationhas been under revision for a longtime. Newdidactical principles arewanted. but theends andmeans are indispute.4All these symptoms unite to indicate a confusion in our environmentwhichwe donot agree about howtounravel. Theunifiedcharacter weknowfromthecitiesandarchitectural lay-outs of thepast isbecoming 1adyingmemory. 5Theresult ofthis situationis that the architect is hardly accordedthesame recognition as other specialists with an equally high education.Many lookupon him as a necessary evil' , with the sole task of trimmingtheideas oftheclient. Andinwritingandspeechheispointedout asresponsible for the inconveniences and monotonous confusion of ourpresent-day environment. Many architects, onthe otherhand, pay scantyrespect tothetasteandwishes of theclient, andmaintainthat hehastobe' educated' . 6Thesituationisvery unfortunate. Theabsenceof mutual confidencebetween the parties and the lack of opportunity to co-operate on a commonbasiswill of course: reducethechancesthat newbuildingsand lay-outs13IStt theintroducricntoS. Giedi on: ADff'-tldc0/ NCIII ArrhitmuuZiilich1952In f inl:lnd .thi . ..sput of thel.iru..tion i. very positi...,. Stt E. 6: C. Neu-enschwander: Fi,,,, i,rhc & uu " / Atdie-Alt'/lr Atllto '950-5' . ZUrich 1954. pp. 5if.l The ideas brought fonh by thearchitects of the modern movement havecTutedstrongronlroy=ics. ToadYOCatetheirviews more efficiently. the ID(xk rnarchitectsfounded the Ccngres Inter n:u:io""w: d' Archi.tecture Moder nc(Cl AM)in1eD; op. cil., p. 170.II JOrgensen : op. cit p. 1 ~ .persons, andnot least, works ofart. Fortunately itoftenhappens thatweagree, butthe idea that' taste should not be discussed' is well established.Howhas this to be understood ? So farwe may say that the classificationsuponwhichwe agree aregenerally rathersuperficial, andthat theagree-ment usuallyfinisheswhenwe havetosee thethings ofeveryday life asmanifestationsofhigher objects.Thisimpliesthat wehaveadifferent attitude ' (orientation) tothe'same ' things. We have all experienced how the samethingmay changeaccording to ourattitude. Ifweare ina badmoodevenknownanddearthingsmayseemrepulsive. Thepsychologistshave studiedthisaspect ofperceptionandhave foundthat theattitudeplays a muchmore importantrolethanwegenerallybelieve. ThusBrunswikhasshownthat wehavea tendencyto overestimatethesize ofthingswe consider valuable, as forinstance coins. Uandanother experimentshows that the same coins appearlarger (relativetoa neutral scale of comparison) topoor than to richchildren. B Hence we have to realize that our attitude docs not only:nean amore or lessfriendlyoutlook on things, but that theattitudedirectly determinesthephenomena. We may evensay that it is nonsense;:0 talkabout phenomenaindependentlyof anattitude.14Naiverealism,therefore,isthevictimofafundamental misunderstanding, inbelievingthat a similarworldis given, a priori. to allof us. .Theattitude isoftendictatedbythesituation. When weread. theletters are given with form, as well as size and colour. But the taskdemandsthat wedirect our atti tudetowardstheform, whereasthesizeand the colour are irrelevant,Of even disturbing, if they are not' omitted'intheperception. 15Perception, therefore, is anything but a passive reception of impressions.We may changethe phenomena by changing ourattitude. Brunswikusedthe word' intention' instead ofattitude, to underline the active characterof theact of perceiving. Wehavesuggestedthat our commoneverydayintentionsaresimpleclassifications (suchas fish, flesh, orfowl ') whichenableustomaster thesituationsof dailylife. 16 Whenamoreunusualattitude is requested, a greater' intentional depth ' is needed, orlet us say,whenwe have to study the thingmore closely andjudge itmore actively,our everyday classifications fail, andwe do not fully ' grasp' the situation.3'11 Brumwik: op. cit. , pp- 120. 148.13 I . S. Bruner and C. Goodman : 'Valueand Need as Organizing Factors in Percep-tion" I . Abnorm. Psychol. XLII, 1941: alsoJ. S. Bruner and L. Postman : 'SymbolicValue as Organizing Factor in Pera: ption ' ,] . Soc. Psychol. 27, 1948.HTheproblemWaSinvestig;atcd already60)'CaIS agobyKiilpe. Agroupofwereexposedfor.tIl inStant tocoUOQUonsof numbcn, forms , andcoloun. Ifthey wereasked in advance10 report on the"umbnsshown. they were unable to tcll anythingwhatsoe:Ytt about the colours and th" forms ,and VMx versa. Kiil pr:coocIudcdthat a oiruatiCIn is influencedbyan ' Aufglthe in ouchawl Y that we only >riotts, Oxford1953. p. 193. Thismakesu' underst=d the nature of ..lsual illu. ionsand Gestall phenomena. The illu. ion of Kundt,where the left ,ubdi..idcd hall sam. longc.-thanthe rightone. resul ts from theformationof an inlermcdi..ry obj= andlength. Theha.lYe$:are eq=l.but theleftone comists of morep:uu. This ' I!IOR' in-fluences thepcrceptinnof thelengt hs (Bruns-wik : WQ},rndmung. . p. '40). The WC' II-kllOwn illusion can beund erstood..s the form..rion of an intermediarj- objectbetweenalength andanard : op. cit. , pp- 236ff.53 PaIsons: op. [it p-242.and understandthatall specialists necessarily have to developtheir charactcristic intentional poles. The artist is no exception. Most' special 'intentionsaredevelopedduringthesecondphaseofsocialization. Themechanismof perception, however, is built uponafoundationof general, everydayintentions. This is due to the first phase of the socialization-process, whichmay be called ' universal ' because it changes less in space and rime.Children' s drawings are fairly similarinall parts of the world, while thearts reflect alater adaptationtodifferent roles andcultural objects.ScHEMATIZATl ONWedefineaschema' asatypical (stereotyped) reactiontoasituation,thatis, as atypical attitudeor acharacteristic coherence-systemofinten-::ional poles. Weunderstandthat theschemata are formed duringsociali-radon, " andtheirimportance is so greatthat wemay almost put asign:,f equalitybetweenschemaandperception."Thus wegenerallyascribe:0a man whospeaks Swedishall the properties which make up ourschema Swede' ; in fact we perceive properties which may not be present,anddiscoverperhapsthat our schemaonlypartly ' fits' . Or rather, wediscover that ourperceptioniswrong, as we usuallyarenotconscious ofour schemata. Whenwediscover thatour reactionisunsatisfactory, that:heschemadoesnot allowasufficient intentional depth, weareforced: 0 reviseit. The schematizationthereforeis aprocess whichnevercomes: 0a close. But it is a well-known fact that our prejudices may beso strongthat werefusetorevise, andif wesaythat apersonis ' fossilized' , itsignifies thathis schematizationhas stopped. Hehas acquired a collectionofmoreor less primitive schemata, andhasat