Intellectual Form: Understanding Architecture as a Logical Construct

International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 9, Number 9 (2014) pp. 1091-1104 © Research India Publications http://www.ripublication.com

Intellectual Form: Understanding Architecture as a Logical Construct

Saleem M. Dahabreh, PhD

Faculty of Engineering and Technology/ Department of Architecture University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan

Email: [email protected]

Abstract

This paper addresses viewing an architectural work as a logical construct by understanding the logic of how a building is designed. The aim is to read the intellectual form within its material form through morphological analysis in 2-D and 3-D drawings, both relational and constructive, of the Douglas House (1971-1973).This reading builds on previous research that uncovered the geometry of the house and proceeds through a set of 3-D constructive diagrams to exemplify the logic of a formative progression from a platonic form to a specific form. This progression organizes the material construction, gives rise to the building’s formal properties, and subdivides internal space. The paper concludes that through the post facto (posteriori) rationalization of how the house was designed, an implicit a priori rationalization of spatial motifs and design tactics and operations can be uncovered, leading to a more logical understanding of the design as a logical process and a deeper aesthetic appreciation of the building. Furthermore, the morphological approach used in this paper can be applied to other buildings and also be used as a didactic method for instructing design studios. Keywords: Intellectual form; architectural morphology; constructive diagrams; design formation.

INTRODUCTION Architectural buildings are the translation of practical, functional activity and socioeconomic conditions into physical constructions or material forms. They are classically based on the idea of the functionality of a building (Hendrix, 2012; Al-Assaf, 2013). Beyond the material construction of many buildings are abstract structures or forms that govern and order the arrangement of the construction and give

1092 Saleem M. Dahabreh, PhD

rise to the buildings’ formal properties (Peponis, 2005; Dahabreh 2006). Understanding these structures and how they structure architectural form is the topic of this paper. In this paper, the Douglas House (1971-1973) is used as an example of how understanding architecture in general, and its perception as a logical construct in particular, requires going beyond its physical description to an understanding of its intellectual form (i.e., how it is structured conceptually).In this paper, intellectual form is denoted as either “significant form” or “logical form, ”as defined by Bell (1914) and Langer (1967), respectively. An understanding of intellectual form necessitates a close reading of a building, which focuses less on the optical and more on the visual in order to determine “what is not present in the building” (Eisenman, 2008). Active imagination, as used in this paper, depends on the Kantian propositions of differentiation and appreciation (Schumacher, 2011). It involves seeing beyond the sensible appearance of an object and accesses the principles of its creation and its underlying logic through the agency of intelligence. As such, the understanding of a work of architecture as a logical or theoretical construct resides in understanding its intellectual form, including how it came about through the application of underlying orders, especially principles of geometry and design, which make it intelligible (Dahabreh, 2013). This shift from the corporeal to the abstract represents a move away from a concern with the perceptual-aesthetic qualities of an object toward the conceptual relationships that underlie the object and make particular formal arrangements (Somol, 2010). This shift is usually presented as a set of constructive diagrams that simplify a specific design into a set of structural diagrams to explain the underlying organizing themes in a progressive manner (Somol, 2010). However, the order in which one explores intellectual form in diagrams is not necessarily the same as the order in which a building was conceived and/or constructed; rather it is a post hoc rationalization that facilitates an understanding of its generative process (Unwin, 2010). The value of understanding the intellectual logical form through a post facto rationalization lies is multifaceted. Such a rationalization imposes a sense of order on the development of a specific architectural form from inception to completion. This order exercises both imagination and rationality, thus enabling the speculation about architectural form as a logical construct. Moreover, it has the ability to explain how the formal properties of a building arise from the relational properties of each part within the overall structure (Peponis, 2005). As the physical form is expressive of an intellectual formal structure, it cannot be judged in itself as good or bad for it does not comply with any subjective interpretation of beauty, style, or taste but lends itself to logical apprehension and appreciation (Eisenman, 1963). The understanding of a work of architecture as a logical construct, while intimately linked to the work’s visual qualities, heightens the intellectual experience of that work, transcending the visual world to address issues of embedded order and harmony of the intellectual form residing in the sensible form. This paper is a continuation of papers that investigate the underlying order of architecture, including The Douglas House: The Formation of a Language (Dahabreh, 2013) and Constructing the In between: The Aesthetics of Logical Form (Dahabreh,

