The Eyes which do not See
Look with your hands, not with your eyes. Humans perceive their surroundings through a multitude of senses, yet in contemporary culture vision has become the dominant and not for good reason. Physically engaging the built environment, by means of a tactile approach, allows for an individual to develop a richer understanding of that environment through the direct connection of their hand. This thesis will investigate how manipulative architecture provides the blank canvas on which individuals can create, and then reflect upon their involvement with the fabrication and tailoring of space.
We live in a society where the individual becomes so enthralled with what is happening in their direct view, both physically and mentally, that they do not contemplate their surroundings. Therefore the architecture is but a vessel in which we inhabit and cannot manipulate its walls to accommodate our ever-evolving needs. It results in us just being a user that sees what is in front of us, and not a participant that engages in the creation of the architecture. This has stemmed from living in a society where the material items grasp our attention and we become solely focused on those objects, the iPhone has transformed into the myWorld. The objects are presented as having simple meanings so the ideas behind them are easily understood, resulting in the individual to only see the superficial qualities and to not have to further examine what is placed directly in their view. The object stays stagnant and does not have the ability to alter its function further than its original design implications.
This idea holds true in the majority of our built environments where the physical makeup of the building stays static and relies on external forces, such as changes in weather or natural light, to alter its appearance. Manipulative architecture allows for the freedom of expression to take place and for the individual to become a participant instead of just a user, thus translating into how the building can be used for varying functions. During the interaction between the individual’s hands and the building, the participant becomes deeply aware of the affect they have on the space and how it can be transformed, making them more aware of their surroundings. The infinite manipulations that can occur then allow for the building to continually alter its appearance based on the imprint left from the participant touching its skin.
The idea of this infinitely manipulable architecture emerged from looking at the projects produced by the Earthwork artists. These individuals were in direct connection with the sites where their works were produced and they were constantly thinking of the implications their works had in response to society. Some artists’ processes included mass excavation or manipulation of the earth’s soil and this gave way to the ideas of wide expanses of space in the United States and the continual exploration of its unending bounds. Our country is based on this major principle and is the driving force that delineates who we are. The American culture will continue to expand as long as there is land available for us to explore our ideas (Sonfist xi). The earthworks are prominent features within the landscape, completely immersed within their environments and to be viewed as fully integrated into the land. One of the leading artists was Robert Smithson and he expanded on this idea in an essay he produced in 1967 entitled “A Tour of the Monuments of Passaic, New Jersey.” Smithson was able to conclude that we are “physically and culturally bound to the earth.”[1] It continues by stating that a culture is represented by the people’s relationship to the landscape (Beardsley 7-9). This relationship with the landscape could be translated to our urban landscape where instead of just being on-lookers, we partake in its creation. In addition, if the buildings are able to be continually manipulated it would allow for us to continue to expand our ideas and further develop our culture.
The manipulable architecture would cause people to have a greater respect for the buildings they encounter as to inspire them to a sense of awe. This leads into the ideas behind the sublime, which some critics would argue would stem from a fear of something, while others would say it comes from happier feelings and provides a sense of awe. The more desirable feeling would be to inspire awe as it is a positive effect on the mental state of a person, but first we shall look into the negative. Edmund Burke writes about the sublime pertaining to pleasure and pain, and states that the ideas of pain are far more powerful than those of pleasure, and in turn makes pain the source for the sublime (Burke 30-33). When reflecting on this, we can think of terrible situations we have been put into where we become so stressed that the gut wrenching pain consumes our body and we feel that we cannot move forward. In comparison to periods of elation, the horrid incidents overrule because the pain is far more powerful. However, why is it that when we delve into our memories the number of good times that surface far outweighs the bad ones?
Focusing on Part II of the Enquiry, Burke writes about what actually causes us to experience the sublime and beautiful. This leads directly into the differences between clearness and obscurity in relation to which of these ideas produces a stronger emotion. As an example he compares painting with poetry, keeping in mind that this is written in the mid-1700s, saying that the poetry allows for more obscure thinking than the thoughts evoked when viewing a painting. The paintings were of landscapes or easily discernible objects, whose meanings of the work could be discerned with just a glance. As for poetry, the words would spark the imagination and allow the reader to create the scene in their mind, offering several thoughts and inducing more passion (Burke 53-58). Obscurity, even today, creates more contemplation because the individual cannot immediately relate to what they are seeing and have to think and apply reason to what they are viewing. Burke states that, “A clear idea is therefore another name for a little idea.”[2] This is valid because when the idea is blatantly in front of us we do not take the time to search for a deeper understanding and therefore it results in us skimming over the topic. With infinitely manipulable architecture there is a continuous change that occurs, leaving the individual to not just take a glance and move on, but to fully investigate what is taking place. It will engage them in deeper, more meaningful thoughts.