anypricetoforcereality-ntothem. Rather thanletting the schematago, he acceptsadistortedvi ew of reality. We clingto the schemataandareafraid ofthe insecuritywhichwouldresult if theworldshouldlose itsschema-bound stability.Brunswik thus says that a certain Unbelehrbarkcit characterizes per-ception. " Piaget reports anexperiment where g-year-oldchildren have:0predict howthesurfaceof thewater insideabottlemoveswhenthebottle is tipped. Althoughthe childrenlook at the bottle when it is tipped,:hey are unable to perceive that the surface of the water remains horizontal.4'~ 9 C. Cherry; OnHumanCommunicatio",NewYork &: London 1957, p. :>54. Theex-istenceof inborn schemata may bedoubted.SeealsoJ.Piaget, T h ~ Child', Conlt,UC"tionof Rcality, London 1955.60 Brunswik saysthat the casesare normal in denen die &"genstandliche Welt wenig_st"osab Schema donvaonare steadilylosingtheir import anceinmodernsoxiety.92 SeeWaner : op. cit . p. 171.9) ' Ein Fiji- Mann sagt einem Fot Kher':" Ein Ding hat Knit - mana _ wenn esin Tiligkeil i,, ; n hat kein mana, wenn esnkhl arbeiter. . W"mer: op. cit . ""8) .9-l Werner: op. cir., pp. 259fl.!n We cannot say thaI the ' Wehbild ' ofprimitivemanis les, 'corrce! ' thanourowo.Itis true that he doc,not masterhis surround-ing' satisfactorily , ashi. ability of ebureaion" very limited. He is therefore unable todefine the bcron (objects) which should beronttoll ed. lIul neither isour own 3Julytielltor pseudc -analyrical . ni rudevcry closetolife.because il omitsrelevant nu:lllJX"! anddoesnotreach s)nthetical conclusions. .o\ n adequateconduct must bebased upon me ability .ofd,ll"g;"gthe attitude acconling 10 the Au/-g,,/;>" of thesituat ion.96Werner : op. eil. pp. Il6 ff .and personal factors, 91 On the other hand, wecan within anyculturerecognizecharacteristicerrorsof perception. Thesemayfollowfromaninsufficient organizationof thesituationdue tothelackof appropriateschemata, or fromthe employment of wrongschemata. The last case oftenpresentsitself as trompe-l' oeil or asaconfusionof Sein undSchein(wemarry thegirlbecause ofher beauty).THEINTHE The psychology of perception teaches us to refuse naive realism. The world' is' not as it immediately appears to eachofus. Wealwayshavetotakeintcconsiderationthat ourperceptionsmay be superficial orevenwrong.Any situationinwhichwehave toparticipateis perceivedinrelationtoourprevious experiences. This means thatwe organize the situation accord-ingto our perceptual schemata. Andwehave seenthat theschemataareonly common on a fairly low, everyday level. If we put a modern sportsmaninfromof oneof Michelangelo' sslaves, he'integrates ' it inhisworldbysaying : 'amanofstone'. Webecomewhat wedo, andWedowhatweare. 91Our perceptions are, as we have seen, intermediary objects, The stimulus-situation usually offers many possibilities for the choice of intentional poles,and oftenWe ourselves contribute decisive poles which are not to be foundinthe external situation. Thi s happens for instance when a bank-note lookslarger than a piece of paper of the same size, Foreveryone of us particularstimuli will be connected with particular coherence-systems (schemata)durin g. theprocess ofperception. We canalso express thi s bysayingthataparticular stimulus produces parti cular expectations. In most casesthesame stimulus will give rise to several different expectations, amongwhichoneis of particular intensity. Ifaman talksSwedish, we expect that heis a Swede, althoughwe might also believewitha certaindegree ofprob-ability thathe is a compatriot who wants to fool us. Thuswe spontaneouslyperceivcaSwedewhenheopenshis mouth. We sec andhear what weexpect, andinthis waythegiven stimulusbecomesmeaningful, Weper-ceive thestimulusasa manifestation of anintermediaryobject, inourexamplethe schema' Swede' , andeverythingthis implies ofpositive and59i Wecan of course imagine' 'impossible 'organboIe 1J4." Wemay foeInstanceexperiencethe geo-metryof thewor ks of art of the Renaissanceas asymbol of thecosmicharmony.that all worksof art areequallygood ' . Thisideaisaproduct of thelArtpour I'Art attitudeandthegenerallevellingof all values.Artistic meaning thus is ' measured ' relative to the probability structureswe call styles. But weshouldalso notice that thesingleworkdefinesitsownindividual probabilities. Thisis particularly evident inmusic, wherethe opening theme 'determines ' what may or may not follow. Correspond-ingconditionscanbe foundintheother arts. Thestylethus conditionstheformingeneral, whilethethemedeterminestheindividualdevelop-ment ofthesinglework. Inbothcases themeaningis afunctionof thedeviations from what is most probable, brilliantly labelled ' designeduncertainty' by Meyer. 89 Fromthis we understandthat theexperience ofaworkof art presupposesthat weknowthestyle, that ourexpectationscorrespondtotheprobabilitystructureof thesymbol-systeminquestion.Veryoftenthe experience ishinderedor distortedbythelackofsuchacorrespondence. '10Again, thisemphasizes that it is amisunderstandi ngto believe thatworks ofart fromany epoch may be experienced' sponta-neously' .91The study of artistic forms andcontentsis not complete until we haveplaced these two aspects in relation to each other and clarified the generallyneglectedsemantical dimension, Theartisticproblemproper consistsinconcretizingacontent (anintermediaryobject)inanother medium, andthe scmantical aspect thereforeisof central importance. Howmaytheconcretizationtake place?The answerabove all is suggested by theterm. struct ural similarity' , If the artistic symbol has a structure correspondingto that of the content, the semantical contact is established. Charles Morrishasintroducedtheconcept ' iconicsign' tocover thiscase." It maybeillustrative to mentionthat the sameidea is takenas a pointof depart urefor theanalysis of handwriting, byassumingthat thestructure , of thecalligraphyreflectsthemotoricbehaviour of thewriter, which again isfunctionally connected with his inner state. The psychologist Arnheimdiscusses this problem in detail and maintainsthat we have the best reasonstoassumethat particulararrangementsoflinesandshapes correspondtoparticular emotional states, 93 Or rather we should say that particularstructures havecertainlimitedpossibilitiesfor receivingcontents, Wedonot playa Viennesewaltz at a funeral. The structural similarityonly7'89in Music. . . ' , p. 419.90 Meyer borrows ater mfromirtlmmaliollth=ryandt;llks about ' cultural noise' .91 In experiencing musicadifficulty.musical scoreisnotawurkofart in a, abuildingor ap;!inting. It i, onl yamoreor .. , alisof:lCtlIry of thereal artistic phe-ncrnenon, and hu to "" 'intl'rprct ni . Theinterpretationrequestscertaindeviationsfromwhni printed(such as' ru b.alo' etc.j. Thisdoes flO! man.however, thatthese ' are' the: work of .:lrt, :as maintainnl by(op. cit.) .Morris : ' Eon>: or.cit. ,e- 34)III unger: Phil osophy.. . p. 14,.1.!2SecWerner : 01'. cit., PI'. 