The Symmetrical Relationship between Architecture, Human and Animal

1

ABSTRACT

The dissertation is an exploration of the symmetrical relationship between Architecture, Animal and Human in ‘Post-‐Animal life1’. It is an attempt to prove that the notions of Architecture, Animal and Human are interdependent of one another—that Architecture is both the conditioning force towards its occupant and the subject that is

conditioned by its occupant.

I have divided the discourse into two main parts:

In Architecture as the Conditioning Force: Architecture as the Animalizer, the coexistence of the Human and Animal in Man is questioned. This chapter is an investigation of Architecture as the

milieu which enables Man freedom such that the Human within him is able to slip, interchange and coexist with the Animal that the modern

Man has a tendency to suppress.

In Architecture as the World of the Animal, Architecture is seen as the force that conditions the Animal such that the Animal is speculated to have newfound freedom in the world of Man. The chapter touches on the use of the Animal as a representation of life forms in architectural

drawings.

Architecture as the Conditioned Being thus explores the conditioning force that the Human/Animal exerts towards Architecture, which begins to cause a response in Architecture to become somewhat

anthropomorphous.

The exploration reveals a relationship between the triad that is mostly symmetrical, albeit the conditioning force exerted by the

Human/Animal towards Architecture is less in effect compared to that of Architecture on the Human/Animal.

1 Catherine Ingraham, Architecture, Animal, Human: The Asymmetrical Condition, p.82

2

The investigations have also led to the discovery that Architecture has unleashed a certain freedom for the Animal that it is generally

disavowed by the world of Man.

3

CONTENT

Introduction 4

Architecture as the Conditioning Force:

Architecture as the Animalizer 14

Architecture as the World to the Animal 25

Architecture as the Conditioned Being 44

Conclusion 54

Bibliography

Image Sources

4

Introduction

What is Human and what is Animal?

The question of distinction between the two

entities has long been a subject matter of interest

for philosophers who have attempted to

understand the superiority that human beings seem

to possess over other forms of life.

Jacques Derrida defines Human as “merely the

name that a particular section of the animal

population has given itself the right to give” while

Animal is the term that the Human gives to

anything non-‐human.2 Derrida’s definition is simple,

with the distinction being merely the difference in

name or title between the two entities. The Human,

unsurprisingly, holds more authority over the

Animal with the capability and the ‘right’ to

distinguish between its kind and the rest. Yet what

is interesting is the fact that Derrida has placed the

2 ‘Animal Architecture: Explorations in Cospecies Coshaping’ http://www.animalarchitecture.org/about/ accessed 26th September 2010

5

Human as a subset of the animal population,

highlighting an overlap between what could be

assumed to be two very exclusive entities.

Aristotle’s description of Man depicts him as a

humanized animal: a “living animal with the

additional capacity for political existence”.3 Man,

according to Aristotle, is a “living being capable of

speech”, an animal rationale-‐ a “social animal”.4 It is

through Man’s possession of the art of language

that sets the divide between the Human and the

Animal, enabling them to “manifest the fitting and

the unfitting, the just and the unjust, and the

community of these things make the dwelling and

the city”.5 The overlap between Human and Animal

is once again captured in Aristotle’s understanding

of Man. Like Derrida, Aristotle has also first and

foremost recognized Man as part of the animal

population by categorizing him as a ‘living animal’

that has undergone the process of humanization

3Catherine Ingraham, Architecture, Animal, Human: The Asymmetrical Condition, p.121 4 Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition p.27 5 Catherine Ingraham, op. cit, p.122

6

through the mastery of language and speech, thus

enabling him the competency for ‘political

existence’, putting him above the Animal.

What is most captivating is the significance of the

overlap between the Human and the Animal in

Giorgio Agamben’s perception of Man, which begins

to evoke the idea of the Human and the Animal

coexisting in Man, making him a Human-‐Animal.

Man in our culture, according to Agamben, is the

epitome of the “articulation and conjunction of a

body and soul, or a living thing and a logos, of a

natural (or animal) element and supernatural or

social or divine element”. 6 Man, in our culture, is

also “the result of a simultaneous division and

articulation of the Animal and the Human”7.

