Draft for a meta-theory of gesture as a mechanism of meaning in Architecture: an inquiry between...

Psilopoulos A (2014) Draft for a meta-theory of gesture as a mechanism of meaning in architecture: An

inquiry between myth and embodied action. In: Architecture and Writing, Istanbul: DAKAM

Publishing, pp. 373–384.

Author’s copy

Draft for a meta-theory of gesture as a mechanism of meaning in

Architecture: an inquiry between myth and embodied action

Gesture upholds a very strong narrative in the field of Architecture, at the very same

time when it presents itself as an inescapable bodily action. In spite of the fact that

talk of gesture in architecture very often finds itself resolving in the realm of myth for

its explanations, a methodical approach will reveal several structured and extensive

studies – either theoretical or field – focusing on the role of gesture as a carrier of

meaning, ranging from the fundamental condition of a cognitive approach to the

extent of being an incubator of the transcendent in the practice of architecture. While

these studies exhaust themselves within their own system of reference, they find

themselves lacking the terms that can foster a dialogue between them. The present

draft aims to define a strategy of approaching this question of gesture in the terms of

a meta-theory, that is, to describe the framework of a theory in which bodily action

and theory can be discussed at once through a unified surveying lens.

Gesture: architecture, design, aesthetic judgment, embodied knowledge, myth, archè,

quasi-objet.

Introduction

The present draft aims to study the concept of gesture through its role in Architecture, in terms of a

field, and in Design, in terms of a focused activity. An overview of the principal references one can

find in this line of research will show that gesture is studied either as an abstract concept harbored in

the theoretical discourse about architecture, or in the framework of the actual design process as bodily

action. This landscape can also make room for the study of metaphor, especially when it is grounded in

the dialectic relationship between the two aforementioned extremes for the formation of its concepts1.

Traces of all of the above can be found either within a structured word about architecture or

within a spontaneous word about architecture. Respectively we can distinguish between two forms of

word: one that precedes the designed artifact and one that follows it in effect. Within these lines one

can see that the efforts to approach the subject cover quite an extensive ground ranging from critical

essay (e.g. B. Verschaffel with Architecture is (as) gesture2) to the more systematic research of

cognitive behavior (with the prominent figure of W Visser3, with extensions coming from the field of

design studies, e.g. by Lawson4 and Cross5). These studies however remain detached from each other6,

refining their line of research within the limits of their own paradigm but failing to produce the terms

of a dialogue between what they reveal about the identity and role of gesture in the context of

architecture.

1 George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 2nd edn (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003). 2 Bart Verschaffel, Architecture Is (as) a Gesture (Luzern: Quart Verlag, 2001). 3 Willemien Visser, The Cognitive Artifacts of Designing (Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers,

2006); ‘Visser: Design as Construction of Representations’, Collections, 2010, 29–43; ‘Designing as Construction of

Representations: A Dynamic Viewpoint in Cognitive Design Research’, Human–Computer Interaction, 21 (2010), 103–52. 4 Bryan Lawson, ‘Cognitive Strategies in Architectural Design’, Ergonomics, 22 (1979), 59–68

<http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140137908924589>; What Designers Know (Architectural Press, 2004); How Designers Think: The

Design Process Demystified; 3rd Revision, 4th edn (Oxford: Elsevier, 2006); Peter Lloyd, Bryan Lawson and Peter Scott, ‘Can Concurrent Verbalization Reveal Design Cognition?’, Design Studies, 16 (1995), 237–59 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0142-

694X(94)00011-2>. 5 Nigel Cross, ‘Designerly Ways of Knowing’, Design Studies, 3 (1982), 221–27 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-0>; ‘Design Research: A Disciplined Conversation’, Design Issues, 15 (1999), 5–10

<http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1511837>; ‘Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline versus Design Science’, Design Issues,

17 (2001), 49–55; Designerly Ways of Knowing (Board of International Research in Design) (Birkhäuser GmbH, 2007); Design Thinking. Understanding How Designers Think and Work (Oxford; New York: Berg Publishers, 2011). 6 Something which Visser herself admits. See Willemien Visser, ‘The Function of Gesture in an Architectural Design Meeting’,

in About Designing: Analysing design meetings, ed. by J. McDonnell and P. Lloyd (London: Taylor & Francis, 2009), pp. 269–84 (p. 209).




Author’s copy

The present study aims to cover this gap, not only by producing a general academic survey

that establishes the question but by proposing a general theory7 that seeks to unify these disperse

studies under a common problematic. Focusing in the field of Architecture, it recognizes that the latter

is constituted by establishing a reference point through a fundamental Archè8, and that it is in this

context that the notion of gesture can be revealed as a necessary condition for its praxis. By aiming to

put action and myth into dialogue, this study seeks to sort out the terms by which gesture stands

between an actualized manifestation and a conceptual – or even ideological – projection.

In these terms we propose to study gesture not through the indexing and analysis of its a

posteriori defined qualities, but through its foremost quality of being revealed as such (as significant)

through the bulk of ‘plain’ action, establishing thus a point of judgment as the necessary condition for

its existence9. Once we do that, we will see gesture as endemic into a point of saturation: that is, a

turning point in terms of (a) time, (b) reference framework, and (c) inter-subjectivity, as it establishes

respectively (a) presence and present time, (b) a point of reference between past and future states of

relationships, and (c) a point of convergence – and thus a minimum, yet of maximum density, field of

connections – between elements and forces. Through this last argument it is suggested that gesture is

defined as such in a point of tension between possible states of the system in which it is manifested. In

turn, this system can remain constantly recognizable from a macroscopic point of view10 as a practice

(focused) or a discipline (abstract) – e.g. as ‘Architecture’ – while the elements (including the forces) it

consists of remain in a vital flux, i.e. a state of possibilities which is invested, to paraphrase Simon11,

with the ambition of a desirable future. Following Michel Serres’ rendition of such a system12 we

propose that gesture acts as a “quasi – objet”13 whose qualities matter very little – albeit not

insignificant) – in comparison to its function as a weaver of the collective.