284fl . for ;tcomprehensiveaccount of magical reality.123This definitionof philosophyoriginaUyItems fromMoritz Schlick. See &UlmmcluAu/ril::c. Wjen 1938.wearenot mature enoughto master, at thesame timeas it isunabletoregisterthe' quality' of the immediate situationandtointegrate maninhisenvironment. Understandingtheimportanceof concretizing symbol-systems insociety, it is evidentthat we needa general traininginartisticand religiousorientations. It isalsoimportant that we should learn tochang( our att itude according to the situation. Instead of the diffusemagical attitude of primitive man, we have to differentiate our orientationsincorrespondence with our complex andarticulatedworld. Itis thereforesurely amisunderstandingwhensomewant a returntoadiffuse medleyof art , science, religion, andmetaphysics. Hi Suchtotalities ' necessarilywill havealowdegreeof articulation, or theywill becomesocomplexastobe useless. Realityonlygetsanarticulatedstructurewhendefinedobjectsand relations replacethe diffusenessof magic. Theobjectshavetheir counterpart in differentiated symbol-systems. In this wayonly isculturalgrowthpossible.Today many ofournon-descriptive symbol-systemshave becomeobso-lete, as they do not suit the new life-situations brought forth by the immensedevelopment of the cognitive-instrumental activities. Newconcretizingsymbolshavecertainlybeen created, but the publichas not integratedthemwith the newcognitive intentions. Firstly, this shows that thecognitiveintentions arconly ~ accepted' , but not reallytaken intousc;and secondlythat the newconcretizations are not even accepted. Thepublic of our day accepts science as unint elligible, but necessary, and rejectsmodernartas unintelligibleandunnecessary. The result is what Giedionhas brilliantlynamed' thesplitof thought andfeeling' . Changes intheenvironment rarelyhappensimultaneously inall fields,andchanges thathavetakenplace inonefieldmaythereforenecessitatedrastic encroach-mcntsinothers. Thi s problemwasparticularlyprominent 5 0- 100 yearsagowheninventions producedsuddenleaps insinglefiel ds. It wasverydifficult toadjust theeverydayworld of objects totheseleaps, as thepsychol ogical andsociological dimensions needamoregradual develop-ment. Theproblemisstill just aspressing, because technological devel-opment, in spite of all attempts at planning and co-ordination of thedifferent fiel ds, moves atanunchallengedpace. Architecture suffersparti-81]1. Such [Otal ity views' stem from themisconception t hat a ' synthetic sce nce' ispossible.cularly fromthis lackofbalance, andthe architectstakerefugeinusingobsoletemethods.Itisalso typical of thepresent confusion that manywant tocreateametaphysical separationbetween thehumanistic andthenatural sciences.We understand that this is amisconception, as the sciences are baseduponcommon methods. The methods are independent of the subject-matter, andonlytr ytoanswer thequestion : ' Howdowegainknow-ledge?' Aworkofart canbejust as wellinvestigatedscientificallyas achemical substance, and the basic methods founded on the theory of objects,information theory, and semiotic, are common.l2S If it issaidthat weshould not use methods borrowed fromthe naturalsciences inthe human-istic disciplines, this only shows alackof understandingoftheends andmeans ofscience. We shouldalso repeat that ' intuitive ' methods to gain are illusory. The new synthesis of logic andempiricism of ourday has taught us that it is meaningless to assumethat domains of know.ledge exist wheretheintellect isnot competent . Theunity oflogicandempiricismalso implies a unity of theory and pracrice.!" Before, empiricalstudies were carried out withoutthe suportof logically organizedsymbol-systems, whilethelogical systems of philosophy onlyhadslight contactwith empirical facts, andrather acquiredthe character of free speculation.Thetheoryofobjectsandsymbol-systemsalsomakesthetraditionaldistinctionbetween' matter ' and'spirit ' obsolete. ' Physical ' and 'psy-chical ' objects arelogical constructions based uponphenomena which, assuch, canneither be calledphysical norpsychical; they are only classified[0 allowforaconvenient divisionof workwithinthesciences. 127Asthebest summing-upof what theconcept' cultural development 'implies, wemayquoteWhit ehead: The art of progress istopreserveorder amidchange, andchangeamidorder.' nil125 Set; V. F. Lenzen : "Philosophy ofScieoce' , in D. D. Runes (cd.): T_"tict"CC1I llU'y P/JikJsoplJy. NewY(I(k 1947. p. 109::dsoReM;henbach : 0p. ot., p. 346. Dr=p:Log. .AuJbcr.u, p. makes die followingn.atmlCllt : 'Die urfallen nichtinunzlUammenbingendebiere, soooa n es giht nutvonGegenslinden und daha nur cine Wi..cn-schaft. 'Wi C. Mortil : ' Scientific Empiricism", inEncyd oped;a and Unified Sc;eMe, Chiqgo1937127 Phy, ical term, l ih"mass' or 'energy 'have cehlng 10 do with t he (meaningle..)question whether the world ' is' material orspiritual. SeeP. Frank: Mod""Soencea"d Philosop1l y. Cambridge 1949, pp. 127,,866.III A. N. Wbiteho;.ad, Pro.cCU6.l/ d Bra/ity.NewYotk I!P 9, p. 515.III. TheoryI. Towardsanintegratedtheoryof architectureTHEORYANDEXPERIENCEThe two previouschapters furnishthe general background we need todevelop acomprehensive theoryof architecture. At thesame time theyhelpustounderstandtheneedforsuchatheory.The theoryshould not be a substitute for the direct experience ofarchitecture. We have seen that a theoretical scientific investigation hasanother purposethantocompetewith perception. But the theorysurelycanhelpus toattainamore'correct ' andprofoundexperienceofarchi-tecture. The theoretical insight will perhaps tell us that the work ofarchitectureis afunctionoffactors whi charenot immediatelyaccessible,at thesametime asatheoretical examinationof its formal organizati onfacilitatesour perceivingitcorrectly. The theorythusindicatesthepoleswhich define the ' adequate' orientation to the object. Only when intendingwhat the formg prcunts as a manifestation of higherobjects may wetalkabout a real architectural experience.' We here presuppose that the concept;. architecture' transcendstheformal aspect, but evenwhenexperiencingpurelyformal properties, weneedtheoretical insight. Thisproblemwillbediscussed in more detail later. " That architecture issomething morethana playof forms, should be evident fromthe experiences of ourdailylife, where architecture participates' in most activities. Nevertheless itis often maintained that the;' real ' architectural experience is purd y formal('aesthetic ").3 But we repeat that objects arenecessarily perceived as mani-festations of each other, because they belong to situations and do notappear in isolation. Through a particular analytical attitude it issurelypossible to perceive architecture formally, that is, relative to certain formalcategories. But it is justas possibletoperceive theformsas manifestationsof thepresuppositions whichhave determinedthem. Analytical experienceI was the first \0 stTe-s that thea(eeuibility of a work of art pre-upposes anamNde. (' Zuciner .ueng.:nKunst -wi.scnscbaft . ' 930).2\ Vbilethe arehitects are often oppm.ed 10theory . the musicians have always acpt2 Albrni : op. cit. , YD. See C. Norberg-Schulz , ' Lcultimcintenzioni di Alberti ', illAdoJ Romonu mNoJ, tlCgi M'. Vol . f,RomaIJ.BAlberti, VII, IV.34 Wiltkowet: op. cit. put IV, pp. 89 if.,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -DuringtheBaroque periodthe classical theory ofarchitecture becameexposedtocriticism. Perrault maintains that proportionsarehardlyper-ceptible3\ andconcludesthatthe rules ofarchitecture, ratherthanmani-festing an apriori beauty, arc a result of habits. This criticismwasformulatedphilosophically by Hume, whosays: Beauty is noquality inthings themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them;andeachmindperceives a different beauty.' 36 At thesametimeLaugiercriticizes the classical orders and questions their organizing power inarchitectural practice. 11 Thethinkingof theseventeenthandeighteenthcenturies thus ledtoa breakwithconceptions whichhadbeenbasic sinceAntiquity. This tendency is already evident in Borromini who ' barbarically'set himselfagainst all traditional rules for goodproportion. Rather thanorganizinghis plans andelevations onthe basis of commensurable magni-tudes, he employed geomet ricalmethodsto determinethesubdivisions ofthe main shape. 31 The plan of S. Iva alIa Sapienza. for instance, is derivedfromtwointersectingequilateral triangles,and, asiscommonlyknown,theheight of anequilateral triangleisincommensurablewith thesides.Themethod of Borromini isrelatedtomediaeval practicewhich deter-mined the architectural formad quadratumor ad triangulum. J9 Thegeometrical conception of the architectur al form, however. also stems fromPythagorean-Platonic ideas, and we understandthat Borromini broke awayfroma particular anthropomorphistic (Vitr uvian) interpretation of thistradition. Commonto boththe numerical andthe geometrical conceptionsis that the proportionsare regardedas the decisiveformalfactor, anideawhichis stillalive inthe everydaylanguage ofarchitects.Themorerecent theoriesof proportion arenumerous. 4() It has, forinstance, been common to superimpose a net of ' invisible' lines onfacadesandplans, to secure anorderedinterrelationship ofthe parts. Inthis wayone has also tried to prove thatthe masterpieces of the past are baseduponsubdivisions of the circle, on the golden section or on parallel diagonals etc.Suchideas have beenthe point of departure forLe Corbusier, whois theauthor of one of themost recent attempts at establishing a systemofproportion. 41 Le Corbusierexplicitlysays that theproblemof formis ofageometrical natureandthat thework of art is mathematical '. LikeVitruvius he finds the basis for his system in the human figure. ' Theman9'13,.15Scholfield : 01'. cie.. p. 1'; 01" cir., 1'. 78; wirtkower : 01'. cit . p. 126;C.Oraorm ane" ducinqesphnd"coJonnn.1633.36 D. Hume : On Ihr Standll1'd oj Tasl( ,175737Laugicr : Obs"vations sur I' A",hillulT(1765>.n Dc. inconveniences del ordresd'Aschilceture ' , III. TnOle 37.Most architectural theorists of the Renais-sauce and the Baroque .upportcd the Vi_reuvian iOOth at thc cbcic ocdcn representdifferent ' ch;u-xtcn' , andaccordinglyhad tohe u.ed in connection wimp:uticul;u- building task.. The ma>culine Doric order wasapplied 10fortific.:nion,. city-galesutili-t.rian buildings . column. wereused in churches I"'laco, whil" theIonic on:ICI" represented a hMll10nic m UDbelwcen e,,[Kmes . hfor inSlanceapplied 10 to wn -halls. s..c the ""celknt51 udy by E. Fon,man : Dorird. loniKh.KorinlhiKA ; SlOCkholm ' 9'5',31 Stt R. Wi ttkowCl" : AN "ndAreh' IKIUTI!in Ifr, Boulogne195 (1with the raised arm' is the basic measure (2.26 m.). Thi s measure he dividesaccordingtothe goldensectionandthusarrivesat ascalewhereall thedimensions arerelated. Thesingledimensions onthescalemayalso beadded, toallowforalarger andmoreflexiblenumber. Thenumber ofdimensions is further increased by the introductionof a secondscale wherethemeasures are half ofthose onthe first one. Inlettingall the measuresof the building correspondto values fromthescales, Le Corbusier believestoattainthedesiredorder, at thesametimeas thedimensionsremain;; human ' . The latter idea is new, in so far as previous theories of proportiononlytried tomanifest the human order, without usingthe real siu ofmanasabasic measure. Not onlybecause of thevaryingsize of humanbeings is the idea hardlyconvincing. That measures derivedfromthehumanbodyareconsidered morepleasingthan othersisa typical caseof ;; number-mysticism' .It isnot our tasktocomparetheorganizing power of thedifferentsystemsof proportion." Rather wehaveto investigatehowtheideaingeneral presents itselfinthelight of thepsychologyof perception. Theobjectionthat theforeshorteningsprevent us fromperceivingdirectly thenumerical relationships, is, as wehave seen, notnew. A square may looklike a trapezoidanda circle like an oval. The constancy phenomena showthat the experienced foreshortenings do not follow the laws of perspective.Furthermore Gestalt psychologists have stressed the fact that shapes changeaccordingtothe context inwhichthey appear. Evenwithout foreshorten-iogs, a square may lookrectangular because of its environment . Andstill,architectural historyseemstoshowthat numerical andgeometrical rela-tionships may produce architectural order. The explanation is simple.Through the repetition ofmotires the numerical order becomesperceptible. Inthe interiorsof Brunelleschi werecognizewithout effort 16thatthesquareandthesemi-circle are used throughout, althoughweseethe single elements under different foreshortenings. We recognize theelements because oftheirgeneral similarity(form-constancy), andsponte-neously perceivethebuildingas an ;; addition ' ofelementarygeometricalshapes. 