Intellectual Form: Understanding Architecture as a Logical Construct 1093

forthcoming). It can be considered as part of two intertwined research programs: The first addresses design as a cognitive process in which exploring the intellectual form of a building through morphological analysis can recover, at least partially, and present the creative intention behind the designed building. The second research program is pedagogical in nature and concerns studio teaching as a didactic tool. Through precedent analysis, students understand the theoretical base of any work of architecture in terms of its creation and manipulation and later perform exercises in modification, extension, and variation. METHODOLOGY Understanding the intellectual form of an architectural work requires studying its physical form since form is the medium through which architecture receives expression and communicates it and through which all other factors affecting the design process manifest themselves (Liou, 1992; Baker, 1996). The systematic investigation of architectural form falls under architectural morphology, which aims at discovering design principles and rules underlying architectural forms (Dahabreh, 2006). Both relational and constructive morphology are used to analyse the Douglas House. Relational morphology, which is synchronic in nature, is concerned with the symmetry of an architectural work. In other words, it examines the formal principles that govern the relationships between parts and of parts to the whole in an architectural composition (Liou, 1992; Shyu, 2005). Constructive morphology, as defined by Liou (1992), is formal analysis that is diachronic in nature and focuses on the step-by-step form-making process of a building. It is informative when research questions are concerned with how the form could be, or has been, derived. The diagrams Peter Eisenman (1999) rendered for his early houses are an elaborate example of constructive morphology. The representational convention used in morphological analysis in this paper is based on conceptual 3-D axonometric diagrams. Dogan and Nersessian (2002) defined conceptual diagrams as abstract representations that embed a conceptualization of a design situation. Diagrams are used because of their double-referential nature wherein an abstraction of reality and a representation of an idea or intellectual structure simultaneously operate as an intermediary between form and word (Eisenman, 1999). Additionally, the modern diagram is part of the discursive code that organizes reality in order to make it visible and usable (Pai, 2002). Thus, diagrams help to render complex relations, ideas, concepts, forces, and structures visible and comprehensible, even those that tend to remain blurred, uneasy to grasp, hermetic, and otherwise unnoticeable (Küçük, 2007).Accordingly, diagrams are an excellent means for analysing, exploring, and reasoning about a design. In particular, 3-D axonometric diagrams are used to present intellectual forms because they simultaneously render plan, section, and elevation, thus collapsing the vertical and horizontal, expressing space, and allowing the analysis and the object to become congruent (Somol, 2010). The selected case for analysis in this paper is the Douglas House by Richard Meier (1971-1973). The choice of the Douglas house is based on Morton’s (1973)


statement in his commentary about Meier's early houses that “only in the design of a private house do ideas have an opportunity to become synthesized and crystallized . . . it can, in effect, stand testament to his architectural theories and design ideas.” Hanson (1998, p. 2) also noted, “in discussing the design of houses, what is meant by ‘architecture’ is called into question by almost every statement uttered. The house is therefore an ideal vehicle for exploring the formal and experiential dimensions of architecture.” UNDERSTANDING BUILDING FORM The ability to understand and reason about any artefact rests on the ability to abstractly categorize that artefact and provide a minimal description of its structural or salient features(Ulrich, 1988). Architectural buildings can be looked at as material constructions composed of physical structures that arrange a system of spaces, as well as a spatial experience engendered by the previous two systems (Peponis, Karadima, & Bafna, 2003). The spatial organization, labelled by German theorist Paul Frankl (1973) as spatial form, functions through the accommodation of human activities. The material construction, considered a structural form, shapes space and signifies how to construct the physicality of the building. The visual qualities of the material construction, referred to as perceptual form by Frankl, include the materials used, the surface texture, and aspects of construction and detailing. These characterize space and thus add cultural significance and aesthetic appeal (Bafna, 2012). Yet, the material construction has formal attributes such as design elements, architectural vocabulary, design principles, and so on, which have a cognitive, conceptual, and affective dimension to them (Peponis, 2005). In that sense, the material construction has an abstract and architectonic aspect, which is usually expressed geometrically (Unwin, 2003) and signifies how to logically and formally structure the materiality of the building. This can be referred to as intellectual form. Consequently, the form of the material construction can be read as a utilitarian structural form that supports the building and structures space, a perceptual form related to the articulation of surfaces and pertaining to sensory perception and experience, and an intellectual form that orders design elements and regulates the material form. These three types of form as related to the material structure correspond to Vitruvius’s structural, sculptural, and geometric form, respectively, as identified by Agudin (1995). Many researchers have argued that buildings become architecture only when such an intellectual form exceeds the materiality and instrumentality of building and imposes intellectual order on its spatial and material structure. Reference [28] in the 15th century in his Ten Books on Architecture distinguished between the intellectual and material construction of the building. The function of geometry(lineaments, in Alberti’s terms) is to “prescribe, and appropriate place, exact numbers, a proper scale, and a graceful order for whole buildings and each of the constituent parts.”Schelling (1859)(cited in Hendrix, 2012) argued that architecture communicates transcendent formal, conceptual, expressionistic, intellectual, or spiritual ideas. Quatremère de Quincy in the Encyclopédie méthodique (1788) (Lavin, 1992 p 12) described classical