Once we seek to establish this argument on a more grounded level, we will see that the

fluctuating character of the system and its dynamic tension are elements that are solidly framed in the

research of the creative process through evidence of the ‘open’ form of the constructions that are used

and the erratic character in which decisions are made in real time14. At the same time, on the opposite

side of the spectrum, it is the very definition of an a posteriori word that establishes a ‘before’ and

‘after’ for gesture, including the network of relationships (i.e. readings and conceptual projections)

which unfolds from it, as there would have been no conversation about ‘a gesture’ if such a gesture

wasn’t revealed as a point of argument. All of the above place gesture in a privileged position within a

system which functions in the terms of entropy as it allows us to establish a minimum point of entry

into that system, allowing for the study of its behavior in all of its complexity. The methodological

usefulness of such an approach should be evident equally in the framework of textual research15, as in

the framework of field work which aims to extract qualitative results through situated observation16.

Methodology

We stated in the introduction that the principal focus of the proposed research is to put isolated

approaches on the study of gesture in dialogue with each other. We presented several cases of distinct

lines of research, such as essay (e.g. architectural narrative, theory and manifestos), communication

studies (metaphor) and design studies (as expressed primarily through situated observation and field

7 See Ken Friedman, ‘Theory Construction in Design Research: Criteria: Approaches, and Methods’, ed. by John Shackleton and David Durling, Design Studies, 24 (2003), 507–22 (pp. 519–519) <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00039-5>. 8 See ’Archè’ Daniel Charles, ARCHITECTURE (Thèmes Généraux) Architecture et Philosophie (Encyclopædia Universalis

France S.A.) <http://www.universalis.fr/encyclopedie/architecture-themes-generaux-architecture-et-philosophie/>. 9 As we shall see in the following parts of this paper. See ‘(...) Not every purposive movement of the human body is a gesture.

And no more is every building designed for a purpose architecture.’ In: Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value: Revised

Edition, ed. by Henrik von Wright, Heikki Nyman, and Alois Pichler, Rev. 2nd e (London: Wiley-Blackwell, 1998), p. 49e. 10 See, in reference, Michel Serres, The Parasite (Minneapolis: University of Minessota Press, 2007), p. 225. 11 …who offers us one of the principal paradigms in the field of Design Studies: ‘Everyone designs who devises courses of action

aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones.’ Herbert Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd edn (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1996), p. 111. 12 Serres, pp. 137–146. 13 Serres, pp. 449–470. 14 Willemien Visser, ‘Organisation of Design Activities: Opportunistic with Hierarchical Episodes’, Interacting with computers,

6 (1994), 239–74; ‘Visser: Design as Construction of Representations’, p. 8. 15 Where the relation between ‘micro-context’ (e.g. internal references and relationships) and ‘macro-context’ (e.g. ideology)

offers an interesting point of tension. It should be noted that textual analysis is discussed here as a means to conduct research –

see, e.g., Joseph M. Moxley, ‘Textual Research - Writing Commons’ <http://www.writingcommons.org/open-text/research-

methods-methodologies/textual-research/269-textual-research> [accessed 3 July 2014]. 16 Linda Groat and David Wang, Architectural Research Methods, Kindle (John Wiley and Sons, 2002) Kindle Location 3501.




Author’s copy

research, e.g. in groups of architects), and we pointed out that at the same time that they try to address

the concept of gesture in the field of architecture, not only do they stay confined within the framework

of their own paradigm but they also produce a very different understanding of gesture, albeit with

interesting overlaps. These distinct points of reference suggest that we can review the landscape of

gesture in terms of a spectrum, ranging from textual reference on one extent to bodily practice on the

other. This study can also be seen in terms of a division between an a priori discourse about

architecture and an a posteriori, ‘gesture’ laying at the end of the former and at the beginning of the

latter. The question that we propose to address is whether this ‘gesture’ is the same in either of these

cases.

A more thorough review of the literature will show significant overlaps between findings in

each of these approaches. While we will examine these overlaps thoroughly in order to establish our

claim, the question of addressing gesture in shared terms introduces the necessity to search for

principles that ‘are abstracted and generalized to cover a variety of situations and cases’17. This

logically extends to the structuring of a meta-theory, namely ‘a broad perspective that overarches two,

or more, theories’18. Ritzer19 proposes two extremes for meta-theory and a relativist third, namely

methodological holism, methodological individualism, and methodological relationism. The latter is

presented as compensating ‘for the micro- and macro-extremism of the two extant metatheories’, as

well as ‘encompass[ing] a number of (…) micro–macro theories and more (…) agency–structure

theories’; both of these claims should be fitting for the ‘entropic system approach’ we described earlier.

Following this line, our efforts will be based exclusively on the study of literature that stems

from the fields we described earlier, on condition that we show that the available literature already

forms a recognizable body of research, and the propositions that are structured within these systems

justify our claims and, thereon, our inclination towards framing a broader perspective on the subject.

The principal objective of our effort would then be the construction of ‘[a] sequence of logical steps

within a closed system’ as proposed by Groat & Wang20. Both the claims, as well as the structure of the

analysis they derive from, should be able to describe systematically the question at hand, to offer a

concise framework for its understanding and to conclude in a convincing new proposal that will have a

wide field of application21. The goal of this strategy is to assemble a series of seemingly disparate

elements into a common system. According to Groat & Wang, ‘[o]nce this system is framed, it gives

clarity to those disparate elements under a general heading’22. This is consistent with Ritzer’s claim that

‘[a] metatheory serves four purposes: (1) gain a deeper understanding of extant theoretical work; (2)

provide an overarching perspective of that work; (3) serve as a mechanism for evaluation; and (4) serve

as a prelude to future theoretical work’23.

