Norberg-Schultz and Pallasmaa

Norberg-Schultz:

1. Norberg-Schultz is drawn to Heiddeger’s ideas because it seems Norberg-Schultz is looking for the essence or simple purpose of architecture.  Heiddeger discusses fundamental experiences related to being human.  One point I took issue with, however, is Norberg-Schultz’s assertion that poetry “concretizes” what science cannot.  Poetry is inherently abstract and subjective, which is the antithesis of concrete.  The closest we can get to something “concrete” in the theory of architecture is possible evolutionary theory and human behavior.  Architectural theory is far from a hard science.  I do not discount it at all, but to trying to find a “concrete” reason behind architectural expression is perhaps quixotic.

Pallasmaa:

1. As I stated above, I think that a lot of this is subjective.  We can find some archetypes through the study of human behavior, psychology, and evolutionary psychology, but each person’s experience of architecture will be different.  There are cultural factors, personal history, mental status, age and mobility, and personal taste to consider.  This poses a challenge for every project, and is what I think, makes architecture interesting.  Pallasmaa mentions this suspicion of the introspective approach.  I am not saying it’s not worthwhile to theorize about architecture, just noting that much of it is subjective.

2. All art emanates from the body:  Pallasmaa states that architecture is created for an idealized client, or the ideal man, such as in classical ancient Greek and Roman architecture.  Another way of looking at this the prevailing psychological theory that everything we create, judge, and experience is merely a reflection of the self.  As such, all art does emanate from each individual’s body.  The experience of art then also emanates from the body, which Pallasmaa touches on when he discusses how a work of art is only reality when it is experienced.

3. Early childhood memories:  I think Pallasmaa assigns value and truth to childhood memories because they are almost eternal: they affect us into adulthood.  Psychological studies into human behavior associated with early childhood trauma reinforces Pallasmaa’s viewpoint.  In early childhood, the prefrontal cortex has not yet fully developed (and will not until early adulthood.)  A child’s emotions are not modulated by the logic that adults can tap into.  This “early” brain is more primitive; it acts on instinct and immediate input.  It’s purpose is to ascertain any potential threats to safety.  Psychologists say that the early brain’s impressions are embedded deep into our memory, so much so that it can affect our adult lives.  For example, a child that was abused may learn that kind behavior is not to be trusted because their experience taught them it would be followed by cruelty.  As an adult, this person may continue to distrust kindness.

4. Other arts create the importance of place and experience:  I think what Pallasmaa means by this is that other arts provide different views of architecture by focusing on the emotional experience of place.  He says it is like a child’s view of architecture; a pure way of experience.  I disagree with his claim that this view is “pure” though.  The experience is filtered by the artist’s interpretation.

5. Loneliness and silence of buildings:  I interpret Pallasmaa’s point to be that successful architecture is lonely and silent.  I think that successful art galleries or places of worship can be lonely and silent, but there are many active, beautiful places as well.  A Roman piazza, a cafe, etc. are all places that are not lonely or silent.

 

Sermin