Greek architecture as “based on an underlying conceptual organization of abstracted forms and principles from nature . . . completely disconnected from the forms of nature, and purely ideal.”Antoniades (1976) noted that only when functional and technical forms are subordinates to artistic form can a building be considered a work of architecture. Hillier (1996, p 44) argued that buildings become architecture through an intellectual choice made only when architectural competence as a “a set of technological, geometrical and manipulative skills relating form to use” is made explicit and rises to the level of “conscious” and “comparative thought” (i.e., the designer is aware of their existence, knows how to use them, and reflects upon them). Therefore, it can be concluded that architecture only exists when there is a theoretical intent that is manifested and recognizable in the intellectual form that systematically organizes the building and can be detected and abstracted from the final physical form and its formal attributes. In this sense, architecture can be regarded as an intellectual activity consisting of underlying conceptual systems (Unwin, 2008) that structure design elements and organize the material construction, generating the formal properties of the building and accordingly subdividing the space of the building into a spatial pattern. Because structural, perceptual, and conceptual forms are interrelated and cannot be separated, each affects and conditions the other. All exist simultaneously in every work of architecture. As such, their categorical distinction is only meant to recognize the different aspects of building that become important depending on the kind of questions one asks (Bafna, 2012). Understanding Intellectual Form As seen from the discussion, the intellectual form signifies how to conceptually and formally structure the materiality of the building. This notion of intellectual form is very similar to the concept of significant form in the arts. Clive Bell (1914) used the term “significant form” to refer to an artefact’s internal organization as a source of meaning and appreciation. Intellectual form is also very analogous to Langer’s (1967) logical form. Langer, in An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, noted that in order to understand different forms, it is important to know the particular form taken in a particular case. This facilitates understanding of what sort of things they are, how they are made up, and what their internal relations are. According to her definition, anything can be said to have a form if it follows a pattern of any sort and exhibits order and internal connection. Langer stretched the notion of form beyond the common connotation of physical shape to include the abstract principles of form that belong to the intellect. Accordingly, she coined the term “logical form.” Langer’s definition of logical form corresponds to Aristotle’s definition of substantial form, meaning that which structures and governs the changes of matter in order to make a thing what it is (Hill, 2007). In Poetics, Aristotle used the term form to refer to the unifying structure of a work of art, where as material makes up the parts unified by the form (Telford, 1961).Thus, the notion of form exceeds the shape and the physical presence of an object and refers to the intellectual process of how a thing is constructed or structured (Dahabreh 2006; Al-Assaf, 2103). Any building is said to have a logical form (i.e., a conceptual structure) if it has an underlying system of ordering. This logical form is “the schema that provides the underlying order and