Under this framework, reference bibliography was collected for the purpose of:

Framing gesture as a legitimate research question in the field of architecture.

Distinguishing between valid research fields and arranging their approaches in a taxonomy

which reveals overlaps and gaps, thus legitimizing the need for an overarching perspective, as

explained before.

The critical and comparative analysis of these findings in such a way that reveals the terms of

a dialogue between them.

Following this logic, documents can be categorized as:

Exemplary references which can be considered – either in themselves or along with others –

as case studies (e.g. the case of ‘le geste architectural’ in the competition for the Centre

Beaubourg, Paris 1972)

17 See ‘Basic research’, in: Friedman, p. 510. 18 George Ritzer, ‘Metatheory’, Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology (Blackwell) <http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/beos_metatheory> [accessed 3 July 2014]. 19 In regard to social sciences. Yet this classification is useful in order to portray the opposition between the micro and the macro

level, as well as to cater our own preoccupation for including both levels into an entropic system. Ritzer. 20 Groat and Wang Kindle location 577. See also ‘Logical Argumentation’, op.cit., Kindle location 5481. 21 Friedman, pp. 513–513. 22 Groat and Wang Kindle location 5493. 23 Ritzer, George. Metatheorizing in sociology. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books (1991); ‘Reflections on the rise of

metatheorizing in sociology’. Sociological perspectives 34, no.3 (1991), pp. 237-248. In: Joseph T. Tennis, ‘Epistemology,

Theory, and Methodology in Knowledge Organization: Toward a Classification, Metatheory, and Research Framework’, Knowledge Organization, 35 (2008), 102–12 (p. 102).




Author’s copy

Essays which can be extended to the point of defining – or referring to – a recognizable body

of theory (e.g. Juhaani Pallasmaa’s ‘The thinking hand’24)

Field research that documents and ultimately establishes the question at hand through situated

observation and a grounded approach.

Framework references which put all of the above in perspective (e.g. Bart Verschaffel’s

‘Architecture is (as) a gesture’25) and may extend to the point of implying a recognizable

school of thought.

Under these circumstances it is important to focus also on the internal coherence of the

structure of our logical system, as well as the explanatory power it should have on the question at hand.

Groat & Wang propose that whenever such systems achieve this goal, they exemplify the following

characteristics: definition, relation, and rhetoric26. For the first, either new terms are introduced or old

terms are seen and used with new light; for the second, relations between the terms are explored27, and

for the third, a series of tactics are used to convey the argument persuasively. Furthermore, such

systems gain systemic traction28, among other ways, by cross-categorization and elaboration and by

argument from meta-philosophical traditions, which is what we hope to achieve in this case.

At this level – and in coordination with the structure we presented earlier – we will try to establish:

The validity of the claims and the conceptual projections that emerge from representative

references to the term ‘gesture’ in the field of architecture

The grounds for the study of gesture as a meta-narrative within the framework of already

existing fields of theory/research.

The connections of our principal argument to a larger body of inquiries that are concerned

with related issues.

The trustworthiness or our research shall depend on the satisfaction of two criteria:

‘sufficiency’ and ‘coherence’29. For the first criterion, the selection of our references should aim to

achieve a point of saturation where qualitative interpretations can be positively maintained,

withstanding at the same time the challenges posed by other new evidence. For the second criterion, it

should suffice that the main body of our research corresponds to the framework and challenges

elaborated here in this section – in other words, that this section should offer the outline of a

‘checklist’ that establishes the grounds of verification for our research. Finally, it should be noted that

the progress we seek to make at the limits of this research entails all the weaknesses of a generalization.

Groat & Wang say in no unclear terms that this type of approach have a lifespan relative to the

‘empirical environment that spawned them’30. Nevertheless, it should also be noted that they exhibit

‘great explanatory power’31 when in place, while by the end of their ‘shelf life’ they still continue to be

of value as historical artifacts32.

Under these premises, the present draft shall try to describe a theoretical framework through

which we can outline a question for the role of gesture in architecture, to propose the concepts which

will serve our claim for an overarching perspective on the subject, to explore further research potential

and, for all that, to propose an outline for the development of this argument into a doctoral thesis.

Theoretical and Conceptual framework

Gesture has been studied in its variety already since ancient times; yet its role in the field of

architecture has rarely been discussed in depth, although it should be adequately established by a

significant amount of references. Generally speaking, gesture presents itself in the field of architecture

in two forms: the form of an inescapable human – i.e. bodily – action extending from spontaneous

24 Juhani Pallasmaa, The Thinking Hand : Existential and Embodied Wisdom in Architecture (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons

Ltd, 2009). 25 Verschaffel, Architecture Is (as) a Gesture. 26 Groat and Wang Kindle location 5665-5666. 27 In the analysis of Groat & Wang these are necessity, deduction/induction, syllogistic frameworks, a priori / a posteriori, and entailment / implication. 28 See [11.4 TACTICS: SYSTEMIC TRACTION], Groat and Wang Kindle location 6017-6100. 29 Colin Lancshear and Michele Knobel, A Handbook of Teacher Research: From Design to Implementation (England: Open

University Press, 2004), pp. 366–369. 30 Groat and Wang Kindle Location 6104. 31 Groat and Wang Kindle Location 6101. 32 Groat and Wang Kindle Location 6104-6105.




Author’s copy

communication to the extreme of representation (e.g. sketching, or just plain meaningful movement of

the hand[s]), and the form of narrative extending from metaphor to the extreme of myth33. These two

forms often appear as one, for example once action is invested with the dimension of a ‘feat’ or

‘power’34, the role of a carrier of ‘truth’35, or the embodied utterance of human thought36. Similarly, the

hand appears emancipated and even autonomous in the kind of knowledge it can store37, as well as the

role it can carry as an interface between the subject and the world38 or the way it can bring pure thought

in dialogue with the world of the imaginary39.

