I came across this quote today...
I am reading this book.
Really like it..
"For profane experience, on the contrary, space is homogeneous and neutral; no break qualitatively differentiates the various parts of its mass. Geometrical space can be cut and delineated in any direction; but no qualitative differentiation and, hence, no orientation are given by virtue of its inherent structure."
Who wrote this...????
Guy Debord-Situationist
Gilles Deleueze-Philosopher
Rem Koolhaus-Starchitect
Mircea Eliade-Religious historian
Personally, when i read this, i was soaking in a bath.
It hit me like Eureka.
If Geometrical space can be shaped without limit, yet still be homogeneous than the creation of space goes beyond simple geometry. It is therefore ultimately about creating sacred spaces...Spaces that are timeless and deep.
Which to me =contextual and personal....
i think debord would say something similar, though i'd guess it's not him. more likely he would have the space defined by events, not sacredness. probably this is eliade.
whoever the author of the quote, nam, you've got a whole lot of potential reading/looking to back up your 'eureka' moment.
heidegger's a good place to start, then stir in a quick comparison of the aristotelian understanding of space, how space is defined, with descarte's drastic redefinition. apply these notions to a critique of some of the most known proposals of superstudio (quantitative/nowhere) and archigram (qualitative/anywhere) and bake.
the qualitative (aristotle's 'distinct pressures'; heidegger's memory and landmarks; your author's sacredness; debord's event-setting) vs the quantitative (descartes and most everyone since) is one of the most essential struggles for architecture to address, imo.
Dec 3, 07 6:55 am ·
·
Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, p. 22.
..but what about the subcategories of profane and sacred space?
fertile space
conceptual space
assimilating space
metabolic space
diaphragmic space
networked space
osmotic space
electromagnetic space
all-frequency space
I am really loving this book...I like how he makes clear that the sacred space exists or is made to exist everywhere..It and the ritual that makes such space is a/or the most vital part of human "being"..
Even profane space is identified by the lack thereof.....
@ Steven Ward
I think i understand you correctly..I personally feel as if place making must include some sense of sacrality...IMHO doing this successfully creating a space that goes beyond the profane is just another aspect of the "sustainability" question. Zumthor and a select few do this exceptionally well i feel. Especially, within the context of his recent chapel/church works...
the issue is finding the right line between sacred/profane in projects that are NOT about sacred space at all. obviously museums, theaters, churches, and restaurants have an element of special-ness that demands architecture to respond with space/sacred-making strategies.
but what can an architect bring, in the way of ritual or sacred space, to a school, an office building, a fire house, or a recreation center?
what is the essence of what we do that causes SOME places to rise above others and communicate to a user how they might read the qualitative in it? how do we make non-neutral space when there is no inherent need for anything sacred?
Dec 3, 07 8:47 am ·
·
nanhenderson, both the profane and the sacred are human "being". Take away the qualifying hierarchy and you'll see the whole picture, which is much more.
After reading The Sacred and the Profane perhaps pick up Slovoj Zizek, The Puppet and the Dwarf: The Perverse Core of Christianity. It might help fill out the "whole picture."
=====
I forgot a subcategory:
fertile space
conceptual space
pregnant space
assimilating space
metabolic space
diaphragmic space
networked space
osmotic space
electromagnetic space
all-frequency space
=====
for a school I'd go:
inside -- assimilating space and all-frquency space
outside -- metabolic space
I did not mean to imply that all all spaces need to be sacred in a "religious" or even "spiritual" sense.
However, i do think that even those secular buildings typologies that you listed (museums, schools etc) can if done right, help to create a sense of the sacred or at least a sense of space that goes beyond the profane..
By right I mean a sense of space, place and being...For me this comes down to experience/and/ritual...
Both are basically (IMHO) two sides of the same coin....
To borrow a phrase...Experiential design...
Which i think is the reverse of simply designing an object which is what much of the new wave of stararchitecture and more generally the recent wave of creative class/culture development has been about....
Dec 3, 07 10:03 am ·
·
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.
Guess Who
I came across this quote today...
I am reading this book.