structure for an aspect of an architectural design” (Akin 2002 p 410). Thus, intellectual form as logical form is the source of the order, unity, and identity of objects and explains not why an object is but rather how an object came to be. To trace how an object came to be requires the assumption that a design progresses from an initial form and leads to a final form via a sequence of operations. The theoretical base for such an assumption was put forward by Peter Eisenman (1963)in his thesis The Formal Basis of Modern Architecture, in which he assumed that design ascends with generic form (i.e., a platonic 3-D form) and ends with a specific form (i.e., an actual physical configuration shaped from the platonic form through formal manipulation and operations of design elements and principles and realized through structure and technique in response to a particular intent and function). For Eisenman, the generic form provides the conceptual reference for the physical manifestations of a specific form, as well as a basis for the specific ordering of this form. By contrast, the specific state provides the perceptual means for comprehension of the abstract logical form underlying the design. Since the process of articulating a specific form requires design elements and design operations, it is consistent to use the term formal language to refer to how designers express their design ideas in architecture. The term language is used here not to imply that architecture is the same as language but that it is analogous to a language (i.e., it has something in common with a language). This commonality is two-fold: First, architecture through design mediates between things apart from its materiality (e.g., it communicates meaning among other things, just like language).Second, architecture can be related to the syntactic aspects of a language with its structural and grammatical rules (Forty, 2000). Technically, architectural formal languages are characterized by syntax (i.e., vocabulary and grammar). A vocabulary is made up of a distinct set of elements, while grammar is made up of a collection of rules that embody compositional principles or conventions that govern how elements can be composed together (Eisenman, 1963; Flemming, 1990; Tzonis & Lefaivre, 1986; Knight 1994). Accordingly, a building can be described as a set of design elements, either elementary or combined into components, placed in deliberate geometrical relationships. In other words, the elements of a building have an underlying formal logic that is governed by compositional principles. To explain the concept of intellectual form, a case study is presented in the next section. CASE STUDY: DOUGLAS HOUSE Constructed between 1971 and 1973 for James and Jean Douglas, the Douglas House is located in Harbor Springs, Michigan. The white building, aligned along a north-south axis with four floors composed in pure geometry, is anchored on a sheer bluff overlooking Lake Michigan (fig. 1a). The house may be reached through an entry off a quiet country road on the east side (fig. 1b 2), where a flying bridge spans the ravine to a vestibule (fig. 1c). The top floor, the only floor visible from the road, contains an entrance vestibule and roof decks that restrict the view of the lake to the west. The layout of the house expresses a programmatic separation of private and public: small


cabin-like bedrooms are arranged on the east, while the living room, dining room, and terraces and balconies are located on the west, facing the lake (fig. 2). The two zones are mediated by a corridor running parallel to the lake on each floor. A rectilinear light well adjacent to the corridor cuts through the entire living space with an elegant curvilinear cut in each slab.

a

b

c

Figure 1 Douglas House

Figure 2.Douglas House floor plans showing the spatial division of the house The design of the house is an inter play between the conceptual elements of column, plane, volume, and mass articulated via design operations of addition and subtraction. The generic primitive form of the Douglas House is arectilinear mass with its longitudinal axis running parallel to the contour lines on the north-south axis. The linearity of the house demonstrates apparent frontality that opens up toward the lake view (fig 3a). The generic block delivers a basic framework such that its inherent or implied order (e.g., regulating lines of axis and symmetry and so on) structures the relationships between elements and the spatial and physical massing of the block (Akin & Moustapha, 2004).


The interior volume of the mass is sectioned into smaller volumes via stratification and subtraction. Horizontally, Meier stratified the inner volume into three levels using two planes (fig. 3b). Vertically, he utilized the longitudinal axis of the block to split the house symmetrically into two key zones (fig. 3c): an expansive open zone and a compact cellular zone. The expansive open zone is characterized by a dynamic, continuous volumetric system created by subtracting and interlocking parts of the slabs. This creates spatial interpenetrations and interlocks of double volumes and interwoven spaces vertically and horizontally (fig. 3d). The compact cellular zone is characterized by a static volumetric system that is linearly organized. It is defined by planes wherein each small volume is expressed as an individual entity and can only be experienced through sequential progression from one volume to another or via a transitional zone (i.e., a corridor adjacent to the main axis). The transitional zone connects the separate volumes and mediates between the cellular zone and the expansive zone, thus accentuating the linearity of the configuration. Meier’s linear configuration is clearly expressed through the planar geometry that defines the plan composition. The programmatic requirements of the house lend the structure to the two volumetric systems such that the cellular zone houses the private functions such as bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchen, and service areas, while the expansive zone houses the open spaces such as the living and dining area (fig. 3e). The creation of both volumetric systems is reinforced by the use of a dual structural system of columns and planes. Steel columns and support beams structure the continuous volumetric spaces, while wood-framing bearing walls enclose the cellular volumes.

a b C

d e f

Figure 3 Animation of the internal volume of the Douglas House through planar manipulation


