Critique on the essay "The Concept of Place"
In our era of modernism, advancement in technology, sciences has created almost unlimited boundaries to Architecture and built environment. This then make architects more and more creative in their designs satisfying human needs and demands. Remember that we had always said that we wanted life without boundaries, ‘Free life’, like a bird, fly anywhere they like, of course this question came through architects and urban designers’ minds when they are designing. Many creative and innovative designers had come out with ideas of mobile designs, so as we are free from the monotonous( dull) environment. Unfortunately, these projects are still strongly attached to the fundamentals of concept of place.
For example, the author uses example of such projects by Dutch utopian Constant Nieuwenhuis named New Babylon. And Constant then says ‘In New Babylon everybody will always be travelling and will never feel the need to return to the place of origin, because it will anyhow have undergone a transformation. As a consequence New Babylon does not possess a determined plan. Every element is on the contrary left in a state of indetermination, mobility and flexibility.’ Constant wants to create a mobile environment as mobile life seems more interesting. Mobile life could be interesting however mobility could spoil the interaction between human and decreases social activities. But aren’t utopian idea is all about ideal community and society?? However, this concept turns out to be negative. The author supported his points by quoting words from American urbanist Milton Webber; ‘The essence of the city is not place but interaction’. It is true of what the author tries to convey as when the place is mobile, interaction is impossible and the place turns out dull without a community, it loses its importance and enthusiasm. The author supports his point with evidence from architectural theorist Christopher Alexander saying that ‘..the social pathologies which are characteristic of urban life, delinquency and mental disorder, depend inevitably on the lack of direct contact.’ From here, we know that the author tries to stand on his point on the concept of place in which mobile environment creates changing images and decreases interaction which is the ‘soul’ of a place.
Existential space is then used to describe the concept of place even deeper. The concept of space is then explained based on natural psychology. The author referred to Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget to explain the concept of space based on natural psychology. I agree with Piaget point that it is impossible to arrive at any cognition without having an emotional relationship to the object, and without understanding it in a spatial and temporal context. Architecturally, it is impossible to recognize/ understand the space without its context or environment. Piaget states that “An object is a system of perceptual images endowed with a constant spatial form throughout its sequential displacement and constituting an item which can be isolated in the causal series unfolding in time.” We would always generate images of the context/ environment of the space before we understand and gain knowledge of the place. The space/place is defined by its surrounding environment independent of the space which changes with time. The space itself should adapt to its surrounding environment.
The author then states that the world of child is evidently “egocentric”, meaning that everything is centralized or will return to the central point once it started. Everything has its central point or starting points and will always reflect back on its starting point or origin once it has started. The author then supports his points with a simple theory of his child’s thought of the environment. It is true that the when we say existential space is “egocentric”, we recognize that it varies from individual to individual. This is as everybody’s perception of central points might be different. One might think that this is the central but others might have a different opinion. The author uses Gestalt psychology to prove his points, “Man orders his environment spontaneously according to certain “perceptual laws,…”
Next, concept of space is said to be connected to human actions by a German philosopher Otto Friedrich Bollnow which means that a space is recognize by human settlement on it. Once human step foot on the place and expands the place, the place slowly gains its name/popularity. Bollnow writes, “Space is conquered through man’s actions”. Concept of place is then explained by means of place of action and point of departure. When there is a reference point, there is a pathway/ guide to start or move. For example, this can be described architecturally also, there is always a starting point as in where a human start moving, and this creates a central point. When human moves, it creates lines and directional words such as behind, on top and below can be used to define human movements. Then from lines (human pathway) adjoining the point of arrival and point of departure, a plane is then created. “Existential space,” exists independently of the immediate situation, possessing its own order and stability compared to immediate space. Immediate space can be spaces human go temporily away from home while existential space can be defined as ‘home’. I agree with the author with his point; when the centre of the immediate space coincides with the centre of existential space, we feel like as if we are home. The author is supported by Bollnow saying : “The double movement of departure and return reflects a differentiation of space in two zones, a smaller internal one and a surrounding external one. The first is the intimate world of the house and home, the second the outside world into which man departs and from which he returns. The distinction of these zones is of fundamental importance for the structure of lived space.” The closer the range between these zones, the more familiar the space is to the person.
Human environment as described by the author is not two dimensional. The third dimension is the vertical axis expressed by terms “up” and “down”. Personally, I thought that there is no difference between the vertical and horizontal axis. The author’s evidence on this point is not very convincing as he explains that the “vertical axis is traditionally considered sacred dimension of space. It indicates a “way” which leads to a reality “higher” or “lower” than our everyday world.” Another evidence from Erich Kastner saying that “the idea of salvation is generally associated with the mountain…” shows us more of the sacredness of the vertical axis. The existential space may also be described in terms of life pattern. I agree with the author’s saying that life follows a rhythmic pattern as what we do everyday/ our daily life follows a sequence of patterns repetitively and that what gives us our own personal style and lifestyle. The author used Piaget’s quote saying; “Life itself is a creator of patterns” to defend his thoughts. Besides, our life has relations also to the space. Moreover, one can identify the space based on the activities which had occurred at that particular space as well. I am convinced by what the author say; “when an action takes place, the place where the action occurs becomes meaningful, in the sense of expressing the possibility of the very occurrence.” So, the space is defined by the activities people carry out in it.
Existential space is the term used by the author to denote concept or image of the environment. When the environment does not allow the development of the existential space, the space needs to be modified accordingly in order to allow it to adapt well with the environment. For example, the author gives simple example like switch on the light telling us that we can alter/install new elements into the space in order for the space to adapt to the environment (changes in time-night and day).
The author then explains how natural elements are used and how they are developed. In my opinion, natural spaces are built depending on what the site offers, for example, if the trees in the jungle have the potential to be somekind of ready-made columns (part of design), it is considered as making use of the natural elements as well. The author then uses Rudolf Schwarz’s quote saying; “We talk about landscape spaces and think of the landscape as a house: the mountain are the walls, the bottom of the valley is the floor, the rivers the ways, the coasts the thresholds, and where the mountain becomes low is the gate.” The author also says that the built form is also determined by the character of the landscape. I agree with this also as for example, lightweight timber structure (timber stilts) is used for structure on mangrove swamps as the soil condition is not that strong to support heavy structure. (Marang Safari Resort Terengganu)
Besides that, it is also important to distinguish between the interior and exterior space. This is important since the author says that man cannot feel “at home” in a space without limits. The author gives examples such as Venturi house, how Robert Venturi creates spatial differential by using curves. In my opinion, spaces can be determined in many ways. For example, designers might want that particular space to stand out, he will use a different shape like circles (squares as basic) to make the space look more interesting and differentiate the space automatically.
As a conclusion, “The Concept of Place” generally explains to us why a place or space should not be mobile as space is greatly influenced/determined by its context/environment. And that Utopian projects focuses on interaction between communities, hence mobility is a no-no to a fixed project like this. The author explains the concept of place from many different angles and explains existential space to make us understand the concept of place. I think that the author is quite convincing and he support his points by backing up most of his statements with quotes from the experts and lastly, he too conveys his message well to the readers.
0 comments:
Post a Comment