Gesture as such has been the subject of inquiry for a number of approaches through time.

Following Kendon’s40 account for the history of its study, it is possible to distinguish between two

different contexts through which it can be approached: either as an art of signs which can be taught

(e.g. in Quintilian41), or as a fundamental human behavior that can be observed and studied (i.e. an

anthropological approach, see from De Jorio42 thereon). In extension we find gesture in account to its

relationship with language: either in terms of primacy (a moral matter for Aristotle43 and an

evolutionary matter for the anthropological approach – see, e.g. Tylor44), or in terms of its state as

man’s natural condition (as natural, and therefore as globally applicable as a subject of study). This last

aspect is important as it reveals another overlap, this time between the ‘conventional form’ and the

‘naturalness’ of gesture45.

This double nature of gesture is equally evident within the field of architecture. From a ‘token

of authenticity’46, to embodied thinking47, to fetish48, gesture appears as one of the most persistent

narratives in the borderline between (physical or conceptual) action and myth (that is, narrative taken to

the extreme). In most case it appears as a fundamental condition of creativity and creative action, either

as a trace or/and quality of the designed artifact49, or as an interface between ‘being’ and ‘being-in-the-

world’50.

On the pragmatic level, gesture is studied as communicative behavior manifested in a defined

frame51, namely ‘teams of designers who collaborate on a project’52 or in human-computer interaction

(HCI or CHI)53. This line of research is consistent with the framework that is introduced in the field of

Gesture Studies – see in general ISGS54 and especially McNeill55 who proposes a theory based on the

33 See an interesting example of this range in Soriano’s ‘definition’ of gesture: Federico Soriano, ‘Gesture’, in The Metapolis Dictionary of Advanced Architecture (Barcelona: Actar, 2003), p. 262. 34 Sue Collard, ‘Architectural Gestures and Political Patronage: The Case of the Grands Travaux’, International Journal of

Cultural Policy, 5 (1998), 33–47 (pp. 34–35). 35 Verschaffel, Architecture Is (as) a Gesture, p. 64. 36 Pallasmaa, p. 159. 37 Pallasmaa, p. 159. 38 Tony Fry, Becoming Human by Design (London; New York: Berg, 2012), p. 262. 39 See W. Flusser, as discussed in Christian Gänshirt, ‘Gesture’, in Tools for Ideas: An Introduction to Architectural Design

(Basel; Boston; Berlin: Birkhäuser GmbH, 2007), pp. 105–11. 40 Adam Kendon, Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance (Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 41–42. 41 As mentioned in Kendon, pp. 17–19. 42 Kendon, pp. 43–83. 43 Kendon, p. 17. 44 Kendon, pp. 50–54. 45 See specifically De Jorio, as mentioned in Kendon, p. 49. 46 Verschaffel, Architecture Is (as) a Gesture. 47 Pallasmaa. 48 See, e.g. the dispute about ‘Le geste architectural’ of the Centre Pompidou. André Bergerioux, ‘Geste Architectural’ (Courrier), 1972. 49 See, e.g. Tom Porter, ‘Gesture’, in Archispeak, An illustrated guide to architectural terms (London; New York: Spon Press,

2004), p. 90. 50 See, e.g., Pallasmaa; See also Fry who renders a virtual dimension of ‘being-in-the-world’ as a loop between the act of

designing the world and the (re)designing of the subject in mutual reaction. 51 Visser, ‘The Function of Gesture in an Architectural Design Meeting’; ‘Visser: Design as Construction of Representations’; Keith M. Murphy, ‘Building Meaning in Interaction: Rethinking Gesture Classification’, CLIC: Crossroads of Language,

Interaction, and Culture, 5 (2003), 29–47; ‘Imagination as Joint Activity: The Case of Architectural Interaction’, MIND,

CULTURE, AND ACTIVITY, 11 (2004), 267–78; ‘Collaborative Imagining: The Interactive Use of Gestures, Talk, and Graphic Representation in Architectural Practice’, Semiotica, 156 (2005), 113–45. 52 Willemien Visser and Mary Lou Maher, ‘Guest Editorial: The Role of Gesture in Designing’, AIEDAM, Artificial Intelligence

for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 25 (2011), 213–20 (p. 215). 53 Visser and Maher, p. 215; Also , pp. 216–217. 54 International Society for Gesture Studies (ISGS), 2002 <http://www.gesturestudies.com/> [accessed 10 October 2013]. 55 David McNeill, Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought (Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 1992), p. 423.




Author’s copy

assumption that gesture and language form two modalities of thought utterance, the latter being

developed in real time in a dialectic relationship between the two. In this scenario gesture takes the role

of holistic and immediate expression and language takes the role of a structured expression that extends

in time, while none of them holds primacy over the other. This proposition is extended to Visser’s

study of architectural design, where “the role of gesture in designing [is found] to be more than just

communicating to another designer”56. By addressing the question of gesture as a means for the

‘construction of representations’57, Visser introduces the problem of an object that is organized around

gesture (e.g. what is ‘represented’), as well as the property of gesture to act as a node around which a

collaboration is made possible (introducing the premises of inter-subjectivity). On the same page,

another interesting point on McNeill’s approach is that of a ‘point of saturation’ the dialectic between

language and gesture reaches for the communicative event – namely thought utterance, regardless of

the question of its reception by another subject – to be considered as fulfilled. The same theme can be

seen in analogy in Schön’s concept of ‘thinking in action’58, as well as Lawson’s studies of expert

knowledge59 where ‘design events’ and ‘design episodes’ appear in critical stages of the design

process60, acting as markers between stages of problem-solving. This points not only to the suggestion

that ‘gesture’ lies in these points of saturation, but that it clearly marks a ‘before’ and an ‘after’ for the

system it exists in.

