ABSTRACT - Justification

ABSTRACT - justification

Considerable discourse and criticism surrounds the philosophical and architectural notion of phenomenology. In part, discussions concerning a phenomenological architecture rose out of a lack of confidence in “modern” architecture towards the end of the twentieth-century. Contemporary architecture and the theory that shaped it was said to lack the necessary “tools” (theory) of self-criticism. Architectural theory was criticized as operating at a superficial level largely autonomous and within itself ignoring conditions outside its domain or refusing to test itself against a broader cultural debate. In contrast, by engaging in theoretical debates outside its domain, architecture would acquire better means for its own self-criticism and a depth of models that explore the way the built environment is perceived.[i]

As such, architecture must be seen as a result of deeper concerns and a way of thinking where solutions are brought forth from the root of the problem with a focus on the thinking and associations that form the construction. Phenomenology, and more specifically, hermeneutical phenomenology, offers a model to examine problems below their surface, and inquire about the fundamental basics of relationships, interactions, experiences and perceptions of the human condition.[ii]

Phenomenology can be studied broadly across differing philosophic viewpoints. The work in this project incorporates the ideas for a phenomenological architecture based on discourse found in Saussure’s linguistic studies (structuralism) and Derrida’s arguments for redefining language and meaning (post-structuralism). In addition, the design is conceived in ideas of phenomenology as expressed by architects working within similar philosophic methods. These ideas will be presented in later sections of this manuscript under Methodology.

In terms of phenomenology, I have concentrated on the discourse of Martin Heidegger and Hans-Georg Gadamer. The two are considered the foremost representatives of the movement of hermeneutical phenomenology.[iii] They developed the necessary discourse capable of assuming deeper, interpretive dimensions into the realm of human awareness and sensory perception. As such, there was new potential for a revelation in the understanding of truth and reality. They proposed that art should represent some form of symbolic truth. The aim of a hermeneutical phenomenological architecture is to uncover the ontological dimension of the built environment. An architecture that seeks to evoke a “presence” of place, rather than, a simplistic occupation of place as a construct void of phenomenological associations, and seeks to uncover a richer understanding of the world.

Also studied were writings within the discipline of structuralism, most notably Saussure and his analysis of linguistic systems. Saussure was concerned with the underlying systems of language and their relationship to individual utterances. He recognized that language did not refer only to literary systems, but that all cultural forms could be analyzed as an analogy with language, and as such, could be read. Saussure described words as “signs”, and that “signs” were made up of a “signifier” and the “signified.” The former refers to the form of the object; the latter identifies the content or meaning. The relationship between the two is arbitrary, as the word used is different across many languages. In addition, the “signified” is defined by what it is not. For example, a bird is a bird, because it is not a fish. Opposition is fundamental to structuralism, and the physical world can be seen as structured as a system of paired opposites; in/out; wet/dry; male/female; hot/cold; etc. This has an implication for architecture as the notion of “signs” (science of semiology) can be used as a tool to read or decode the landscape as part of an analysis or used as a phenomenological element in the architecture to convey meaning.[iv] In this project the building form is a collection of abstract objects organized to convey their meaning.

In reading the post-structuralist writings of Jacques Derrida I am most interested in the effort to examine the universalizing tendencies of structuralism by introducing “specificity” into the argument. The notion of specificity considered in terms of time and difference, where meaning is not fixed, but subject to interpretation by other influences and change over time.

Derrida has explained post-structural deconstruction as a kind of pioneering, using the metaphor of “clearing a path.” The path is symbolic in architecture as a precondition to habitation, as the building by locating on a path, makes arrival and departure possible from the outside, while corridors, staircases and doors make passage on the inside possible. For Derrida, being “on the path” and proposing new language and references indicates an infinity of thinking.[v] Deconstruction also questions the structural notion of conceptual pairs. Rather than accepting these concepts as self-evident and natural. Their meanings are challenged through non-restricted thinking. In this project the viewer is put on a path to discover the language and references associated with the canal site.

[i] Mugerauer, Robert. Interpretations on Behalf of Place. New York: SUNY Press, 1994.
[ii] Leach, Neil. Rethinking Architecture. New York: Routledge, 1997. pg. 14-15.
[iii] Website: Hermeneutical phenomenology: http://phenomenologyonline.com/inquiry/5.html.
[iv] Leach, Neil. Rethinking Architecture. New York: Routledge, 1997. pg. 163.
[v] Leach, Neil. Rethinking Architecture. New York: Routledge, 1997. pg. 320.