43 InAlberti's Sant'AndreainMantua, boththeexterior andtheinterior are determined by a pregnant ' wall-theme ' , which is varied 17proportionally. The perceivedorder isnot dependent uponthe ratios9342 Thil is byScholfield: 0p. cit.43 Wittkower (' Brunelleschi and Proportionin Perspective", in Journal &/ the WarhurgandCourtau/Jlnltit uts, Vol. XVI , 19'53) triesto show that wc experience: , imilar pr&port ionsin spire: of the shorteningsfanna regularofdiminish.ingdi mensions. Thi , i. ce:rtai.nJ.ycorred. butIhe eXl'C' rience describM by Winkower ismainly due to the repetition of Gn talr.li kcmotivQ.+I Norberg-Schula: ' Alberti.. . ",being exactlyI:I or I: 2 , but uponour recognitionofthetheme. Whenthishashappened, wemay analyticallyinvestigatetheorganizationanddiscover the underlying ratios. But these ratios are never perceived as such;rather we recognize the dimensions as similar ', 'almost simila; ' or' completelydifferent ". Thispresupposesthat theratiosarepresentedaspregnant visual Gestalten. Invisible lines which are supposedto determinetheproportions,inmost cases havetobe rejectedas afiction. Thi s docsnot mean that we want to abolish the number completely. When weexperience similarities, the repetition of equal dements implies a numericalorder. But the number entersas apurelysecondaryd ement of thede-scription.The experienced orderthus has to be understood as a character-isticGestalt, in accordance with the investigations of Piaget. What issaidabovedoesnot, asit mayseem, implythat wewant totake ourimmediateexperiencesasa point of departure for thedescription. Weonlywant todescribetheactuallypresent form, or theintendedform,bymeansof concepts which arein accordance with our psychologicalknowledge. Ingeneral, weunderstandthat theterm' proportion' onlyrefers tosecondary propertiesof the architectural form, and we mustconcludethat systems of proportion onlycan playa minor roleinanintegrated theoryof architecture. The qualitiesof classical architectureareprimarilyduetoother factorsthannumerical relationships, and theexpression good proportions> designates the presence of a satisfactoryintermediary object rather than the existence of certain ' harmonic' ratios. Towards the end of the nineteenth century we encounter the firstattemptstoestablisha newbasis for the theoryof architecture. Riegltakestheimmediateexperienceashisstartingpoint, and puts forwardthestrangetheory of takt ischandoptisch asthetwocategoriesof perception. Forms either result from a tactile conceptionwhich is tiedtothesurface, or froman optical introduction of ' depth-values' . 46 We mustreject theidea that objects areperceivedeithertactually orvisually, orasamixtureof thetwomodes. What weperceiveare forms ,andtheirmeaningdoes not result fromtheuse ofhands oreyes duringthe act of perception. What we seeis perhaps partly determined by tactileexperiences (Piaget), but this doesnot allowus tocharacterize aformasbeingtactile. The perception of depth , by the way, is also conditioned by9445 Miavander Robecallstheproportioma means of architectural expression' . hm ere-phasizes that theyhave thecharacter of in-tuitions ; iDour terminology. mt...,tions 01interme:orberg-Schub: Nervi _ingeniiir ellef ;If.kiteh" , in Bygge1(unsr, NO.2, T-63). The same tendency has turned uprecentlyinthe ...Tiling. of P. L. Nervi , whosaystha t the main task of the architect is-e conceive the tfichcla.ngd osCappellaMedici .... a . enical addi tion of threezones corresponds toaniconographic di.ision.(See C. Norberg-Schulz : .l.ficJ,rl""gelo ...'"""'kitekt, Oslo1!)5S).19 11In principle n cormponds to Vim.viu. ' .. tilittu, tI't hibitionin ' 931.51 Wecould imagine anordrr lused uponformalelementswhicharc :moc;alwwiththeurne sentiment. Such ageneral i, typical of romanti c mu. ic, The ...-dcr0b-rained , however . is amorp housaodof limitedinterest .J _ducing two or more types corresponding to a hierarchyof elements.In classical Greek architecture the organizing relations are tied to 61the single building, while Hellenistic-Roman architecture knows more 62extensive compositions like fora, baths, and palaces. Onlyduri ng theRenaissance. however, did an undisturbed isotropic order become the 71ideal. Thelatterorderhas foundrenewedinterestin our time,becausethefunctions arenolonger isolated.Therelationsbetweentheelements arcusuallymoreimportant thantheclements themselves. Thisis perhapsnot surprising, astheclementisdeterminedbyitsinner relations. Inother words, thewholebecomesmore important than theparts, assoon aswecantalk about awholerather than an accidental 'aggregate' of independent units. Awhole,onthe other hand, is itself an clement ina wider context, andwe under-stand that ' element ' and relation ' arc interconnected aspects of thesameobject : theformal structure. The architecture of the Renaissanceandthe Baroque' illustratestheclement-relationproblemespeciallywell,because the samebasic elements arc related invarying ways. Itis thereforenecessary tohave an experienced eye to perceive the seeminglysmallnuances in the architecture of this period. The example becomes stillmore interesting because the elements arc mainly borrowed fromthe' classical' architectureofAntiquity. Onshouldnotforget, however. therole of the mediaeval tradition. The theme' classical architecture' thereforeoffersanideal introductiontothebasicproblemsof architectural form.FORMAL STRUCTUREWe have already suggested that a collection of dements ordered bymeansof theproximityrelation, forma ;. group', whileacollectionofclementsorderedbythecontinuityrd ationforma ;. row' . Inbothcaseswearriveat forms or formal strucrures. Throughdifferent combinationsof clements and relations We may create an infinite number of suchstructures. Thecombinations, however. follow determined principles whicharefunctionsof what entersthestructure. Wecanthereforerender anaccount of thegeneral properties of theformal structureandgivesomecharacteristicexamples. 