The columns separate from the outer skin and animate the openness of the double volume inside. The volume is further animated by horizontal planes that appear to be suspended within the orthogonal volume and the walls that define and delimit the space. This animation is further highlighted by the curvilinear cut that runs across the whole building (fig. 3e). The dynamic contrast between verticals and horizontals, which is accomplished via the animation of the inside volume by the interplay of columns, walls, and knee walls and horizontal planes provides a sense of “purist” equilibrium through the balancing of these elements within a cubic volume. Through stratification, the generic mass can be dually conceived as a solid mass or as a series of planes juxtaposed to form a “thick and layered bar.” The linear bars are straight and orthogonally organized in layers and marked by the columns and walls (fig.3f). The emphasis on the circulation corridor along the longitudinal axis and the introduction of a 90-degree transverse secondary axis marked by an entrance bridge leading to the main entrance further accentuates the overall layering. The dialect between the mass and the layers recalls Le Corbusier’s notion of mass-surface in which a sense of ambiguity is created through the figure-ground relationship. In this case, form can either be read as mass, or solid that has been cut away, and surface that has been built up through the addition of a number of layers or planes (Eisenman, 1963).The design elements of columns and walls, through their structural role, animation of interior volume, and definition of a spatial layer, acquire a double condition—an “instrumental” and functional role with regard to materiality and construction and an architectural role in articulation and animation, thus becoming regulating elements that intellectually structure space and guide the organization of form. The exterior mass of the house is not left in a platonic state. It is animated and its inelasticity is lessened through subtraction and “collagist juxtaposition” of forms or parts of forms against or through the rectangular block of the house. On one side of the block, Meier subtracted a portion to emphasize the stairs. On the other side, Meier subtracted two masses to create terraces on the ground and first floors (fig. 3e). A vertical chimney across from the entrance bridge was added, along with a sculptural stair projecting outside the block in a diagonal relation with the main stairs inside (fig.4a). Meier also created a figure comprised of platonic forms juxtaposed in asymmetrical but balanced composition that are animated by the use of architectural elements. The outer skin is further articulated by window fenestration on the east side and the replacement of a large part of the wall with an expansive glass plane on the west side, thus adding to the sense of duality created earlier. This duality reflects one of Meier’s reoccurring themes of reversal or twin phenomena.


a

b c

Figure 4 Animation of the outer skin of the house through addition, subtraction, and fenestration The specific form is highly regulated by an ideal geometric matrix. The overall massing, as well as the allocation of walls, columns, subdivisions, and additions, is based on ideal geometries and disciplined through Meier’s use of modules and proportional systems such as the golden section and the 1:√2 ratio. As fully elaborated by Dahabreh (2013), the overall length and width of the house from the furthest edges along the north-west are based on the ideal geometry of the axis. Two 9x9m squares are juxtaposed and overlap at an interval of 2.5m, giving the house a total length and width of 15.5m and 9m along the east-west axis. The actual plan for 9x13m was based on a module of 1x1m. The internal wall that defines the corridor is on the longitudinal centreline of the block that marks the middle of the house. The extension of a line from the intersection of the arc of a 1:√2 rectangle drawn from the south-west corner with the centreline running through the middle of the plan determines the position of the bridge. The distance between the extended line and the edge of the house is 3.65m, which is the same structural distance between the columns. The allocation of the first structural column is determined by a golden section drawn from the south-west corner.

a b

c

Figure 5 Geometry of the house: (a) two squares juxtaposed delimit the whole plan, (b) the module of the columns, (c) a 3-D drawing of the overall organizing grid