Unlike Aristotle’s definition of Man whose

possession of language distinctively separates the

Human from the Animal, Agamben’s distinction of

the Human and the Animal is more obscured,

6 Giorgio Agamben, The Open, p.16 7 Ibid., p.92

7

almost in acceptance that the two entities are the

parts that must exist simultaneously to constitute

Man. Agamben’s ideology runs parallel with

Alexander Kojeve’s reading of Hegel, which portrays

Man to only exist historically in dialectical tensions

of “the ‘anthropophorous’ animality and the

humanity which takes bodily form in it”.8 Kojeve’s

Human-‐Animal can only be Human to the extent

that he “transcends and transforms the

anthropophorous animal which supports him, and

only because, through the action of negation, he is

capable of mastering, and eventually destroying his

own animality.”9

Perhaps the brief description of the complex

Human-‐Animal relationship appears to be an

unexpected digression from the subject of

Architecture, yet one will be surprised to discover

the unsuspecting correlation that exists between

Architecture, the Human and the Animal. This

ambivalent connection between the triad is what

8 Ibid., p.12 9 Ibid., p.12

8

Catherine Ingraham calls Post-‐animal life, which she

elaborates as a “description of life that both links

and slips between architectural and Human/Animal

‘life’ history.”10 Post-‐animal life runs from the

period of the Renaissance to the present day: a time

frame that unravels the significant changes in the

status and value of Human and Animal life.11

Ingraham is keen to take on board the arguable

view that modernization for Architecture began in

the period of the Renaissance, preceding modernity

for the Human and Animal, which, as it is generally

defined, began in the late eighteenth century.12

Hence, Ingraham deems that post-‐animal life is the

period in which modernity for both Architecture

and the Human/Animal clash and intersect, because

“Animal life itself-‐as an idea, form and reality-‐ is

taken hostage by the various disjunctions between

Architecture, and Human/Animal life.”13

10 Catherine Ingraham, p.82 11 Ibid., p.81 12 Ibid., p.81 13 Ibid., p81

9

Ingraham’s statement might not be so much of a

hyperbole after all, as in theory, the ideal user or

occupant for Architecture “has been, and to some

degree still is, a living being chiefly identified by

means of its form and the (limited, encaged)

movement of its body”.14 The ‘living being’ is

unsurprisingly in favour of Aristotle’s humanized

animal as the aforementioned time frame runs

Agamben’s Human-‐Animal through a seemingly

positive shift in status and values via various

engagements with Architecture and civic life, thus

making the Human-‐Animal a “Human with less and

less Animal in it.”15

So how can one begin to define the relationship

between Architecture, Human and Animal?

Ingraham has mapped out an asymmetrical

condition, in which Architecture acts as a

conditioning force to its occupant, yet remains

impartial and unaffected by it.16 Architecture, as

14 Ibid., p.85 15 Ibid., p.128 16 ibid., p.1

10

suggested by Ingraham, merely plays the role as the

provider of space, environment and context within

which biological and social human life take place. It

serves as a milieu that is disentangled from its

occupants, “indifferent to the intrinsic needs of

living beings”.17 Hence, while the occupants are

conditioned to adapt to the preexisting spaces,

Architecture remains rigid and indifferent to the

biological and social human life that partakes within

it. In this context Architecture has taken the role of

the catalyst-‐ it is constructive yet at the same time

remains conservative in human history.18

Contrary to Ingraham’s asymmetrical ideology, I

am first keen to adopt the stand that the

relationship between Architecture, Human and

Animal is one that is interdependent. Undeniably,

Architecture conditions the living environment for

its occupants through the confinements of space. I

would, however, argue against the notion that

Architecture is oblivious and indifferent to the

17 Ibid., p.9 18 Ibid., p.7

11

essential needs of its occupants. To a certain extent,

Architecture may merely be the spatial context that

maintains the human enclave within its

boundaries19; but Architecture is not so much rigid,

as it appears to be responsive to the life which it

spatially inhibits by conditioning its occupants

appropriately to their needs. The question of this

nature is raised by Ingraham herself, evoking a

paradox in her idea of an asymmetrical condition—

“What else has Architecture ever been but a

response to the needs/culture of living beings?”20.

The acknowledgement of Architecture’s responsive

nature then begins to define the mutual

relationship between Architecture, the Human and

Animal, where Architecture becomes both the

conditioning force and the subject that is being

conditioned.