60146W Frey: COlik " 1/ J Re1/ Jiu J1/u. o.liO It is possible to eMfY through a matKexpositionof aUcombination. ofmems.a ndreb tioru. Thistask, ho... bIboutside the scope of the present nud)o.!Thegroup formedwhenacollectionof mass-elementsisorderedbymeans ofproximityhas arelatively lowdegreeof articulation. Accordingto everyday language we wouldcall such aforma "cluster", 61 The cluster 53maybe geometrizedandbecomeareal groupwithco-ordinatedelements.In the same way a topologicallyordered ' row' may be geometri zed.Finallywemay geometr izeatopological enclosurebymeansof apoint, ,2aline, ora grid, andarrive atacircle, anellipse, orapolygon. Aclusteris always an' opm' form, asthed ements bydefinitionareindependentand maybe taken awayor added. Agroup, instead, can be open or'cloud' . We havealreadyintroducedtheterms ' centripetal' and"cen- 67trifugal' tocover thisstateof affairs. Acluster isnot onlygeometrized 68bymeans of centralization, but mayalsobe submittedtoa co-ordinatesystem. In this case both centripet al and centrifugal formations arepossible. Arow may also be openorclosed, while anenclosureby defini-tionisa closedIcrm. " Rows and groups are additiveor divisive, thatis, organizedfrom'below' or from ttrukt;0,,,ldm: . GiitcnlohtW.3As tar as we know, CUrt Siegel is theonl y one who has attempted 10 understandthe technical d.imension .:II a collection oftechnical that is, froma It rUCluralpoint of viewmoJer"enArdli/ek' ur, Miinchen 191'0). In Englishsrrucrure ' and ' construction ' are oftenusedas synonyms. We find it conve nient 10 give"nroctur e ' a more gener al meaning, such as' interrel ation of parts ' .immanent tendencytowardsorder. It isdifficult tobuild ahousewithdissimilarpieces ofmaterial, especially if thehouse shouldhave aregularshape. Itis also practicalto carr y througha certainstandardizationofthetechnical elements. Arational productionof a limitednumber of partswill reduce the waste to aminimum, andtheprocess of constructionitselfis simplifiedthrougharepetitionofthesameoperations. Theeconomi calfactortherefore also supports the wishfor technical order. 4 Finally, staticalcalculationdemands that the constructionshould have acertainregularity,both becausemorefavourablestatical conditions result, and becausethecalculation of an irregular structure is difficult or impossible. Any structureof acertainsizehas tobebaseduponarepetitionof parti cular staticalrelationships. In adomeover a circular plan, all thesegments runni ngfromtheperipherytothecentreareessentially alike; abarrel vault maybe subdivided in equal arches, and skeleton structures repeat the same 'elements throughout.5 Weunderstandthat constructional order implies arepetition of equal element s. Theword ' element'also covers the dimensionsandmaterialsemployed. 6The technical systemsmaybedivided intoclasses with characteristicproperties. Inadditiontotheclassesproper, weknow' amorphous ' con-structions which are common in primitivearchit ecture. Clayand otherplasticmaterialsare usedtomake forms of a topological character, orunworked stonesare employed to the same purpose. i Suchamorphous 86constructions offervery limitedpossibilities for thevariationofthe spatialforms andsizes and forthe placingof openings. It is interesting, however,to notice that even such primitive methods show an immanent tendency to-wards geometrical forms. The technical systems propercame intoexistencethrough the development of building methods which were adapted to moredifferentiatedbuildingtasks andformal structures. Thesystems may con-veniently be divided into two classes: massiuc systemsandskeletonsystems .Both classes have manyvariants, andthereexist transitorytypes and com-bined systems. Both the basic system types serve two purposes:the buildingof bounding walls, and the covering of the spaces formedinthis way. ! Wetherefore have to distinguish between enclosing and covering systems. It oftenhappens that these aspects melt together inone complete technical system,but oftenthe two problems aretakencare of by different types of system.r624 This does not imply that the cheapestconst ruction neee,,;u-ily possesses thc highestdegre e of order. Rather we maythatordcr is economic al if we compare several.-menon when today assign the te.::hniea\sj'stems an aesthetic function. For the archi.teetural praeliee of the past sec A. Grote:Da "olkommrll Architecluf, :\f unehen 1959.(; Kot only because drawings and model.arc abn ran ion' . but because the layman isonl}' ablc tc perceive the finished buildingun",tisfxtoril y.7 Bruno Zevi diKUSSCStheprobleminS 61, 171Addition: 93. CJ7. 1'11 . 147. Fig. 20Adjustment: 37Acsthdics: 14,17. 18, 6] fl .Alhtrti. L.B. : 88, 89. 91,93, II 4, 122, 124. 152, 153, 175, 186, Fig. 17Ambigui ty : 34. I,p . 150, Fig. 6Ammannati, B. : Fig. 52Analysis: 24.30,51, 100, 102. 113. 2CJ9ff.Andrae, W. : 58, 110, I II , Fig. 24Anthropomorphism: 48, 89, 90Architect : 13, 16, 20, 1M. 167, 201,203, 204, 217.222Architccnlf alexperience : 8s iI.,96, '17. 195 fl .Architectural frame : 14, III, 172Architectural intention. : ICfJ, 179Archnecnual system: 104, 182, 186Architectural totality: I02ff., 169, 179ft, I ~ , 186, 195, 222Amhcim, R. : .p, 46, 71, 74, ]6, n. IJS.145, Fig. 7. 10Ar t : 20,29, 62, 66, 6] ff., lOS, 122, 187Arneulation : 58, 139, 151, 160, 166, 175, 18t , 184, 186Arti fact : 116r ATt pourrArt : 19> 6] , 68, 71, 133. 195. 11)8, :ns, 219Asplund , G.: 18Atomism : lOSAtt itude : 30 fl., 34, 62. 6s: fl., 81, 86, 19S, 196Axiality: 143, 145, 150, 159. Fig. 62Baldachine : 96,99, 124. 139Banality: 58, 50, 156, 157, 187Bandmann, G. : 88,100, 110, 111, 123, 159, 183, 186Baroqueart (architecture) : 87, 92, 95,97, ror, 120. 126, 135, 140, 141, 143, 146, 148,154, 169, Fig. 13, 21, 22, 42, 43. 46, 50,55, 96Basilica : 106, 124, 183, Fig. 3-2Bauhau s: 13, 18, Ig, 201, 21g, 220, 221, 222Bergson, H. : 63'33Bernini, L. : 144Borromini, F. : 92, 99, 100. 1]8, I,p, 150, 198, Fig. I] . ar, 22, 42> 46,50, 55Boundar y: 96,99. I] ]. 137Boundingsurface: 1 O ~ ) , 134, 139> 1490 150, Fi g. 41Bramante, D. : 102. 145. 152, Fig. 68. 79Braunfels, W.: 88. 118. 172Brinckrnann, A. E. : 86. 98, 183Brunelleschi, F.: 7, 93, 95, 104. 123, 143, 148. 151. 158. Fi g. 16. 18, 59, 84Brunswik., E.: 14. 27, 28, 29. 31, 32. 33, 34, 35. 36, 41, 4l> 47. 51, 53, 54, 62. 63. 68Buhler. K. : 29, 35Buildingtask : 16, 18,21.2-3.88.102. 104. l OS. Iogfl.12] fl. 160, 16]. 173. 175. 1']6.In,1790 ISs. 186, 195. 210Buildingtype: : 106. 153> 157. I&), 173. 18], 20]By-produa : 10']. 180Capacity : 106, ISS. 160. 175.In,182Caenap, R. : 29, 56. 57. 58, 59. 82Cathexis: 65. 66. 68, 188Cave: 12.5Ceiling : 137Centralization : 1] 6, 142, 145. Fig. 59Change: 74, 82. 160Cher. c.: 41.56. 60. 61. 151. 156. 158ClAM: 13. 17City planning: 103>113. II4. 121. 129. 152, 153. 223Civitas: 118, 172Classical architect ure : 146, 149Classicalorders: 17, 91. 92. 98. 145Classification : ]1. 53, 66. 132Climate:: 113. n8, 154Closure : 136, 40Cluster : 116. 140. I'll, 147. Fig. 53Coherence-system: ]4. 64. 10']Cognition: 65. 66, 188Clear construction : 149, 164. 166, 206,20]Colour: 135, 142Column: u8, 149, 171Comunication : 38. 60 e.. 117. 129Concretization: 64. 66. 68, 71. n.10']. 157. 188Constancyphenomena : 33. 43>45, 198Construaion: 161fl.Content : 58, 63, 71, lOS. 1ft]Continuity: 43,44. 1]4, 136, 141151Contradiction : 58Convention : 56, 72, 145. 159. 16g'34Conventional ~ i g n : 169, 170, 171. 172, 179Cornell, E. : 86. 96. 105, 148 198Co-ordinatesystem : 5'h 142 144. 145Creative activit y: 74, 77. 7879. 201Cr iticism : 14. 15, 20, n.209, 214 ff.Cultural symbolizat ion : I II ff.Cultural theme: 127Culture: 48, 58. 