The specific form of the house can be read as an interplay between a figure (i.e., the articulated generic form with additional forms juxtaposed and their spatial animation) and a design field (i.e., a gridded matrix with regulating lines and proportional systems). As such, the intellectual form of the Douglas House can be thought of as a 3-Darchitectural device that provides the matrix for ordering the volumetric entity. Intellectual form controls the overall dimensioning of the rectilinear form; marks the allocation of all structural grids, walls, and animated forms; and regulates strategies of addition and subtraction both locally in relation to each other and globally in relation to the overall form. Thereafter, the intellectual form of the house can be read not in the final form but rather in the interaction between formal language and design desiderata such that one affects the other within the constitution of a logical form. CONCLUSIONS Understanding an exemplary building such as the Douglas Houserelies onnot only its tangible and sensory attributes but also how buildings came to be in their corporeality. This how is ordered by a building’s intellectual form, which operates simultaneously between the abstract and the real, capturing the conceptual essence of the architectural work and guiding its physical manipulation. This activates the intellect and distils the abstract from the concrete. Further, the abstract is reconstructed logically and deeper thought and theory are brought to render the nondiscursive discursive, resulting in architecture that involves critical thinking and reflection rather than mere application of knowledge. As the focus shifts from describing the physicality of the Douglas House to understanding its intellectual form, it is apparent that the building’s value lies less in it being a traditional dwelling and more in the abstract idea of how a house might be rethought of from its first principles and elements (e.g., column, plane, mass, and volume) configured together within a logical, formal system. The importance of studying intellectual form and presenting it constructively is multifaceted. As the conceptual essence of a building is perceptually manifested, a better understanding of the building in terms of formal ordering and organization is possible, which opens the structure up for theoretical debate. Additionally, this type of analysis describes an architectural work at different generative stages, thus establishing links that are not immediately available to the viewer. Accordingly, a better understanding of the design process can be achieved. Moreover, understanding the underlying principles and order clarifies what the designer added to the design task that was not required by the design program or dictated by the site. Formal systems such as the ones presented earlier can be used for the systematic description, interpretation, and evaluation of existing works of architecture and accordingly can be used in architectural education as strategies to manage the design process. The conscious use of design strategies can structure the design process, especially in the early years, and provide a quasirational base for the development of an architectural work. Although it is debatable whether design can be taught, the capacity to create designs can be greatly developed by reconstructing precedents.


Photograph credits: Photographs are from the book Richard Meier by Kenneth Frampton (2002), by Electra Milano, and distributed by Phaidon Press. Photo Credit Studio Meier: Figures 1a by Scott Frances. Illustration credits: Plans and sections were redrawn by Arch Nancy Al-Assaf based on Meier’s original drawings. Acknowledgements This research was made possible by a research grant from the University of Jordan. Special thanks go to Arch Nancy Al-Assaf for her help in the research and in preparation of the drawings. References:

[1] Agudin, L. M. (1995). The Concept of Type in Architecture: An Inquiry into the Nature of Architectural Form, PhD Thesis. Zurich: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

[2] Akin, Ömer. (2002). Case-Based Instruction Strategies in Architecture. Design Studies 23 (4) 407-431. Retrieved January 2003, from https://www.library.gatech.edu/ejournals_frame.htm

[3] Akin, O., & Moustapha, H. (2004). Strategic use of representation in architectural massing. Design Studies 25:31-50. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00034-6

[4] Al-Assaf, Nancy. (2103). Understanding the Aesthetics of Logical Form: A Comparative Study from Structuralism to Neo-Structuralism. Master’s Thesis. University of Jordan.

[5] Alberti, Leon Battista. The Ten Books of Architecture. Dover Publications (March 1, 1987).

[6] Antoniades, Anthony. Introduction to Environmental Design. New York: MSS Information Corporation, 1976.

[7] Bafna, S. (2012). The Imaginative Function of Architecture: A Clarification of Some Conceptual Issues. In M. Greene, J. Reyes, and A. Castro (eds.), Proceedings: Eighth International Space Syntax Symposium. Santiago de Chile pp 8117:1-8117:19.

[8] Baker, Geoffrey H. (1996). Le Corbusier: An Analysis of Form. 3rded. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

[9] Bell, Clive, (1914). Art. London: Chatto and Windus. [10] Dahabreh, Saleem M. (2006). The Formulation of Design: The Case of the Islip

Courthouse by Richard Meier. PhD Dissertation. Georgia Institute of Technology.


[11] Dahabreh, Saleem M. (2013). Douglas House: The Formation of a Language. Ninth International Space Syntax, Seoul: Sejong University. 002:1-14.

[12] Dogan, F., & Nersessian, N. (2002). “Conceptual Diagrams: Representing Ideas in Design.” In M. Hegarty, B. Meyer,& N. H. Narayanan (Eds.), Second International Conference, Diagrams 2002, Callaway Gardens, GA, USA, April 18-20, (pp. 353-355). Berlin: Springer.

[13] Eisenman, Peter. (1963). The Formal Basis of Modern Architecture. PhD. Dissertation. Cambridge. United Kingdom.