Hence it is this mutual relationship between

Architecture, Human and Animal that will develop

19 Ibid., p.7 20 Ibid., p.9

12

the focus of this dissertation. The discourse will be

an attempt to question and explore the ideas and

ways in which Architecture takes up the role of the

conditioning force for the Human and the Animal,

and the ideas and ways in which Architecture

becomes the subject conditioned by the Human and

the Animal. At this stage I still refer to the occupant

of Architecture as the Human/Animal or Human-‐

Animal rather than the humanized animal for the

reason being, as I will argue, that Architecture is the

milieu which influences and allows a fluid transition

to occur between the Human and the Animal,

enabling its occupants to exude and interchange

animalistic and humanistic attributes within its

confinements of space. I will further argue that this

interchanging notion then begins to create a

counter-‐reaction upon Architecture in which the

Human/Animal then begins to influence the space

that it inhabits such that it conditions the

Architecture to be anthropomorphous. The

discourse will be one that is extensively exploratory;

it will interweave between the analysis of

13

metaphors, literature and scientific and

philosophical material that surrounds the subject of

the Human/Animal existence and its

interdependent relationship with Architecture.

14


Architecture as the Animalizer

Catherine Ingraham claims that in post-‐animal

life, the architectural context sees both Animal and

Human as being “increasingly understood as

physical forms uniquely amenable to capture” such

that the “Human and the reformed Animal of the

nineteenth century no longer offer any

psychological resistance to the act of being housed

or caged”.21 Rather, it is the contrary, where the

‘house’ or the ‘cage’ assumes a crucial role in

providing a sense of security and privacy from the

exterior. The interiority created by the boundaries

of the ‘house’ and the ‘cage’ begins to

psychologically condition the occupants by

metaphorically reenacting a personal enclosure

21 Catherine Ingraham., p.85. The ‘reformed animal’ is a reference to the change in perception of the Animal between the 18th and 19th century where in the former, the Animal was associated as mythical creature whilst in latter, after the advancement of taxonomic sciences, this belief soon evaporated, and the Animal was perceived to have more in common with the Human in terms of it being able to be classified into different divisions and types, thus making it the ‘reformed animal’.

15

within the occupants’ psyche, providing them with a

sense of authority and security to be ‘inside’ a space

that they can claim their territory. To be incessantly

“outside the house” is seen as negative, life

becomes “a pathological life, a homeless life”.22 This

discovery runs parallel with the philosophical views

of Immanuel Kant who conveys that the “the house,

the residence, is the only rampart against the dread

of nothingness, darkness and the obscurity of the

past”23 Kant’s philosophical value of the house is so

great that “…the man without a home is considered

to be a potential criminal.”24

With reference to the statements above it can

be deduced that the Renaissance led to the shift of

a more humanist society in which the Animal in

Man began to undergo suppression to

accommodate the existence of a more civilized and

intellectual Human. Yet quite ironically, it is in the

interiority of the aforementioned ‘house’ or ‘cage’

22 Ibid., p.85 23 Terence Riley, The Un-‐Private House p.9 24 Ibid., p. 9

16

that the reformed Human with intellectual and

political capacity seem to assume natural

tendencies to revert back into the Human-‐Animal,

allowing both the Human and the Animal to thrive

and coexist in the spatial context. This is particularly

true in the space where Man dominates and

possesses authority over-‐-‐ the space specifically

known as the dwelling. It appears as though the

privacy and enclosure of the dwelling contrives a

composed environment that permits both

animalistic and humanistic values to coexist and

interchange in equilibrium. In this case, the dwelling

can be seen as the Architecture that conditions its

occupant, the Humanized animal, to slip and revert

back to its origin of the Human-‐Animal.

The influence of Architecture towards the

behaviour of its occupants can be linked to

Heidegger’s theory of the Animal in captivation.

Heidegger introduces into his theory the

‘disinhibitor’—the external force which allows an

entity under restraint or captivity to gain freedom.

According to Heidegger, the relationship between

17

the Animal and its disinhibitor is determined by

captivation. In his study he draws a connection

through the terms “benommen” [being held

captive], “eingenommen” [absorption and

realization of the captivation] and “Benehmen”

[behaviour in adaption to being held captive].