79fl., 82. I:t3Decorarion: 104. 150. ISSdellaPorta. G. : 155Depth: ' 7, 94Descript ion : 23, 51, 53fT., 57, 61, 6.3, 69, go. 102. 132. 182. 195Designed uncertaint y: 157Devaluation: 17, 126, 177, Fig. 2Deviation : 78, 157. 158Dicntzenhofcr, G.: 172, Fig. 96Dicnrzenbofcr, J.: Fig. 42Different iation : I S, 38, I ll , 187Dimensicn : 54, 55, 102, 103, 127, 209Div ision: 97, I'll, 147, Fig. 20Dolmen: 125, 171, Fig. 34Dome : 17. 149Dorner, A. : 17, 20,36,219Dyggve, E. : 1.24Economy : 14. 162, 173, 188Education : 13, 18, 19, 19' J, 217 fT.Eg),peianan (architecture): 74. 110, 134. 137. 145, 147. Fig. SoEhrenfels, C. v.: 34. 43Ehrenzweig, A. : 33, 150, 157Einstein. A. : 55. 6c}Element : 61. 10). IF . 133 ff., 138, 148. 149, -50. 160, 16) . 16gEmpath y: 8gEmpiricism : 82Enclosure : 43. 1I0Environ ment : 14. 17. 19, 21, 22, 32. 37. 103, l OS. 109. IIO. 112. 120, Hl 1Eq uivocality: 35. 176Euclid: 44.46, 47, 4854. 55, 74, 96, 101. lOS, 135. 140, 144. 172Evaluation : 6), 66, 188Exercise : 201. 218Existence : 28Expectatlcn : 37, 38. 39, 50, 6u if., 71, 158Experience: 19, 22, 30. 32, 37, 38, 42, 71Expression : 48, 49, 68, 73, 122235Fancy; 18, 156Fashion ; 159Feedback : 61, III, II ]Feeling : 49, 68Fehn, S. ; Fig. lO2Fictive order; lO2, 164, 166, 1] 3, I8I, Fig. 90, 91Figure ; 134, 136, 142, 144, 163Figure-ground ; 136Filter; II3, 1I8, 169, 1]4, Fig. 26Flexibility: 114, lIS, II 6, 152, 16s, 205, 206, 20]Floor : 13], 138Form; 18, 19, 23, 45, 58, 61, 88, 89, 90, 94, 100, WI , 102, lO4, 10';' lO6, 131 fl., I48,ISS, IftJ,1] 0, 1]3, 1]4, 1]6, 177, 1]9> 188, 2OS, 2IIFcnaalism : 181, 184, 185Formal level : ]0, 99, 106, 150, 151, IS]Forma l system: 149, 156, 1]3Frame : 138, 153, Fig. 50Francesco di Giorgio: 151, Fig. II, ]IFrankl, P.: 8],97. ga, 141, 142, 154, 218, Fig. 20Free plan; 145, 148, 149, 152, 2rYjFrey, D.: ga,99, lO2, I05, II] , 120, 146, 154, 198Fuller, B.: I6sFuncti on : 14, 16, 19, 103, 114, 116, 166Fu nctionalism: 16, I], 119, 128, 173, 185, 186Functional frame : III, 112, II4 fl .Functionallevel : 116, 128Functional theme: II6, II]Fusion : 97, I41, Fig. 56, 60, ] 0Geisuswisunschaften: 66Generalizat ion: 30, 36, 38Geometry: 55, 89, 135Geometrical relations; 92, 144, I45, 147, 148, Fig. 58Gesamtkunstwerk; ]4, I04, 126Gestalt: 34,44,45, 46, 48,93,94,97,99,100, WI, l OS,133. 135, 139, 140, 142, 148, 166, 198Gestalt law; 45, Fig. 6Gestalt quali ty : 34, 45, 134, 135Gibson, J. J.: 45Giedion, S.: 13, 14, 15, 16, I], 18, 20, 81, II9, 129, 205, 219, 220Goa l-cbject : t4Gothicarchitecture: 99, 102, 124, 135, 136, 1}8, 139, 160, 164, 168, 1] 4, Fig. 33, 50, 5]Gratification : 39, 6s, 66Greekart (architecture); 91, 96, II ] , 120, 121, 125, 126, 142, 143, 146, 148, 149, 151,180, 198, Fig. 29, 61Gropius, W. ; 13,19. 159,219, 'V.). 22123Ground : 136, 163Group : 97, 106, 116, 140, 146. 147, 154 69, 95Guidingelements: 143, Fig. 60, 6s:Habit : 59, 120Hierarchy: 106, 120, 151Histor icism: 17, 18, 23, Fig. 2, 77Historyof architecture: 18. 19, 23, 184, 199, 2Ol), 211if., 224Hochschulefur G(:su ltung : W I, 220, 221, 222Hori zontal-vert ical i 44, 144Humanbody : 91H ume, D. : 92Hyporhesis: 35, 54, 55Icon: 71, 72, 1]0. 171Iconography. Jconology: 69, 105Ideology : 66, 173Illumination : 96, 103. 135, 154. 19BIllusion : 34. 64, 77. 19'3, 199, Fig. 5Imitation : 39040Industr ialization : 15. 16,InInfomution: 6ofl. , 70, 158Institution: 40, 119Intention : 31, 36, 41, 73, 78, 218Int entional depth. 31, 35, 42, 195, 196Intentional pole: 34. 50, 6';. 1]9, 180, 183Interaction ; 38, 390 II I , 119, 123Interior decoration: 204Intermediaryobject : 33, 36, 50, 68. 72, 102, 184Interpenetratic n r CJ7. 141, Fig. 55Invar ianc(:: 54Joint : 165J&genst:n, J.: 28, 30, 36, 46,55, 6], 78, 211Kahler, H. : 100, 133, 212Kandinsky, V. : 71Kant , I. : 196Kaschnitz-Weinberg, G. v. : 88. 100, 125, 171Kees, W. : 63, 119, 130Know[(:dg(:: 40, 64, 82Koffka, K. : 34, 48Kohler, W. : 34Krau tbeimer, R. : 88, 142Kulpc, 0.: 31'37Lan dscape : 103, 142, 143, 168Langer, S.: 63, 80Language: 57Laugier, Abbe : 92Layman(client) : 14, 22, 90, 198, 203, 204Law: 54, 55, 56LeCorbusier : 13, 17, 19, 92, 104, II4' n 6, 126, 152, 206, Fig . IS, 23. 37, 43, 81Lenz en, V.F. : 54, 55. 82Level : 29, 35, 181Logi c: 58, 82L' Orange, H. P.: 88, 123, 124, 149Lundberg, E. ; B9,110Magic : 48, 80, 110, I IIMaldonado, T.: 220, 221Mani festation : 43, 50, 188Manneri sm: 140, 143, 150, Fig.52Maslow, A. H. ; 120, I , 210Mass: 86, rfi, 97, 98, lOS, 133. 134 ft , 147, 163, 20'), Fig. 38,39. 4-2Material : 102, 106, 161, 174Mathematics : 55, 58Matter : 82Meaning ; 38, .p , 43. 50, 6'], 69, 71, 88, 155. 168Megalithicarchitecture : 125, 137, 147, 171 Fig. 34, 35, J6, 73Menhir : 125Meyer , L. B. ; 70, 71. 156, 157, 176, 197Michelangelo: 50, 90. 95, '}6, 104, J24, 138, 139> 145. 153, ISS. 172 r]6. 183, Fig. 19,49, 51. 69Mie$ vander Rohe, L. : 18, 94, 10] , II4, 116, 135. 1 41, 143, 144. 145, 152, 154,164,166, 16], 173, 174, 175, 205, 206, Fig. 44, 56, 60, 70, 82, 94Milieu: 119, 120Minimummeasure : 17, 114Mint z, N. L. : 120, 196, 210Modernarchit ecture: 20, 21, t48. 149, 159, 205 fl . Fig. 23. 37, 44. 56, 60, 65.66, 70,]6, 81, 82. 93> 94, 101. 102Module ; 91, 144, 203Moholy-Nagy, L. : 201. 220Monumentalarchitecture: 17. 119, 176. 185, 186Morris, c.. 59, 61, 63, 68. 71, 73. 82, 101, 129. 133Mcrive: 139> 152, 157. 183, 11:16, 188Movement : 87, 95, 1r:!lo198Music : 33, 43,]0,71,8;,99, 138 139, 145. 150, 153, 157. 159, 199Music21 harmony: go. 91Myth : 50, 159238.Naiverealism: 31, 50, 199Name : 32, 56Naturalism: 69. Nervi, P, L. : 102, 162, 163, 164, 166, Fig. 93Neufert , E. : 17, 114, 115Norm : f>5, ]ONumber : 55. 90, 91, 198Object (physical, social, cultural): 28, 29e., 35, 36. 38,40, 49> 51, 53 tf., 56, 61, 74,82, 109, 171, 188, Fig. 9Objectivity: 55Operation : .p. 44. 46, 55Operationalism: 57Oprical refinement : 198Order: 53,60., 73, 79> 81, 93, 145, 161, 166, 183, 18], 1mOrganism: 37, 1fT]Organkarchitecture : 155. 161, 206, Fig. 101Orientation : 40, 6s Ii., Fig. 9Originality: ]0, 156, 157Palladio, A. : S9. 91, 98, J9S, Fig. 11, 44Panofsky. E. : 69Parsons, T. : 21, 37,38,39, 58, 59>60, 63, 65, 66, 68, ]9,So, 120, InPart : 34, 44, 99Paulsson, G.: 13, 88. 105, 118, 121, raa, 110, 112Paxton, J.: Fig. 100Perception : 12, 17 Ii., 30 fl., 41, 50, 61., 117. 195 fl.Perrault, c. .91Perspective : 44, rr- 144, 103Phenomenon : 17 s, 36, 40, 53Philosophy: 80, 81Physical control: II I ,luff., 185Physicalmilieu : 88, III, 118, 173, 101Physiognomicperception : 48Physiology: 31, 111Piaget, J.: 41,42.43,44,45.46,47,53,54,55,56,74,75,76,94,106, 140, 141, 196Plato: 63Pragmatics: 59,69Prandtauer, J. : Fig. 43Prediction : 55Pregnancy: 45, 135Prejudice: 39. 19]Primiti veman(architecture): 11, 48, 49. 