i've been thinking about how architecture and sexuality can co-exist. there are male buildings and female buildings which can be clearly defined/noted either quite obviously -- skyscrapers, or more subtley -- the australian opera house.
is it possible for a building to be both male and female -- the stratosphre? does the thought of genderizing a building give it a negative conotation?
Maybe you can explain what you are trying to accomplish.... for me the act gendering a building isn't particularly productive because it relies on you overdetermining what constitutes a particular gender. It's the same problem that Regionalism encounters - when you speak of regionalism generally, no one can really complain.... when you try and define what characteristics constitute the "regional" architecture of an area, you are engaged in a political act which has more to do with Nationalism than architecture.
Architectural form might be perceived as an intercouse of Mass + Void. (Pun Intended). So a building may be inherently Hermaphroditic, as it is a relationship of disparate elements, and proportions thereof. To classify a building as one sex only would suggest that it is either completely void of space or full of mass......
read a thing in a class about an experiment where young children were asked to build something out of a collection of blocks and a greatly disproportionate number of boys built towers where as girls typically built "corrals", U-shaped inveloping structures. Interesting material in terms of the deep psychological roots of our spatial conceptions, especially surrounding our geneticly predesposed relationship to 'penetration'.
indeed as architecture has moved from objects penetrating into space, versus space penetrating into objects, has architecture become an increasingly 'female' act?
What expo type event (long ago) was it that had an excibit building looking like a naked woman and you entered through, um, her lower regions? If I recall it correctly it created quite a reaction like back in the 50's or whenever it was. Think it was in Sweden, but I can't be absolutely certain. But it's a sort of an extreme example of sexuality and architecture I suppose...
Sex wasn't created for bored architects to theorize. Ya'll are acting too lazy to get laid. Now go out there & talk to that secretary, or office boy...or both. BTW, aemkei, that example sounds like the human body exhibit on 'The Simpsons' a couple yrs ago.
i agree whole hearedly with Poczatek. to suggest on or the other removes us from the larger scope of architecture. but it is a valid point to some degree to at least suggest that buildings are of one "sex" or the other.
I wouldn't label Fred and Ginger as a blended sexual condition, beyond the combination of 2 asexual 'flows'. I tend more towards Pokzatec's suggestion, and there we might find more valuable origins in identifications of mass and void (the famous Books of Architecture?). And penetration is important here, and maybe even 'aggression' (or 'oversion'). In moments of formal dynamics, we are able to conceive of volumes as 'piercing' or 'penetrating'. What do they penetrate, and in what manner? If this becomes the 'relationship' between 2 volumes, maybe each becomes 'sexualized' at particular points (thus we move from buildings that can be of any sex, to those that have multiple and determined sexuality; like the 2 avocado trees in my garden, which take turns bearing their annual 'fruit').
Jul 19, 05 4:57 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
sexuality and architecture
i've been thinking about how architecture and sexuality can co-exist. there are male buildings and female buildings which can be clearly defined/noted either quite obviously -- skyscrapers, or more subtley -- the australian opera house.
is it possible for a building to be both male and female -- the stratosphre? does the thought of genderizing a building give it a negative conotation?
any thoughts?
Maybe you can explain what you are trying to accomplish.... for me the act gendering a building isn't particularly productive because it relies on you overdetermining what constitutes a particular gender. It's the same problem that Regionalism encounters - when you speak of regionalism generally, no one can really complain.... when you try and define what characteristics constitute the "regional" architecture of an area, you are engaged in a political act which has more to do with Nationalism than architecture.
Fred and Ginger.
yawn
Architectural form might be perceived as an intercouse of Mass + Void. (Pun Intended). So a building may be inherently Hermaphroditic, as it is a relationship of disparate elements, and proportions thereof. To classify a building as one sex only would suggest that it is either completely void of space or full of mass......
read a thing in a class about an experiment where young children were asked to build something out of a collection of blocks and a greatly disproportionate number of boys built towers where as girls typically built "corrals", U-shaped inveloping structures. Interesting material in terms of the deep psychological roots of our spatial conceptions, especially surrounding our geneticly predesposed relationship to 'penetration'.
indeed as architecture has moved from objects penetrating into space, versus space penetrating into objects, has architecture become an increasingly 'female' act?
Anyway its not that boring vado ;)
What expo type event (long ago) was it that had an excibit building looking like a naked woman and you entered through, um, her lower regions? If I recall it correctly it created quite a reaction like back in the 50's or whenever it was. Think it was in Sweden, but I can't be absolutely certain. But it's a sort of an extreme example of sexuality and architecture I suppose...
Sex wasn't created for bored architects to theorize. Ya'll are acting too lazy to get laid. Now go out there & talk to that secretary, or office boy...or both. BTW, aemkei, that example sounds like the human body exhibit on 'The Simpsons' a couple yrs ago.
i agree whole hearedly with Poczatek. to suggest on or the other removes us from the larger scope of architecture. but it is a valid point to some degree to at least suggest that buildings are of one "sex" or the other.
here--it's already been done--Shanghai World Financial Center
prince albert
unlocks mystery
Have you tried Google? Seriously.
you could get advice on the subject on about.com from this model of androgeny:
I wouldn't label Fred and Ginger as a blended sexual condition, beyond the combination of 2 asexual 'flows'. I tend more towards Pokzatec's suggestion, and there we might find more valuable origins in identifications of mass and void (the famous Books of Architecture?). And penetration is important here, and maybe even 'aggression' (or 'oversion'). In moments of formal dynamics, we are able to conceive of volumes as 'piercing' or 'penetrating'. What do they penetrate, and in what manner? If this becomes the 'relationship' between 2 volumes, maybe each becomes 'sexualized' at particular points (thus we move from buildings that can be of any sex, to those that have multiple and determined sexuality; like the 2 avocado trees in my garden, which take turns bearing their annual 'fruit').
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.