The same can be said for gesture in its narrative form, once it initiates what we called earlier

an ‘a posteriori’ discourse on a certain subject. For example, in Verschaffel61 gesture assumes the role

of ‘a token of authenticity’ of the architectural work, while in Gänshirt62 it acts as a carrier of the

subject and whatever is ‘human’ in the world; finally in Fry63 it is placed at the exact borderline of a

dialectic relationship between a man who designs his environment and the environment’s reaction to

re-design man in turn. We can also find similar forms of approaches in other, more lyrical approaches

such as the definition F. Soriano64 brings into light for gesture by contemplating on the value of its

truth in comparison to its mythical condition. On these premises, a shift of focus from gesture’s alleged

‘properties’, ‘qualities’, or, generally, ‘identifiers’, should reveal its place as an initiator of a discourse.

As such, on a macro-level, gesture not only ‘marks’ the spot for the development of an argument, but

first and foremost, it is marked – what follows thereon can then be a matter of study on a micro-level.

This introduces the necessity to define the terms by which such a marking is possible.

Following Kant, we propose that this act necessitates the condition of a pre-analytical sensitivity65,

introducing into our inquiry the faculty of critical judgment and especially that of an aesthetic

judgment. By these terms we propose that we bring gesture back into the field of a ‘spontaneous’

reaction, leaving any other kind of ‘identifiers’ aside and focusing on the terms by which we can define

our problem as a dynamic system of relationships. This part should no doubt open a large chapter on its

philosophical foundations. However, examining gesture as aesthetic judgment is aptly opened in

Gallard66 and our own endeavors shall extend from there. References to this argument are found in:

1. The conditions Kant67 introduces for aesthetic judgment, and specifically the condition of

mutual agreement between subjects through a shared feeling (albeit not necessarily global)

and the condition of disinterestedness (i.e. ‘judging’ in view of a special interest), which

resonate respectively with the concept of a « lieu commun »68 and the intransitive nature of

gesture we find in both Verschaffel or Visser (referred to as exemplary extremes).

56 Visser and Maher, p. 215. 57 Visser, The Cognitive Artifacts of Designing; ‘Visser: Design as Construction of Representations’; ‘Designing as Construction

of Representations: A Dynamic Viewpoint in Cognitive Design Research’. 58 Donald A. Schön, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (Ashgate Publishing Limited, 1991). 59 Lawson, What Designers Know; How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified; 3rd Revision. 60 Lawson, What Designers Know, pp. 17–18. 61 Verschaffel, Architecture Is (as) a Gesture. 62 Gänshirt. 63 Fry. 64 Soriano. 65 Carsten Friberg, ‘Contemporary Culture and Aesthetic Education’, in Proceedings of the European Society for Aesthetics, ed.

by Fabian Dorsch, Jakub Stejskal, and John Zeimbekis (European Society for Aesthetics, 2011), III, 104–14

<http://proceedings.eurosa.org/3/friberg2011.pdf> [accessed 10 October 2013]. 66 Jean Gallard, La Beauté Du Geste (Editions Rue d’Ulm, 1984). 67 Immanuel Kant, Κρıτıκή Της Κρıτıκής Ικανότητας, trans. by Χάρης Τασάκος (Αθήνα: Ροές, 2005), pp. 114–119; 71–72

respectively. 68 Anne Cauquelin, Essai D’une Philosophie Urbaine (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1982).




Author’s copy

2. The idea that gesture can be an ‘art form that can be cultivated’69, which resonates with

Verschaffel’s rendering of gesture as a performance based on common form (to the extreme of

transcending it and introducing something new), as well as with findings in the field of Design

Studies and especially in the concept of ‘expert knowledge’ as a product of development70.

Still, the most evident reference to this argument is found in an aphorism by L. Wittgenstein

who claims the position by three sparing declarative sentences:

“Architecture is a gesture. Not every purposive movement of the human body is a gesture. And

no more is every building designed for a purpose architecture. (1942)”71

While a micro-level comparative analysis of the aphorism is hugely attractive (see, e.g. Albertsen72),

either within the body of theory the philosopher has produced or in context with a wider analysis on the

circumstances it was made, the simple grammatical truth of this declaration is that ‘gesture’ is

positioned at the critical point of a judgment. Be it in connection to a mythical « Archè »73 or a relative

truth value, the very syntax of this declaration introduces the terms of a definition based on the grounds

of ‘is’/’not every’. This is also the point where architecture transcends the discourse about its autonomy

from art as a field of aesthetic pleasure74 and generally releases itself from the argument about any kind

of primacy it may or may not have over other disciplines, while revealing at the same time the fluidity

of the constructions that define her.

Conclusions - A course of action

As we stated persistently for the length of this draft, our primary concern is to address the problem of

dissociation between various approaches to the question of gesture in architecture. We suggested that a

thorough review of the landscape reveals not only different approaches but also different

understandings of gesture. Our principal concern is to find out whether all of these distinct arguments

may share common ground that justifies a series of overlaps we observed in our survey. This ‘common

ground’ ultimately extends to the construction of a meta-theory, that is, an overarching perspective that

brings all of these different approaches in dialogue with each other. For this purpose we propose a

methodological shift: rather than inquiring about which ‘identifiers’ may constitute gesture as such, we

focus instead on its foremost quality of being marked as such.

