Building vs Body
What is the relationship between building & body today? Are buildings metaphors of the body; abstractions of the body; direct responses to the body; some combination of these; or something else?
Use contemporary case studies. Use quotes from the 3 articles to support your point of view. Please reference them properly.
The relationship between architecture today and the human body delves deep into why those behaviours manifest in the first place, as it calls upon the experiential characteristics and qualities that spark when the two unite — impacting not only occupant behaviour through the body, but also impacting occupants intellectually, emotionally, physiologically and even spiritually through the body as well. As a “form”, the human body is measured. In architecture, as such, to design is to establish the anthropometric distance between the human body and tactile objects, to orientate the proxemics interactions between one body and another, and to articulate something of the Divine Proportion of the human body. As a “matter”, the human body is subjectified in which the aesthetic experience of architecture is articulated in accordance with the phenomenological bodily contact with the ‘gesture’ of everyday buildings.
“Architecture must be a thing of the body, a thing of substance as well as of the spirit and of the brain.”
Le Corbusier
Le Corbusier’s intention is to unite architecture and anthropometric as a whole, with his Modular System, that the world has the same communication method through same measurement system and all the construction problems can be simplified at the end. it provides guidelines for laying out useful spaces, for designing structural systems, and for creating an aesthetically pleasing environment. The proportions of a space can dramatically change how visitors feel in it, and the proportions of a facade design can affect whether a building appears welcoming threatening, or impressive.
Direct Responses to The Body
A good example is Serpentine Pavilion by Sou Fujimoto, located in London. The pavilion, which has already gotten its "cloud" nickname because of its shape and lightness, is generated through a three-dimensional steel grid of about 40 centimetre modules which morphs on each side. The structure is broken to allow people access as well as to generate different uses around, below and upon it.
“A simple cube, sized to the human body, is repeated to build a form that exists between the organic and the abstract, to create an ambiguous, soft-edged structure that will blur the boundaries between interior and exterior.”
Sou Fujimoto
“…have a small scale that fits to human bodies, soft and ambiguous, with a nice co-existence of order and disorder”.
Sou Fujimoto
Personally, I like this line of thought – the idea that architecture is about making spaces that interact with what is around them, rather than precious objects; that it is a background to life, and incomplete without the activities and experiences that take place around it.
Besides, Sou Fujimoto has also put together an exhibition entitled, ‘forest, cloud, mountain’ at Tokyo’s watari museum of contemporary art. Recognizing the complex role architects must play within today’s modern society, the exhibited work explores the idea of the city by re-imagining its potential beyond what traditional architecture has thus far attributed it. The title, ‘forest, cloud, mountain’ is the three thematic concepts investigated through the exhibited installation. It was created in a large enough scale for the viewers to walk around and discern, the exhibited projects range from an arrangement of transparent polycarbonate pieces to a growing stack of polyhedral objects stippled with tree-like interventions.
“Forest-like architecture may be something between artificial and natural; perhaps when we speak about a cloud-like architecture, we could imagine architecture made up of air and light rather than a wall. mountain-like architecture may dial up a new relationship between the human body and the building.”
Sou Fujimoto
“a scheme of proportions integrates and informs a thoroughly designed modern building, [which] composes the diverse parts and harmonizes the various elements in to a single whole...”
Lance Hosey
In conclusion, I think that with greater variation and layering, and by making strategic use of “surface” and “skin”, as an architect we can creatively expand the way architecture relates to the human body — pushing boundaries that make a positive difference in your occupant’s lives. It is important to hone our ability as an architect to capture that “sense of place” where the building not only speaks to the occupant, but communicates with them in a two-way dialogue. And to do this, new forms of materials and ways of thinking about information (including the way we think about communication itself) are making themselves more available — and with those we can begin to reconsider just what “sense of place” will mean for us and the occupants, as the relationship between building and body expands.
Architects must think about human dimensions while an individual is in motion and participating in different activities. A good architecture should employ appropriate proportions for its functions and its particular users (usefulness), and should fulfil structural requirements (strength) and provide aesthetically pleasing order (beauty).
