NORBERG-SCHULTZ + PALLASMAA
NORBERG-SCHULTZ
1. Why has this author been drawn to Heidegger’s ideas as they relate to today’s architects and their work?
Norberg-Schultz, like Heidegger, is interested in analyzing how “concrete things” within our world become more than just a “floor, wall, and ceiling,” but rather a place that we as people inhabit (or “dwell” as Heidegger would say). Through his study of phenomenology, Norberg-Schultz is hoping to utilize poetry (and the language contained within it) to explore the sensory perceptions that are created as a result of interactions in the built environment. He believes that buildings (or more accurately, “places”) are defined by these very exchanges between people and the architecture in which they dwell in. As an extension of the earth-bound world of buildings and architecture, the author goes on to explore the relationship of humans and other aspects of our world, such as the sky and “how it is above our heads.” He claims we can relate the built environment and natural places (like the sky or forests) through “visualization, symbolization, and gathering.” If we are able to complete this process successfully, he believes we can truly “dwell” in a place rather than just exist in it.
PALLASMAA
1. How can we understand and determine a person’s experience of architecture?
Pallasmaa’s writing, similar to that of Norberg-Schultz, investigates why architecture seems to have lost its power of communication and interaction with its inhabitants. By understanding an individual for who they are and what they believe in, designers can begin to understand that person’s experience of a place. It is precisely this concept that should be of a greater concern for architects, despite a push in the profession to simply “play with form,” as Pallasmaa so bluntly puts it. While we cannot expect to delve into the entire list of past life experiences of every user, architects can design in a way that buildings are “not [just] physical objects, but the images and feelings of the people who live [and work] in them.”
2. How do you interpret Pallasmaa’s ideas about the following:
a. All art emanates from the body.
I believe Pallasmaa is referencing the fact that art is an expression of a person – and it comes from within their body as the source of knowledge and feeling for creating art. We must use all of ourselves to create and design art and architecture that can and will connect with other people. Artists, and as an extension, architects must not forget to not only think with our minds, but speak and listen to others and their ideas; taste, touch, and smell the world around us. By using our senses and bodies to understand, we can create.
b. Early childhood memories inform us and form us as we grow up.
I think the key word here is “inform.” Childhood (and our memories from that time) certainly play a large role in the people we become as we age, but it doesn’t define us. I think the interactions with my family and the place where I grew up helped shaped me into who I am, but the choices I’ve made in recent years have also played a critical role in my outlook and goals.
c. Other arts create the importance of place and experience.
“Other arts” is such a broad, over-arching phrase. While I can assume that Pallasmaa’s main idea here is art as a painting, piece of music, work of writing, etc., it seems ironic to use such an ambiguous term and then claim that it “creates the importance” of something. In any sense, I think that rather than art creating or defining place and experience, it is actually the other way around. People’s experience of place is a very common source of inspiration for painting. Likewise, interactions and relationships between people are often the cause of heartache or love, both of which inspire a mountain of music and writing.
d. Loneliness and silence of buildings.
Just as a person’s experience with art is personal and individual, a successful piece of architecture also creates the opportunity for a person to reflect and develop individual thoughts and emotions about a place. These works are able to evoke strong feelings – feelings that are then experienced differently for each person. Even more “commonplace” buildings can allow for simple appreciation and understanding if a person is willing to stop and notice the details.
-R.Peterson