The whole argument relies on a dynamic perception of the field of architecture, where time,

forces, subjects, objects and relationships are in constant flux. Coyne75 points out the weaknesses of

autonomous ‘global’ theories to answer questions in this entropic environment quite convincingly, e.g.

by presenting two supposedly contradictory theoretical premises – rationalism and romanticism –

acting in a dialectic relationship as ideological projections rather than holding their ground against each

other as concise bodies of theory. The same could be said for Heidegger’s ‘being-in-the-world’76 once

we compare it with Fry’s77 reactive loop as ‘the world’ designs back the subject that designed it (e.g. a

‘better’ screwdriver designs back the grip, and by extension the person, that holds it). Coyne concludes

(albeit in reference to Heidegger rather than the more complex version we propose here) that “[p]rior to

69 See Gallard. 70 See, e.g.,Bryan Lawson and Kees Dorst, Design Expertise, ed. by Nigel Cross and Ernest Edmonds, 2 (Architectural Press, 2009), XXXI. 71 Wittgenstein, p. 49e. 72 Niels Albertsen, ‘The Artwork in the Semiosphere of Gestures. Wittgenstein, Gesture, and Secondary Meaning.’, in Architecture, Language, Critique around Paul Engelmann, ed. by Judith Bakacsy, Anders V. Munch, and Anne-Louise Sommer

(Amsterdam - Atlanta: Rodopi, 2000), pp. 67–104; ‘Gesturing Atmospheres’, in Ambiances in action / Ambiances en acte(s) -

2nd International Congress on Ambiances, ed. by Jean-Paul Thibaud and Daniel Siret (Montreal: International Ambiances Network, 2012), pp. 69–74 <http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00745028>. 73 As mentioned earlier. See note 8. 74 See Roger Scruton, The Aesthetics of Architecture (Paperback), Reprint with new introduction by the author (Princeton University Press, 2013); see also Bart Verschaffel, ‘Art in (and Of) Architecture: Autonomy and Medium’, in The SAGE

Handbook of Architectural Theory, ed. by C. Graig Crysler, Stephen Cairns, and Hilde Heynen (London: SAGE Publications

Ltd, 2012), pp. 165–76; also Niels Albertsen and Bülent Diken, ‘Artworks’ Networks: Field, System or Mediators?’, Theory, Culture & Society, 21 (2004), 35–58 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276404043619>. 75 Richard Coyne, ‘Creativity as Commonplace’, Design Studies, 18 (1997), 135–41. 76 Coyne, p. 141. 77 Anne-Marie Willis, Design Philosophy Papers : Collection Three (Crows Nest Qld.: Team D/E/S Publications, 2007), pp. 80–

81; see also Fry It is interesting to see how design action entails moral responsibility. This shall also provide us with grounds

towards the definition between subject and object against Actor-Network theory, and it is compliant with the preoccupations in Kant.




Author’s copy

the concept of the individual creative genius is the concept of beings totally engaged in a world,

without differentiation. From this indeterminate whole, we can construct theories of cognition for

particular purposes. This is a valid pursuit, provided we do not take it for granted that in so doing we

are any closer to understanding who we are and what the world is like.”78 While we agree to a certain

extent with the complexity of the problem, we propose that examining gesture at a point of saturation

within a system may provide us with an entry point to this system, of minimal intervention to its natural

flux.

Therefore the proposed study aims to cover the distance between ideological projection and

methodological approach. On the basis of what we examined earlier we aim to establish the role of

gesture in solving this problem, especially once we manage to avoid deterministic claims that attenuate

the virtual dimension of the reality we examine. This argument extends to the moral implications of our

research, and especially the claims between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ on a designated practice, e.g. in

architecture (where gesture can be used as a nominator of either). By these standards we propose to

reveal gesture as a tool for analysis, escaping the fetishism of the “archè” in a field of tensions which

remains recognizable while it insists in escaping a rigid definition. Such a system is aptly described in

Serres79: a phone rings at a banquet, it interrupts the conversation; it is noise, up to the point someone

decides to answer it: it is at that point that the conversation at the table becomes noise, it obstructs the

message carried over the telephone. From the outside, the identities of all of the system’s attributes are

in flux. The only fixed point of entry is the moment of shift, the moment that every part is decided.

These systems, says Serres, are “common to exact and human sciences”80, mathematics and sociology

at the same time, in presenting both a limit and a function. The limit is always either absolute noise,

absolute disruption of the system, or a change of state, a set of messages. For Serres the change of state

is hardly a breakdown of a former function; he says: “The counternorm is never a noise of the norm but

the same norm reversed, that is to say, its twin. If you make a motor turn in reverse, you do not break

it: you build a refrigerator”81. Inside the system, an interruption and a very exact point where one

stands between states. Gesture, in this context, acts rather than manifests; its form and properties are of

little significance (albeit not entirely, as they impose some constraints), compared to its function as a

nominator, at the tipping point of judgment. In this description, by Serres’ argument, we can discuss

gesture as a quasi – object82.

What follows from here is not published in the conference proceedings and it is meant only as a

guideline for further inquiry. Please do not re-publish.

In the Appendix that follows we present a framework for a systematic approach to what we described

in this draft. It will start with a general description of the claims of this research question. It will then

move on to describing the field on which a relationship between gesture and architecture is framed.

Finally it will attempt to delve deeper into the concept of distinction, as well as into the more important

concept of judgment. In conclusion, it will attempt to sum up this approach into a recognizable

theoretical and methodological proposal and it will examine its implications for further research on the

subject.

78 Coyne, p. 141. 79 Serres. 80 Serres, p. 67. 81 Serres, p. 68. 82 Serres, p. 225.




Author’s copy

Appendix

In the following lines we aim to describe the framework for a systematic approach to the study of

gesture in the terms described in the present paper. This framework is structured by three distinct

instances of our research methodology: (1) establishing the validity of our inquiry by defining and

examining distinct approaches to the question of gesture in various research paradigms (e.g. essay,

situated observation, etc.), (2) proposing to shift our point of view from a micro-level to the macro-

level of a metatheory by establishing that the first and foremost property of gesture is to be revealed as

such out of trivial action, and (3) examining the mechanism by which it is ‘singled out’ – namely, the

conditions of judgment and the terms it sets inside an entropic environment.

As this is a work in progress, the titles we propose are merely indicative of the contents of the chapters.

They will be brought to a final form once each chapter is fully developed.

1. Introduction

1.1. Overview and definition of the research field. Establishing the question of gesture through the

sampling of references.