[14] Eisenman, Peter. (1999). Diagram Diaries. Thames& Hudson, London. [15] Eisenman, Peter. (2008). Ten Canonical Buildings 1950-2000. New York:

Rizzoli. [16] Flemming, U. (1990). Syntactic Structures in Architecture. In M. McCullough,

W. J. Mitchell, and P. Purcell, Ed. The Electronic Design Studio. MIT Press Cambridge, MA, pp 31-48.

[17] Forty, Adrian. (2000). Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture. Thames & Hudson, New York.

[18] Frankl, P. 1973. Principles of Architectural History. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, (abstracted and translated by J F O’Gorman from Die Entwicklungsphasen der Neuren Baukunst (Munich/Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1914).

[19] Hanson, J. (1998). Decoding Homes and Houses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[20] Hendrix, J. (2012). Theorizing a contradiction between form and function in architecture. South African Journal of Art History, 27 (1): 9-28.

[21] Hill, Benjamin. (2007). Substantial Forms and the Rise of Modern Science. Saint Anslem Journal 5.1http://www.anselm.edu/Documents/Institute%20for%20Saint%20Anselm%20Studies/Abstracts/4.5.3.2c_51Hill.pdf. Accessed 5th July 2013.

[22] Hillier, Bill. (1996). Space Is the Machine: A Configurational Theory of Architecture. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

[23] Knight, Terry. (1994). Transformations in design: A formal approach to stylistic change and innovation in the visual arts. Cambridge University Press, Great Britain.

[24] Kucuk, Alper. (2007).The Architectural Precedent and the Diagram: A Comparative Analysis of Le Corbusier's Villa Savoye and Rem Koolhaas' Maison a Bordeaux. PhD Thesis. Middle East technical University. Turkey.

[25] Langer, Susanne. (1967). An Introduction to Symbolic Logic. New York: Dover Publications.

[26] Lavin, Sylvia.(1992). Quatremère de Quincy and the Invention of a Modern Language of Architecture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

[27] Liou, Shuenn-Ren. (1992). A Computer Based Framework for Analyzing and Deriving the Morphological Structure of Architectural Designs. PhD Dissertation: University of Michigan.

[28] Morton, D. (1973). Richard Meier. GA Global Architecture 22. 1st ed. Japan Edita. Unpaginated.


[29] Pai, Hyungmin. (2002). The Portfolio and the Diagram: Architecture, Discourse, and Modernity in America. MIT Press, Massachusetts.

[30] Peponis, John, Karadima, C., Bafna, Sonit. (2003). On the Formulation of Spatial Meaning in Architectural Design. Proceedings of the 4th International Space Syntax Symposium: London, 2003.

[31] Peponis, John. (2005). Formulation. The Journal of Architectural Vol. 10, pp 119-133.

[32] Schelling, F. W. (1989). The Philosophy of Art (Die Philosophie der Kunst, 1859), translated by Douglas W. Stott. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

[33] Schumacher, Patrick. (2011). The Autopoiesis of Architecture (vol. 1). Chichester: John Wiley& Sons Ltd.

[34] Shyu, Shin Ming.On Architectural Knowledge and Form Generation: A Theoretical Framework Using Knowledge Based-System, PhD Thesis, University of Michigan, MI, 2005.

[35] Somol, Robert E.(2010). Dummy Texts or the Diagrammatic Basis of Contemporary Architecture. In Mark Garcia (ed.), The Diagrams of Architecture. John Wiley and Sons LTD, West Sussex, pp 88-91.

[36] Telfor, K. A. Aristotle’s Poetics: Translation and Analysis, University Pr of Amer, 1985.

[37] Tzonis A., Lefaivre L. (1986). Classical Architecture: The Poetics of Order. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

[38] Ulrich, K.T. (1988). Computation and Pre-Parametric Design. MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. Technical Report 1043.

[39] Unwin, S. (2003). Analyzing Architecture. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge.

[40] Unwin, S. (2008). An Architecture Notebook. 3rd ed. London and New York: Routledge.

[41] Unwin, Simon. (2010). Twenty Buildings Every Architect Should Know. New York: Routledge.

Intellectual Form: Understanding Architecture as a Logical Construct

Documents

Transcript of Intellectual Form: Understanding Architecture as a Logical Construct