Heidegger elaborates that in general, the Animal

only exhibits behaviour according to “its absorption

in itself“ but when placed under the captivation of

an external factor, i.e. an environment with

predetermined specificities, the Animal is enabled

the possibility to adapt, alongside its

preconditioned behaviour, to this particular

environment. It can be noted that the environment,

in this description, has taken the function of the

conditioning force, and thus it has also taken on the

role as the disinhibitor—the external force that has

allowed the Animal the freedom to behave outside

of its preconditioned behaviour. However, because

the Animal can only “behave insofar as it is

captivated in its essence”, Heidegger then deduces

18

that the “Animal behaves within an environment

but never within a world.”25

Heidegger’s theory of captivation then begins to

shed light on Ingraham’s term of ‘captivation’ in the

architectural context. Architecture, now taking the

role of the captor, will condition its occupant, the

humanized animal, to adapt and behave according

to the environment that it specifies. This then

allows the Human and the Animal existing within

the Post-‐Animal Man to slip, interchange, or coexist

according to how the Post Animal Man adapts to

the milieu that he is enclosed in. Architectural

captivation will allow the elements of the Human-‐

Animal to interchange and consolidate, but outside

this environment contrived by Architecture, he will

revert back to the humanized animal.

This freedom that the Post-‐Animal Man has

established through captivation then begins to

create a paradox that Architecture exists as both

25 Giorgio Agamben, The Open, p.52. The ‘world’, in this theory, is in reference to the general environment in which circumstances of the norm apply.

19

the captor and the disinhibitor. It is this idea of

freedom that also leads us to Heidegger’s concept

of the Open, which refers to the state in which

“every being is freed.”26 Only Man is capable of

seeing the Open, “which names the

unconcealedness of being”. This is because unlike

the Animal, Man is capable of recognizing his

disinhibitor which then rewards him realization of

his freedom in the architectural space to be able to

switch from Human to Animal. Referring to

Heidegger’s concept, Agamben writes that “humans

become more animalized as they move into the

open, unconcealed existence of their own being”. 27

The Animal, although existing in the Open, is not

aware of it, as conveyed by Jacques Derrida as he

analyses the response of his cat towards his

nakedness. While Derrida depicts his

embarrassment of being “as naked as an animal”,

he soon realizes that the Animal has no knowledge

of its nudity, thus “they wouldn’t be naked because

26 Ibid., p.57 27Catherine Ingraham, p. 138

20

they are naked. In principle, with the exception of

man, no animal has ever thought to dress itself.”28

Having understood this, Ingraham has then deduced

that “the Open, in architecture, is sometimes the

space in which humans can remove their clothes—

that is the space of their house”29, which reverts

back to the earlier claim of the dwelling taking the

role of a milieu in which the humanized-‐animal is

able to display its simultaneous animalistic and

human conditions.

In the chapter Hyena: Totem Animal of the Late

Twentieth Century, Ingraham elaborates on the

transition from Man to Animal in the architectural

Open by referring to a rather bizarre predicament

that wildlife management scientist Joanna

Greenfield experienced in Kenya, published in the

November 1996 issue of the New Yorker. Greenfield

had been attending to a hyena in a cage when she

was attacked, and forcefully dragged into it.

28 Jacques Derrida, The Animal that Therefore I am (More to Follow), p.373 29 Ibid., p.373

21

Greenfield’s account of the story described the look

in the hyena’s eyes as it devoured her arm: “…all

the time those black, blank eyes evaluated

me...calm and almost friendly.”30 She further notes

that the hyena’s eyes showed no sign of being

malicious; they were just looking into the middle

distance, calm and tranquil while eating away at her

arm. As disjoint as this quandary seems to be from

to the subject of architecture, Ingraham has

ingeniously managed to put together a strange

connection of this account to the architectural

occupant who emerged as a result of undergoing

modernity in the late eighteenth century. She

visualizes for her readers a space in the home-‐ the

modern dining room, where the occupant is taking

part in the event of the most primal act of eating.31

The “diner” is characterized as a “generalized being,

ethically and politically barely inscribed, possessing

a naïve psychological profile, breakable into

functionalist parts, formally located but with no

30 Catherine Ingraham, p.132 31 Ibid., p.134

22

proper name, almost friendly, with eyes toward the

middle distance, eating with a powerful jaw in a

room that accommodates that function or

behavior.”32

Both entities-‐ the diner and the Hyena-‐are

engaged in a purely primal (and animal) act of

eating. For the diner, this event records the

moment in which the Animal has taken dominance

over Man, for the act of eating is not controlled by

the Human’s awareness of his intellectual

existence—it is simply a primal form of necessity

which he cannot defy in order to undergo survival.