Really like it..
"For profane experience, on the contrary, space is homogeneous and neutral; no break qualitatively differentiates the various parts of its mass. Geometrical space can be cut and delineated in any direction; but no qualitative differentiation and, hence, no orientation are given by virtue of its inherent structure."
Who wrote this...????
Guy Debord-Situationist
Gilles Deleueze-Philosopher
Rem Koolhaus-Starchitect
Mircea Eliade-Religious historian
Personally, when i read this, i was soaking in a bath.
It hit me like Eureka.
If Geometrical space can be shaped without limit, yet still be homogeneous than the creation of space goes beyond simple geometry. It is therefore ultimately about creating sacred spaces...Spaces that are timeless and deep.
Which to me =contextual and personal....
Discuss..
I thought this thread was going to be about one of my favorite board games. Damn.
i think debord would say something similar, though i'd guess it's not him. more likely he would have the space defined by events, not sacredness. probably this is eliade.
whoever the author of the quote, nam, you've got a whole lot of potential reading/looking to back up your 'eureka' moment.
heidegger's a good place to start, then stir in a quick comparison of the aristotelian understanding of space, how space is defined, with descarte's drastic redefinition. apply these notions to a critique of some of the most known proposals of superstudio (quantitative/nowhere) and archigram (qualitative/anywhere) and bake.
the qualitative (aristotle's 'distinct pressures'; heidegger's memory and landmarks; your author's sacredness; debord's event-setting) vs the quantitative (descartes and most everyone since) is one of the most essential struggles for architecture to address, imo.
Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, p. 22.
..but what about the subcategories of profane and sacred space?
fertile space
conceptual space
assimilating space
metabolic space
diaphragmic space
networked space
osmotic space
electromagnetic space
all-frequency space
@ Unthinking an Architecture....
Very Good Eliade....
I am really loving this book...I like how he makes clear that the sacred space exists or is made to exist everywhere..It and the ritual that makes such space is a/or the most vital part of human "being"..
Even profane space is identified by the lack thereof.....
@ Steven Ward
I think i understand you correctly..I personally feel as if place making must include some sense of sacrality...IMHO doing this successfully creating a space that goes beyond the profane is just another aspect of the "sustainability" question. Zumthor and a select few do this exceptionally well i feel. Especially, within the context of his recent chapel/church works...
@ Steven Ward
To summarize I always prefer Qualitity or quantity!
the issue is finding the right line between sacred/profane in projects that are NOT about sacred space at all. obviously museums, theaters, churches, and restaurants have an element of special-ness that demands architecture to respond with space/sacred-making strategies.
but what can an architect bring, in the way of ritual or sacred space, to a school, an office building, a fire house, or a recreation center?
what is the essence of what we do that causes SOME places to rise above others and communicate to a user how they might read the qualitative in it? how do we make non-neutral space when there is no inherent need for anything sacred?
nanhenderson, both the profane and the sacred are human "being". Take away the qualifying hierarchy and you'll see the whole picture, which is much more.
After reading The Sacred and the Profane perhaps pick up Slovoj Zizek, The Puppet and the Dwarf: The Perverse Core of Christianity. It might help fill out the "whole picture."
=====
I forgot a subcategory:
fertile space
conceptual space
pregnant space
assimilating space
metabolic space
diaphragmic space
networked space
osmotic space
electromagnetic space
all-frequency space
=====
for a school I'd go:
inside -- assimilating space and all-frquency space
outside -- metabolic space
@ Steven....
Just to clarify..
I did not mean to imply that all all spaces need to be sacred in a "religious" or even "spiritual" sense.
However, i do think that even those secular buildings typologies that you listed (museums, schools etc) can if done right, help to create a sense of the sacred or at least a sense of space that goes beyond the profane..
By right I mean a sense of space, place and being...For me this comes down to experience/and/ritual...
Both are basically (IMHO) two sides of the same coin....
To borrow a phrase...Experiential design...
Which i think is the reverse of simply designing an object which is what much of the new wave of stararchitecture and more generally the recent wave of creative class/culture development has been about....
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.