From the frameworks discussed in the lecture, the analogy between architecture and language interested me the most as it raised an interesting question, how does a building become legible and understood? I think that the reading of a building, through architectural drawings, is a learned art and one that requires the knowledge and understanding of its parts to understand and appreciate the intended (conceptual) spatial experience. However the intended sequence of spatial experiences is something that is perhaps difficult to express in words, as the experience in itself is multi-sensory. And perhaps this is where sections and elevations help to elaborate on the heights and depths of spaces on the plan. But these means of expression are two-dimensional and abstract requiring an interpretation of the two-dimensional space in three-dimensional terms.
Mies van der Rohe : "Build- don't talk." This is quite a blunt statement and I agree with it, but at the same time and from a non-architect point of view, how do you explain / convince another person about your experiences within the building?
No comments:
Post a Comment