Both entities are subjected to inhibition by the

space that they are located in, and are positioned

and coordinated according to the reading of

Descartes, classified scientifically, subjected to

species differentiation based on the study of

Darwin, enclosed by the Laws of Gravity and the

Laws of Space by Newton and Schrödinger: “and

both are understood to be living beings existing in a

32 Ibid., p.134

23

clear homogenous spatial continuum of similarity

and difference (Panofsky, Darwin) that has begun to

include everything within reach, animate or

inanimate, alive or dead”.33

However, the key that distinguishes these two

scenarios is the concept of confinement that the

two entities are subjected to. The “cage”, designed

by Man, creates the spatial context for the hyena.

The diner is no different as he sits in a confinement

of an architectural cage, or the “space-‐box of

perspectival representation”34, also designed by

Man. The crucial difference is the fact that for the

hyena, captivation by the cage is a symbolism of

“the loss of space”, whereas for the diner—the

Human-‐Animal who recognizes his disinhibitor in

the form of the architectural space that he resides

in, he has the free will to walk out of the space as

he wishes. The “cage”, for the diner has become a

“gain in the meaning and reality of space”.35 The

33 Ibid., p.134 34 Ibid., p.135 35 Ibid., p.135

24

cage, in the form of the modern dining room, is also

the architectural Open, for in this space, the

humanized animal recognizes the state of freedom

in which he can allow the Animal within him to

dominate. Thus, the dwelling has assumed the role

of the conditioning force-‐ the Animalizer.

25


Architecture as the World to the Animal

The elements of existence is explored by

Heidegger in his triple thesis: “the stone is worldless

[weltlos]; the animal is poor in world [weltarm];

man is world-‐forming [weltbildend].”36 Because the

stone as a representation non-‐living beings does not

interact nor respond to the world that it exists in,

Heidegger is quick to cast it aside, focusing only on

the existence of Animal and Man37. Perhaps it is

easier to understand Heidegger’s concept of

“poverty in world” by referring to his essay “Der

Ursprung des Kunstwerkes”:

“The stone is worldless. Plants and animal

likewise have no world; but they belong to the

veiled throng of environment in which they hang

suspended. The peasant woman, on the other

36 Giorgio Agamben, p.51 37 Ibid., p.51

26

hand, has a world because she dwells in the

open of beings.”38

I shall disagree with Heidegger’s claim that the

Animal is impoverished in the world: The world is

apathetic to the Animal, but at the same time, the

Animal is apathetic to the world. It exists in the

Open— in the territory acknowledged by Man.

However, because the Animal is not, and will never

be revealed to the Open, and at the same time is

not ‘closed off’ from it either, it is indifferent, and

unaware of the world that it does not possess.39

Hence, the Animal cannot be ‘poor in world’. The

Animal’s indifference to its condition in the world,

however, supports Heidegger’s claim that it exists in

suspension between the wordless state of the stone

and ‘the Open’ of Man. It will be coincidental, and

unbeknown to Heidegger, that the ‘suspension’ of

the Animal in the world of Man will be displayed

symbolically in the form of representation in

contemporary drawings.

38 Ibid., p.71 39 Giorgio Agamben, p.54

27

The inclusion of living beings in architectural

drawings is essential, as they not only introduce a

sense of scale to the building, but also bring

character and expression out of the building with

their representation of life.40 To test the validity of

this statement, the interior perspectives by Charles

Gascoigne and C.E. Mallows can be compared.

40 Cyril A. Ferry, Architectural Drawing, Perspective and Rendering, p. 46

28

Figure 1. Charles Gascoigne: Church of the Annunciation, Old Quebec Street, London, mid eighteenth century.

29

Figure 2. C. E. Mallows: Entrance Hall, Municipal Buildings, Coventry, late nineteenth century

30

Gascoigne’s drawing depicts the spatial context

of the Church of Annunciation in Old Quebec Street,

whilst Mallows’ interior perspective is that of the

Entrance Hall of the Municipal Buildings in

Coventry. Both illustrations, albeit contrast in the

use of media, are nearly similar in context: with

points of entry from both sides of the image, the

perception of elongated height, and a checkered

path that leads to a point of entry that is significant

to the person who reads the drawings. Mallows’

illustration, however, expresses a livelier image with

the inclusion of Human representations. The Human

figures significantly expose a sense of scale,

allowing the reader to appreciate the vast height of

the space. Mallows’ specific introduction of the

figure on the far right of the image, perhaps a

cardinal, exudes a somber atmosphere to the space.

