Heidegger

 

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

A building, subjected to spatial analysis, is merely a collection of different spaces. It is simply a box that holds within the interaction of dwellers through space. So, personal interaction in fact does affect a building, but it does through the affectation of space. Let me explain. Building four walls and a roof creates a podium for interaction. The planes create a volume, a space. This space shall remain ‘just a space’ until people start interacting within it. It is this interaction that provides the dynamic qualities to a space, accomplishing the final goal of the architect, which is to provide a ‘livable’ space. Then, the building as a piece of matter is simply a bounding box for this space and for this interaction. For example, a museum can be created as a piece of art, as a sculpture. But this sculpture holds inside the true reason of why it was created: human interaction within the created spaces. In fact the design of this museum must be a constant back and forth between spatial design, driven by human interaction, and form design. Clients who know what they are looking for are scarce. The job of the architect is to dig into the client’s wishes and extract the true sense of what he wants. This back and forth interaction between architect and client also shapes the building, as a successful end product will probably be the sum of the client’s wishes combined with the architects solutions.

 Is it possible the Heidegger’s search through old language for meaning is a search for authenticity (trustworthy, not imaginary or false)? Is it valuable to search for authenticity in designing/building architecture? What is one example?

 I believe that Heidegger’s obsession with finding the true meaning of every word by searching its meaning in the old language is in fact a search for authenticity. Personally, I found this search compulsive and unnecessary. Even though it is true that knowledge of the history of a word may be relevant in a scholarly type of investigation, in the case of figuring out what does dwelling means I find it redundant. To be honest, I think Heidegger didn’t really know where he was going with this. Nevertheless, a search for authenticity in designing is important, although as designing is in fact creating something new, authenticating may not be as important. An example may be the comparison between a building designed by a (st)architect such as Frank Ghery or Zaha Hadid, and the one designed by a local architect. The question that arises here is: who is more authentic? Is the architect with the millions and crazy ideas and forms authentic? Or is the local architect with knowledge of the context more authentic? Probably the local architect will manage to have a more authentic final product.

Can we design and build with this sense of permanence?

 We can design with a sense of permanence if the architecture responds to its site and the context. I feel that a building that disregards the site and context will never achieve a sense of permanence. In the other hand, a building that manages to fit in the context as it was always there has a good chance of attaining a sense of permanence. We must be wary though of the over dramatization of trying to achieve permanence. Although it is within every architect’s ego to try to design a timeless building, one must also understand that the need of the site and context may change. If this would to be the case, then is it responsible to want to maintain a building that is outdated and simple old? Architecture must have a sense of permanence but only within a responsible time frame. Nobody likes old and outdates buildings, even when they are “historical.”