1.2. Hypothesis, methodological framework, conceptual and theoretical framework.

1.3. Critical / synthetic review of the basic literature. Research goals for the present study.

2. The solidarity of a specific ‘reference framework’: restricting the inquiry on gesture within the

framework of a specific research paradigm.

2.1. Narrative: gesture as a token of validity (of ‘truth’, of ‘authenticity’, of ‘being’). Conditions of

an a-posteriori discourse about architecture.

2.2. Action: gesture as human behavior. Study of gesture as a communicative device and as an act

of design; conditions of an a-priori discourse about architecture.

2.3. Metaphor: the question of understanding the designed object by relational terms; a ‘bodily’

perception of the narrative of gesture (the ‘bodily’ dimension of words).

2.4. The claim for a holistic approach: gaps and overlaps between distinct paradigms of research

and the grounds for a meta-theory on the study of gesture. An inquiry upon the terms by

which one can study an object that escapes its own definition.

3. Shifting the focus: defining gesture by its quality of being revealed as such. Gesture as a

minimal entry point to a system in flux.

3.1. The idea of ‘singling out’ [1]: Singling out gesture, between instrumental act and ritual.

Gesture as a marker of the present tense; gesture as a marker of the subject, gesture as a

marker of inter-subjectivity. The concept of ‘commonplace’ as a point of inter-subjectivity,

as rendered by gesture (including the extreme case of novelty). Gesture as a point of

definition for a field of connections; gesture as a point of convergence between potential

states. The definition between a ‘before’ and an ‘after’ for the state of things; assessing

gesture by failure of success.

3.2. The idea of ‘singling out’ [2]: Gesture as an exclamation. The idea of gesture as an object of

refinement: an art of gesture, gesture as a singular piece of art. The poetics of gesture as a

glorification of an act and, by extension, as the glorification of the subject. Again: assessing

gesture by failure of success.

3.3. The idea of the ‘quasi-objet’: Gesture as a mechanism weaving a field of connections. Gesture

as a point of tension: revealing ‘before’ and ‘after’ as states of a macroscopically stable




Author’s copy

system which inherently in flux. Gesture as a minimal point of entry into a dynamic discourse

about [the object of] architecture.

4. On the conditions of ‘singling out’ gesture in the field of architecture: gesture as aesthetic

judgment. *This chapter aims primarily to establish the grounds for further research.

4.1. Judgment as human faculty. A philosophical overview of the question at hand and its relation

to our own inquiry.

4.2. The ‘aesthetic object’: the autonomy of architecture as a field of aesthetic judgment; the

dimension of gesture as an aesthetic object.

4.3. Defining the subject: an inquiry on the conditions for aesthetic judgment; an inquiry upon the

conditions by which gesture can be discussed in this context: is it a subject, an object, or

something in-between?

5. Conclusion

5.1. Critical assessment of our inquiry: re-stating our hypothesis and examining our claim for a

meta-theory of gesture in the field of architecture. Revealing gesture as a point of

convergence, as a point of tension, and, ultimately, as a marker to a change of state for a

macroscopically recognizable system. Examining the importance of studying gesture in the

field of architecture by the terms of an overarching view, ranging from theoretical

implications to a methodological approach. Limitations and benefits of our approach, either

to a general understanding of architectural discourse or to the distinct research paradigms

concerned with the study of gesture.

5.2. Further research: from the concept of complexity to the concept of flux. Architectural

discourse as a dynamic system.

5.3. Epilogue. Re-stating our contribution to the field.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Appendix

7. Bibliography




Author’s copy

References

Albertsen, Niels, ‘Gesturing Atmospheres’, in Ambiances in action / Ambiances en acte(s) - 2nd

International Congress on Ambiances, ed. by Jean-Paul Thibaud and Daniel Siret (Montreal:

International Ambiances Network, 2012), pp. 69–74 <http://halshs.archives-

ouvertes.fr/halshs-00745028>

———, ‘The Artwork in the Semiosphere of Gestures. Wittgenstein, Gesture, and Secondary

Meaning.’, in Architecture, Language, Critique around Paul Engelmann, ed. by Judith

Bakacsy, Anders V. Munch, and Anne-Louise Sommer (Amsterdam - Atlanta: Rodopi, 2000),

pp. 67–104

Albertsen, Niels, and Bülent Diken, ‘Artworks’ Networks: Field, System or Mediators?’, Theory,

Culture & Society, 21 (2004), 35–58 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276404043619>

Bergerioux, André, ‘Geste Architectural’ (Courrier), 1972

Cauquelin, Anne, Essai D’une Philosophie Urbaine (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1982)

Charles, Daniel, ARCHITECTURE (Thèmes Généraux) Architecture et Philosophie (Encyclopædia

Universalis France S.A.) <http://www.universalis.fr/encyclopedie/architecture-themes-

generaux-architecture-et-philosophie/>

Collard, Sue, ‘Architectural Gestures and Political Patronage: The Case of the Grands Travaux’,

International Journal of Cultural Policy, 5 (1998), 33–47

Coyne, Richard, ‘Creativity as Commonplace’, Design Studies, 18 (1997), 135–41

Cross, Nigel, ‘Design Research: A Disciplined Conversation’, Design Issues, 15 (1999), 5–10

<http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1511837>

———, Design Thinking. Understanding How Designers Think and Work (Oxford; New York: Berg

Publishers, 2011)

———, ‘Designerly Ways of Knowing’, Design Studies, 3 (1982), 221–27

<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-0>

———, Designerly Ways of Knowing (Board of International Research in Design) (Birkhäuser GmbH,

2007)

———, ‘Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline versus Design Science’, Design Issues, 17

(2001), 49–55

Friberg, Carsten, ‘Contemporary Culture and Aesthetic Education’, in Proceedings of the European

Society for Aesthetics, ed. by Fabian Dorsch, Jakub Stejskal, and John Zeimbekis (European