The lack of inhabitation in Gascoigne’s illustration,

on the contrary, reveals very little about the space.

There is no indication of how the space is used and

it conveys a context that is abandoned and lifeless.

32

The complexity of architectural drawings is

heightened when it comes to the perspective of the

exterior, as Architecture now has to compete and

yet maintain equilibrium with external factors—the

landscape and the sky—in order to present an

effective image of its existence.

The sea and the sky is interpreted by Rosalind

Krauss as the two elements which package ‘the

world’ as a whole, creating what she perceives as a

“totalized image, as a picture of completeness, as a

field constituted by the logic of its own frame.”41

They are the elements that frame the existence of

being in the world. The significance of these two

spatial elements in creating completeness is

transferrable and applicable to the subject of

architecture, particularly in architectural

visualizations and drawings, as it is after all the sky

and the ground that frame Architecture in a

totalized image of existence.

41Catherine Ingraham., p 148

33

The sky in the architectural context, however,

seems to lack the neutral stance of Krauss’

interpretation of the element. It is instead seen as

an interesting problem in architectural

representations, as described by Ingraham: “The sky

is that problematic field of space against which

buildings are stamped against in perspective

drawings.”42 Because the sky sets a background that

is so vast and amorphous against the building, a

drawing that lacks careful composition could

potentially mislead the reader to focus on the

contrasting emptiness against which the building is

stamped, perceiving it as an rigid form, or object,

rather than a space in which the activity of life

forms commence.

The use of birds to populate and counteract the

problem of the amorphous sky in architectural

drawings can be linked to the medieval fascination

of the ‘freedom’ possessed by these creatures in

the sky—a domain that was unperturbed by Man.

42 Ibid., p.145

34

This fascination had resulted in the desire to

capture this moment—“to stop birds in flight”43,

thus bringing birds into the concept of representing

forms of life in space.44 The use of birds in drawings

started off with their significance in marking the

vanishing points of perspectives. Ingraham

describes them to be “dark, moving points in the

sky that belong, in some figural way, to the ‘infinite

rapidity’ that maintains the theoretical vanishing

point in the construction of the perspective.”45 An

analytical observation of these ‘dark, moving points’

framed together with the Architecture against the

amorphous sky, however, reveals an interpretation

that is beyond the vanishing points of the

perspective. The birds, captured in movement

within the frame of the sky and architecture, begin

to represent the dynamicity of life forms that is

exuded within the boundaries of Architecture. The

image then becomes complete, and becomes

43Ibid., p. 143

44 Ibid., p.143 45 Ibid., p. 145

35

clearer in conveying the role of Architecture as the

milieu that houses life forms.

In these drawings, the roles of Man and the

Animal undergo a reversal. Framed and held

‘captive’ by both the sky and Architecture, the birds

take center stage as the sole representation of life

form that is confined by the spatial context of

Architecture and at the same time provides the

freedom of movement in the constricted space. The

Human has taken the place of the Animal in

reality—absent and dormant from the “world” in

the drawing that is now overwhelmed by the

existence of the birds.

37

In the observation of Le Corbusier’s illustration,

the bird is now a metaphor of the humanized

animal, who lives in a paradox of freedom and

constraints set by the architectural space in which

he thrives. The fact that the bird is captured to be in

the moment of flight against the sky rather than the

moment in which it is intentionally stationary holds

a symbolic meaning to the humanized animal who is

aware of his freedom to physically move and

psychologically transition to the appropriate being

(Human/Animal) in the constraints of the

architectural Open. At the same time, for the part of

the Animal, the bird can be interpreted as

Heidegger’s Animal who unsuspectingly exists in

suspension in the midst of the world of Man. It is

suspended, literally and figuratively: between the

sky and the building, between Krauss’ world and

Heidegger’s Open. The Animal exists in a world of its

own, that is yet to be defined.

38

Figure 3 Koolhaas' use of the Animal in the architectural photograph

39

In the photograph of the Villa dall’Ava in Paris,

Rem Koolhaas unexpectedly includes the figure of a

giraffe. The giraffe is interpreted by Ingraham as a

form of scale to compare the giraffe to the building,

and a comparison of the giraffe’s posture to the

“structure of the house, which rides on splayed

pilotis.”46

It remains unknown why Koolhaas had decided

to randomly place the giraffe in the photograph.