8o, II 4, 118, 145,185, Fig. 98Probability: 50, 55, 60, 70, roo,156Production : 101 ff.'39Propert y: 28, 30, 33, 45, 58Proportion: 44, 45, 91, 92, 93, 94. 100, 203, Fig. J4' 15Proximity: 43, 44, 75, 140Psychoanalysis: 33, 64Pythagoreans: 90, 91Qualitative concept : 89, 90, 107, J82Quality: 108, 156, 181, 182, 184Rader, M.: 68Raphael: 148, Fig. 75Ratio : 94Reaction : 38Reality: 64Redundanc y: 151Reichenbach. H . : 55, 82Relat ion : 44,59, 105, II 7, 132, 140 ff., 148, 160Relat ivity: 22. 34, 35, 176Relevance: 181, 184, J96Rel igion : 66, ft]Renaissanceart (architecture) : 69, ']0, 87, 9J, 92, 95, 97, 101. 102, 114, 12}. J2.4, 135,136, 138146, 148, 154, 158. 172. 173. 197, Fig. II, 12, 16, 17, J8, 19> 44, 49, 51,59, 68,69, 71, 75, J9, 50, 84. SsRepresentation: 42, 51, ]6, n, Ss, 203Reproduction : 74 iI., Fig. 10Research : 2CJ9, 210 Il,Retinal pancrn : 32, 45, 46Rhythm: J53, 183Riegl, A. : 9'1, 95Rietveld, G. : Fig. 3Role: 22, 40, u8, 171Roman architecrure : II], J2O, 123. 12.4, 126, 136, lop.143. 145, 146, 148, 149> 151,163, 164, 212, Fig. 30, 31, 38, 6';,88, 59. 9", 97Romanesque architecture : 104, 139Romanticart : 17, 184. 186Row: g], 106, u6, 141, 146, 147, 1; 4Ruesch,J.: 63, 119, J30Rufer, J. : 139, 156, 159Rule : 59, 13J, 149Ruling taste : 16, 159> 183, 184, 199Sangallo, A.da: 152, Fig. 80Sangallo, G. da : Fig. 44Scale: 103, 104, 152, 176Schema: 41 iI., 48 s.,51. 74,n. 78, 183. 124.,Schinkel, K. F. : 17Schlick, M.: 80Schmarsow, A.: 95Scholfield. P. H. : 91, 92,93Schonberg, A. : 159Science : 43. 46, 51, 54, 61, 62, 64, 66, 81, 82, 170Sedlmayr, H. : 17, 20, 69, 70, 85, 88, 99> 100, 102, 107, 1Ig, 124. 126, 127. 128. 139,150, 158, 169, 171, 172, 213Self-expression : 20, 68. 187. 221Semantics: 59, 71. 88. 104, 107, 16] If., 176Semant ical relation: 107. 168 fl .Semiotic: 24. 56 If.101Semper. G.: 102. Fig. 27Siegel. C.: 161. 165Sign : ,38.53. 56, 59. 60. 63Similarity: 43. 142Simultaneity: ga. 154Situation: 21. 32. 35 .p. 43, 48, 50Size : 93, 103. 104Skeleton: 135, 162, 163, 164 ff.205,Fig. 92-0 93. 94, 100Smith, E. B. : 88. no, 124Socializ.ation : 37 fl .Social mil ieu : 11 2, 114. 118 fl .123Society: 15, 16. 17. 37, 490 III, 1290 186Space : 19, 46 fl.. 55.69. 86, go. 95, 96. 97, ga. 100, 101, 103, 104. l OS. It4 ' 133. 136 fl .1-44. 147. 182, 2OS, Fig.45. 47, 48Spirit : 82Standard: 39. 2fYJStatus : 118, 1]2Str nad, 0.: 117, Fig. 27Str ucture : 53, 50, 70. 73. 99, 100. 146fl ., 154. 199Structural anal ysia: 69,99. 100, 102. 10' " 180Structural similarity: 57. 71, 168. 169, 170, 173Structural skeleton: 46, 139, 145, Fig. 7Style: 17,65,7.71. 102, 104, 106, 145. 149> 156 f1., 175Stylisticdevelopment : 158, 159> 183Successicn: 44, 96, 98,141, 145Sullivan, L. H. : 88, 155Sumer: 58. 110Surface: 95. I02. 133, 134, 137 fl., 147, Fig. 44Symbol ; 56 fl . 202Symbolization : 57, 77, sSymbol-milieu : 88, IU, 114' 112, 16214, 218. 224Tbcugbe: 62Topology: 44. 45Topological relation : 115, 134. 135. 139> 145. 147, 148, 1]0, ISs, Fig. 61Tradition : :23, 159, 160, 188, :206Truth :6fUt ilitarianarchitecture : ISsUtzon, J.: Fig. 102Value : 14, 39, 49> 64, 68, 73, Ill, 188,20:2Var iation: 46, 153, 187, :207Visual order; 13. 24, :20:2. 207Visual traini ng : :23, 4:2, 197. 199Virruvius : 88, 91, 92, IQJ. 14, :217Vcgr-Goknil, U. : 69, g6, 104Wachsmann, K.: 165Wall : 137, Fig. 43Werner, H. : 48, 49, 80, 153, 159, 170Wertheimer, M.: 34, 45Whitehead, A. N. ; 82Whole : 34, ii. 99N. : 160w lugenseei n,L: 29>34, .p , 50, 51, 57, 6}. 105,Wiukower, R. : &), 87, 88, 89, 91, 92. 93, 100Wolffl. in, H. ; 23, &), 95, 133Wright, F.L. : 144. ISS, :206, Fig. 66' 75k'\" -A ..... '"Zr". - . 0' 2.i2>'r"',-86. 95, 96, 97, 203. :21JZimmermann, D. : Fig. 43Illustrations1. VISual chaos.Times squarein NewYork.2. Devaluation of hist ori cal forms.I nsane Asylumin Utica (NY).(After H.-R. Hitchcock: .Artbi-tecture of tbe Nineteenth andTwentieth CenI ur i es, Harrnonds-wor th 1958).3. Towards a newformal "vocabulary",House in tr echt by G. Rietveld(1924). (After Joedi cke).4. Devaluationof modemforms.Apartment house in Rome (1962).5. Th eillusi ons of Kun dr and Mullcr-Lycr .Proximi ty.o 00 0Similarity.oo ooLL:0=.r -,L -lInr erpenerraring figures Inrerprered'correctly' and .... rongly.Contin uity.Figure-ground.6. Ges talt laws.7. The ' structural skel eton' of a squar e. (Afrer Arnhc:im).8. Two cubes. (Aft er Koffka).OrientationsCognitiv e Cathe ctic EvaluativePhysicalSoc ialCult ural9. Objects and orientations.10. The rel ati vi tyof repro ductio n. (After Arnhcim),11. Drawing by Francesco di Gio rgio.j 12. PalJadio' s Villa Rotonda.I L- '13. The geometri cal schemeof Borromini 's Sanr'Ivo.(Aft er Benevol o)...,:II1.1 .3 9 71 _ ~ - 7~ L - : ' ~ 1,., - - - - ~' 014. Pr oportional analysis after Thiersch. 15. 'Le Modulor'. (Mtcr Lc Corbusicr).16. ddi tion of geometrical units. . Lo renzoin Flo rence byBrunellcschi.// ~r: ~~~ ~t-- t-- l- I--t---,......-17. The ' wall-theme' ofAlberti's Sane' Andreawith variations, (After Norberg-Sch ulz).19. l\lichc1angelo : Cappella Medici .18. Brunelleschi: Sagresria vecchiain S. Lorenzo.Addition,.\ddiLive row, open. Addi tiTegroup. open.Division,Addirive mlUp. closed.Interpenetration20. rrucrural relations according to Frankl.N'N'21. Borromini: S. Carl oailequartrofomane. Interpretation of theplan according to Sedlrnayr.22. Interior of S. Carlo alla quattro fonrane.~ - , - - - - -23. Le orbusier: Thecivic centre of Chandigarh,4 Iesopotamianhuts. 2.(AfterAndra e).525. Trova n.(M t ~ r aumann).Connec tor.---- Filter.--t--t -'Filter' symbols.Barn er.Switch ,Switch,Switch,FunaionaI zoneswi thcoonectingfilters.Thefunctiorul zones of asimpledwellin . :Living, Kirchen, Sleep-ing. Hygiene,26. Analysis of physicalcontrol andfunctions.Planning level s.- " - - - - - ~ _ ...... . - . ;:II ,Ephesos,Orange.Project hy Oscar trand..-27. Theatres. (After Fre y).Dresden (Semper).---,28. Enclosure. The houses builtrecentlyoutside the city-wallhavea disturbingeffect. GigloCastello, Toscana.29. Priene .30. PeriJ/.)'IIIn; ofDioclctian' s palacein Split . (After Ka hler) .31. The RomanPantheon.32. The Palcochristian basilica.s.CrisogonoinRome .33. The cathedral inAmiens .34. The dO/film of Man e- Kerio ned,Carnac, (Aftrr Eneidopedia Uni-uersale del!' .Arte} ,tI35. Etruscan do med tomb with centralpillar. Tomba di Casale Maritti mn,MuscoArchelogicoFlorence.36. Towards arti culation. TheTomb ofHal SaAieni, Malta,(After Cescbi).37. LeCorbusier : Notre Damedu Haut inRonchamp.38. The pyramidofCaius Ccstiusin Rome.O~L-)t ~ ) }~I39. Mass elements.40. Symmetry... ...", I.,. , ... .' -. 0 ..41. The cubeasa funcrionofitsboundingsurfaces.Bo rr o m i n i : Pabz:zo diProfUJ, =