Society for Aesthetics, 2011), III, 104–14 <http://proceedings.eurosa.org/3/friberg2011.pdf>

[accessed 10 October 2013]

Friedman, Ken, ‘Theory Construction in Design Research: Criteria: Approaches, and Methods’, ed. by

John Shackleton and David Durling, Design Studies, 24 (2003), 507–22

<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00039-5>

Fry, Tony, Becoming Human by Design (London; New York: Berg, 2012)

Gallard, Jean, La Beauté Du Geste (Editions Rue d’Ulm, 1984)

Gänshirt, Christian, ‘Gesture’, in Tools for Ideas: An Introduction to Architectural Design (Basel;

Boston; Berlin: Birkhäuser GmbH, 2007), pp. 105–11




Author’s copy

Groat, Linda, and David Wang, Architectural Research Methods, Kindle (John Wiley and Sons, 2002)

International Society for Gesture Studies (ISGS), 2002 <http://www.gesturestudies.com/> [accessed 10

October 2013]

Kant, Immanuel, Κρıτıκή Της Κρıτıκής Ικανότητας, trans. by Χάρης Τασάκος (Αθήνα: Ροές, 2005)

Kendon, Adam, Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance (Cambridge University Press, 2004)

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 2nd edn (Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 2003)

Lancshear, Colin, and Michele Knobel, A Handbook of Teacher Research: From Design to

Implementation (England: Open University Press, 2004)

Lawson, Bryan, ‘Cognitive Strategies in Architectural Design’, Ergonomics, 22 (1979), 59–68

<http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140137908924589>

———, How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified; 3rd Revision, 4th edn (Oxford:

Elsevier, 2006)

———, What Designers Know (Architectural Press, 2004)

Lawson, Bryan, and Kees Dorst, Design Expertise, ed. by Nigel Cross and Ernest Edmonds, 2

(Architectural Press, 2009), XXXI

Lloyd, Peter, Bryan Lawson, and Peter Scott, ‘Can Concurrent Verbalization Reveal Design

Cognition?’, Design Studies, 16 (1995), 237–59 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0142-

694X(94)00011-2>

McNeill, David, Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought (Chicago; London: University

of Chicago Press, 1992)

Moxley, Joseph M., ‘Textual Research - Writing Commons’ <http://www.writingcommons.org/open-

text/research-methods-methodologies/textual-research/269-textual-research> [accessed 3 July

2014]

Murphy, Keith M., ‘Building Meaning in Interaction: Rethinking Gesture Classification’, CLIC:

Crossroads of Language, Interaction, and Culture, 5 (2003), 29–47

———, ‘Collaborative Imagining: The Interactive Use of Gestures, Talk, and Graphic Representation

in Architectural Practice’, Semiotica, 156 (2005), 113–45

———, ‘Imagination as Joint Activity: The Case of Architectural Interaction’, MIND, CULTURE,

AND ACTIVITY, 11 (2004), 267–78

Pallasmaa, Juhani, The Thinking Hand : Existential and Embodied Wisdom in Architecture (Chichester:

John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2009)

Porter, Tom, ‘Gesture’, in Archispeak, An illustrated guide to architectural terms (London; New York:

Spon Press, 2004), p. 90

Ritzer, George, ‘Metatheory’, Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology (Blackwell)

<http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/beos_metatheory> [accessed 3 July 2014]

Schön, Donald A., The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (Ashgate Publishing

Limited, 1991)




Author’s copy

Scruton, Roger, The Aesthetics of Architecture (Paperback), Reprint with new introduction by the

author (Princeton University Press, 2013)

Serres, Michel, The Parasite (Minneapolis: University of Minessota Press, 2007)

Simon, Herbert, The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd edn (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press,

1996)

Soriano, Federico, ‘Gesture’, in The Metapolis Dictionary of Advanced Architecture (Barcelona: Actar,

2003), p. 262

Tennis, Joseph T., ‘Epistemology, Theory, and Methodology in Knowledge Organization: Toward a

Classification, Metatheory, and Research Framework’, Knowledge Organization, 35 (2008),

102–12

Verschaffel, Bart, Architecture is (as) a Gesture (Luzern: Quart Verlag, 2001)

———, ‘Art in (and Of) Architecture: Autonomy and Medium’, in The SAGE Handbook of

Architectural Theory, ed. by C. Graig Crysler, Stephen Cairns, and Hilde Heynen (London:

SAGE Publications Ltd, 2012), pp. 165–76

Visser, Willemien, ‘Designing as Construction of Representations: A Dynamic Viewpoint in Cognitive

Design Research’, Human–Computer Interaction, 21 (2010), 103–52

———, ‘Organisation of Design Activities: Opportunistic with Hierarchical Episodes’, Interacting

with computers, 6 (1994), 239–74

———, The Cognitive Artifacts of Designing (Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Publishers, 2006)

———, ‘The Function of Gesture in an Architectural Design Meeting’, in About Designing: Analysing

design meetings, ed. by J. McDonnell and P. Lloyd (London: Taylor & Francis, 2009), pp.

269–84

———, ‘Visser: Design as Construction of Representations’, Collections, 2010, 29–43

Visser, Willemien, and Mary Lou Maher, ‘Guest Editorial: The Role of Gesture in Designing’,

AIEDAM, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 25

(2011), 213–20

Willis, Anne-Marie, Design Philosophy Papers : Collection Three (Crows Nest Qld.: Team D/E/S

Publications, 2007)

Wittgenstein, Ludwig, Culture and Value: Revised Edition, ed. by Henrik von Wright, Heikki Nyman,

and Alois Pichler, Rev. 2nd e (London: Wiley-Blackwell, 1998)

Draft for a meta-theory of gesture as a mechanism of meaning in Architecture: an inquiry between...

Documents

Transcript of Draft for a meta-theory of gesture as a mechanism of meaning in Architecture: an inquiry between...