Methodology in Architecture

…beginning of a process

METHODOLOGY IN ARCHITECTURE


“…you need proper attitudes, proper intentions. A concept can easily become merely a mode of defensive intellectualization, or a visual sales argument, an enticing image. Of course, every decent building needs an idea. It has to be based on clear thinking.” – Juhani Pallasmaa[i]

My initial investigations have relied on two main modes of “preparatory” understanding for an interpretive architecture. The first mode encompasses discourse and precedent studies from architects working within the realm of phenomenology. I call this mode, “qualitative meaning.” The second mode was to subject myself to a personal discovery of the site. I made numerous site explorations and surveys over several months and a change of season to photo-document the physical site and artifacts. I describe this mode as “qualitative understanding.” Using the data developed from these two modes, a conceptual understanding of the project emerged and preliminary design studies for the proposed interpretive center were made.


1.0 Architectural Discourse – qualitative meaning
Precedent study and theoretical discourse from selected architects influence conceptual ideas.



Juhani Pallasmaa

My initial research led me to a 1999 interview between Juhani Pallasmaa and an architecture student, in which Pallasmaa was asked about the “essence of architecture.” He describes the current state of architecture as one of duality. One view is an architecture of commodity conceived as visual image. The other, is an architecture that is the recollection of an image or experience that is multi-sensory and changes over time. Pallasmaa favors an architecture derived through cultural and human phenomena, rather than, a visual and formalist architecture.[ii]

To quote Pallasmaa, “…architecture is an art form, but it is a special art form because it is very silent and its ethical task is to remain silent most of the time, its power comes from its continuous presence.”[iii] I think this is a beautiful statement about the permanence of architecture as human artifact. Pallasmaa also states that today’s technological evolution tends to strengthen the hegemony of the eyes over the other senses. But, he concedes there is a possibility that the overexposure to images can eventually liberate the traditional focus on images.

Sketch – Juhani Pallasmaa
Internet searchPallasmaa speaks about the tectonic reality of construction in architecture today. He describes how hard it is to find an honestly constructed building. The elements convey solidity (as implied by gypsum wallboard and simulated concrete), but is constructed “hollow to the touch.” He faults the contractor-driven economics of building construction and a subordinate architect who specifies form, but not the tectonic conditions of execution. Pallasmaa uses the example of a Japanese landscape garden and how it represents an attitude about architecture. The garden is not a singular shape or singular concept in its reading, but presents the viewer with a multiplicity of readings - a narrative with no particular overall shape. The narrative implied in the design can be experienced and read in any number of ways. An architecture that is separate, episodic, and multi-faceted. I think this last statement about how architecture conveys meaning and can offer multiple points of view is most compelling to bring forth in this thesis project.[iv]


[i]Interview with Juhani Pallasmaa (www.stud.ntnu.no/groups/a/mar99/juhani.html).
[ii] Interview with Juhani Pallasmaa (www.stud.ntnu.no/groups/a/mar99/juhani.html).
[iii] Interview with Juhani Pallasmaa (www.stud.ntnu.no/groups/a/mar99/juhani.html).
[iv]Interview with Juhani Pallasmaa (www.stud.ntnu.no/groups/a/mar99/juhani.html). (Summarized and Para-phrased)