Burke then moves on to the subject of Infinity and states that it is another source of the sublime because when our eyes see things they are not always able to see the boundaries around that object. This is another reinforcement that when we do not see a distinct line in our view we question where the end exists (Burke 67-68). This can be experienced in Double Negative by Michael Heizer because when standing in the vast cut in the earth you are looking into infinity and constantly turning your thoughts over in your mind (Beardsley 16-17). Now when the idea of infinity is applied to the magnitude of buildings Burke states that if the building is designed to be so long that when you stand in the space the perspective terminates at a point, then the design has ruined your experience (Burke 70). This may be true when pertaining to the visually infinite length of a space, but when it comes to the interaction of the individual with the physical building, it does not hold strong. The infinite manipulations that can occur are valued far greater and with more admiration because of the freedom the individual can experience.
Schiller continues the idea of the sublime by stating that it pertains to the idea of freedom (Rolfe 2). There can be seen a lack of freedom within our society where an image is used to represent the physical object and this is because of our heavy usage of technology. Martin Heidegger, who hated technology, elaborates by stating that America has taken the real experience of our world and turned it into an image.
“ ‘We get the picture’ concerning something does not mean only that what is…
is represented to us, in general, but that what its stands before us—in all that
belongs to it and all that stands together in it—as a system…Hence world
picture…does not mean a picture of the world but the world conceived and
grasped as a picture. What is, in its entirety, is now taken in such a way that it
first is in being and only is in being to the extent that it is set up by man, who
represents and sets forth.”[3] -Heidegger
This can be described in a simple, but quite meaningful example. Imagine a raspberry growing on a hillside and you approach it on a dismal gray day. The richness of the color becomes an intense spot of interest and you are able to literally touch the fruit and examine it from multiple angles. There becomes a true connection between the individual and the object. If this same scene were to be played on an illuminated plastic screen it would not induce the same qualities and feelings as literally being in the moment. The screen inhibits the individual from actually being able to truly experience what is in front of them (Rolfe 26-27). These same qualities can be seen in our built environment where there is a lack of participation from the user and they primarily only visually experience a space. There is very little opportunity for manipulation to occur.
The reason behind not having an architecture that can be manipulated is because everything has been designed and put into place by the architect. The user can put furniture and other material items in the space to make it their own, but the building itself cannot be manipulated, it remains static. There is a constant pressure to make architecture that is detailed and controlled from top to bottom, leaving nothing behind for alteration. This however does not provide a sense of the space being real and detracts from our experience.
“…much contemporary high-style architecture lacks emptiness, by being quite
The argument is that there is a lack of empty space for the individual and everything is in their grasp. Emptiness in architecture means it is unfinished and there is a potential in what the space can become. The individual then wants to participate in what they can create with the space (Benedikt 58-60). Providing an architecture that can be molded by the individual would allow them to develop the space to suit their needs.
The participant would become fully engaged with the manipuable architecture and obtain a real experience through their active participation of using their hands. The hand is the most direct relation of the human to their environment and all the senses build off of the tactile sense. George Berkeley, an Irish Philosopher from the 18th century, related haptic memory to our vision and stated that without the memories related to touch, then you would not be able to obtain a sense of materiality, distance and spatial depth. Hegel was in agreeance with Berkeley and made the claim that touch is the only sense that can provide spatial depth.
“[touch] senses the weight, resistance, and three-dimensional shape (gestalt) of
material bodies, and thus makes us aware that things extend away from us in all
directions.”[5]
Some may believe that vision brings us closer to our world, but it in fact separates us from it and our other senses are what hold us to our world. The hand should be at the forefront of the senses for it does more than just allow for us to feel. Heidegger suggests:
“[the] hand’s essence can never be determined, or explained, by its being an organ
which can grasp […] Every motion of the hand in every one of its works carries itself
through the element of thinking, every bearing of the hand bears itself in that
element […].”[6]
The hand produces thoughts within our minds and thus gets us thinking about the task we are partaking in (Pallasmaa 25-56). Infinitely manipulable architecture will allow for the user to become the participant and through their hands fabricating the space, be thoughtfully conscious of their actions.
Bibliography
Beardsley, John. Earthworks and Beyond. New York: Abbeville Press Publishers, 1998.
Benedikt, Michael. For an Architecture of Reality. New York: Lumen Books, 1987.
Burke, Edmund. A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2008.
Pallasmaa, Juhani. The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses. Academy Press, 2005.
Rolfe, Jeremy GIlbert. Beauty and the Contemporary Sublime. New York: Allworth Press, 1999.
Sonfist, Alan. Art in the Land: A Critical Anthology of Environmental Art. New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1983.
[2] Burke, Edmund. A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2008, 58.
