Heidegger

1 | Is it possible our personal interaction affects the building?  Does our interaction as designers and clients affect the building?

Oh yes, I absolutely believe that our interactions affect the building, in a few ways.  First, there is the obvious physical interaction that occurs when humans occupy a building.  When we hang a picture, when we place a piece of furniture, when we paint a wall…  We take a structure and make it ours.  Two buildings could be built identically – when they are unoccupied, no differentiation could be made between the two.  As soon as people occupy those two buildings, however, they will never be the same while occupied, because no two people will arrange the spaces identically.  Beyond the physical interaction with buildings, there is the intangible interaction that may not physically affect the building, but certainly affects our experiences within the buildings.  For example, the last house that I lived in was nothing special.  It was pretty terrible, actually.  But I have a very deep affection for it because of the memories I made while I was there.  I got along very well with the landlord and every now and again he would stop by and hang out.  He once taught me how to clean and change the water pump in the koi pond we hand in the back yard.  I enjoyed planting flowers and taking pride in our backyard, as small as it was (taking Heidegger’s “cultivation” literally) and I enjoyed the company of my friends and family and (sometimes) my roommate while I was there.  In short, the home was a dwelling, yes, but I could have dwelled anywhere – what the house looks like, within reason, doesn’t matter.  What makes the dwelling special is the memories made while dwelling there.  This answers the second part of the question where, I would argue, that designers and clients can absolutely make a place that is more conducive to creating a special, memorable space, but to a certain degree, the design of the space doesn’t matter.  People are people and are very adaptable to their environment and will find ways to make their dwellings special – no matter what the physical dwelling looks like.

 

2 | Is is possible that Heidegger’s search through the old language for meaning is a search for authenticity?

Yeah.  The words came from somewhere – it isn’t until we dig down to the true meanings of words that we begin to truly understand what they mean.  Otherwise, we’re just using them based on what we’ve been conditioned to believe the words are to be used for, and who’s to say that we’re using words today in the true way they were meant to be used?  Words change over time, they take on different meanings, and sometimes they are straight-up misused.  I caught a bit of the election coverage last night, and at one point Brian Williams referred to David Plouffe, Senior Adviser to President Obama, as the “architect of the Obama campaign.”  Well, let’s think about that phrase.  “Architect,” as we all know, means “master builder.”  Well, okay, so Plouffe was the master builder of the campaign.  Fine.  But then, let’s take it a step further – what does “builder” mean?  Well, as Heidegger explains, “builder” comes from “bauen,” which means “to dwell.”  Well that doesn’t make sense, Plouffe didn’t dwell within the campaign.  Or did he?  Heidegger goes on to say that “bauen” also means to cherish and protect.  Well, in that sense of the word, Plouffe certainly did dwell within the campaign – he cherished the campaign as much as anyone.  But then, so did President Obama himself.  And the rest of his staff.  And the ~55 million people who voted for him last night.  So, then, are all of those people also “architects” of the campaign?  Obviously, there is a lot of discussion that can take place here, but that’s what happens when you seek the truth.  If someone says that Plouffe did a “good job” with the campaign, there’s not much else we can say about it.  When the phrase is honest and carefully chosen, however, then we can begin to peel back the layers, dig into the topic, and really think critically about what is being said about Mr. Plouffe (or whatever the conversation happens to be about.)  As for translating this into a piece of architecture, I’d compare it to Mies Van Der Rohe’s International Style of architecture.  Man, with that guy, you get a beam, column, window and wall, and that’s it.  Look at Crown Hall.  One look at that building and you know exactly what’s going on.  And you begin to question why it works.  How do those four beams hold up all that roof?  Inversely, to boot!  It’s honesty begs you to think deeper about the many layers that make it work, just as the search for the true meaning of language begs you to question the true meaning of the phrase.

 

3 | Can we design to build with [a star’s, sun’s, sky’s, or moon’s] sense of permanence?

All architecture already is designed with that level of permanence because all architecture will, eventually, be destroyed, just as the sun, stars, earth and moon will all one day be destroyed.  I don’t know enough about it to know how the moon will implode, or the earth for that matter…  But the sun, that thing’s going to explode one day.  Maybe that’s how the earth and moon will go away, too…  Hmmm…  Clearly I don’t know what I’m talking about in astronomical terms, but the moral of the story is that things may last millions or even billions of years, but nothing is permanent.  That, of course, includes architecture.  That doesn’t mean, however, that we should’t strive to build things that can last as long as possible, though.  Sure, the sun isn’t going to last forever, but there are quite a few lifetimes that it is providing life for.  Why then can’t architecture be designed to span several lifetimes as well?

-J. Maternoski