Perhaps his intention was purely to inject a form of

surrealism into the building. Koolhaas’ surreal

image is not an isolated example; Atonello Da

Messina’s painting of St. Jerome in His Study

captures the moment in which Human and Animal

thrive together in the spatial context of

Architecture. The painting could be read such that

with the Human calmly positioned and framed

between the partridge and the peacock in the

anterior and the lion in the posterior of the

46 Ibid., p. 87

40

painting, Architecture, Human and Animal have

united harmoniously in Heidegger’s ‘world’.

41

Figure 4. Antonello Da Messina: St. Jerome in His Study. Possibly c. 1450-‐55

42

With reference to the interpretation of Koolhaas’

photograph and Messina’s illustration of the Animal

as a form of representation in an architectural

drawing, perhaps we can decipher this notion as the

acceptance of Man towards the inclusion of the

Animal into the field that we seem to claim so much

authority over. Perhaps it can be suggested that

Architecture enables a ‘world’ to the Animal by

presenting it with the authority and dominance that

it is disavowed in the world of Man through its

portrayal in architectural drawings. This ‘world’, of

course, still remains a hyperbole for the Animal in

reality.

I have claimed earlier that Architecture is more

favourable towards the humanized animal. As

argued by Ingraham, Architecture is not so much

sympathetic to human life, but the animal holds an

even more depreciable position-‐ it represents a

form of life that is radically antithetical to

43

architecture”47. But if Architecture enables a ‘world’

to the animal, even if it is one that is surreal, then

perhaps architecture is not so much favourable

towards the humanized animal after all.

47 Catherine Ingraham, p.14

44

Architecture as the Conditioned Being

It was philosopher Hannah Arendt who claimed

that “[m]en, regardless of what they do, are

conditioned beings because everything they come

in contact with turns immediately into a condition

of their existence.”48 Arendt portrays the human

existence to be such a powerful conditioning force

that whatever touches or enters into a sustained

relationship with the human life immediately

assumes the character of a condition of human

existence. 49 If such was the impact of the existence

of Man, it could be suggested that Architecture

would assume the condition of its users such that as

it holds the existence of the Man and is inhabited by

him, it in turn becomes anthropomorphic and starts

to bear resemblance to its occupant.50 Because

Architecture conditions the environment insofar

that it allows the Human and Animal to exist

48 Hannah Arendt, The human Condition p.9 49 Ibid., p.9 50‘Metaphor At Work: A study of Metaphors’ http://www.aelfe.org/documents/text5-‐Ubeda.pdf, accessed 26th September 2010

45

simultaneously in its boundaries, then it can be

deduced further that architecture will assume the

conditions of the Human, Animal or the Human-‐

Animal. There is a display of role-‐reversal, and

Architecture is now the subject that is undergoing

the influence of the conditioning force—the

Human-‐Animal.

Would there be a possibility for architecture to

begin to assume the physical properties of the

Human-‐Animal? Of course, as Architecture is a non-‐

living being, it will not undergo the process of

evolution that the Animal takes part in as opined by

Charles Darwin. The physical properties that I am

referring to are focused more on the influence of

the Human-‐Animal towards the concept of

existence and the physical function of Architecture

itself.

Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger had

suggested that “since both physical structures in

space, such as buildings, and the physical body of

living beings must abide with the physical laws of

46

space, we can, and should, bring these ‘objects’ into

the same place and compare them in operations”.51

Schrödinger’s take on the similarities of the physical

structure and the physicality of the living organism

is of course, an extremely scientific investigation

which focuses on the principles of molecular

study.52 The comparison that is more appropriate

for this discourse leans towards the Aristotelian

scholasticism of Parts of Animals, which describes

the concept of the Animal being constituted by a

composite of parts.53 Aristotle defines the Animal to

be a being composed of “’parts’-‐ organs, actions,

functions”54, which is then interpreted by Ingraham

to be “bound together and animated, infused with a

soul, by the (imperially translated) ‘unmoved

mover’ who is empowered without a limit”.55

Bringing Architecture into the same field of

comparison, as suggested by Schrödinger, there is

evidence that Aristotle’s concept of parts also

51Catherine Ingraham, p.3 52 Ibid., p.3 53 Ibid, p. 34 54 Ibid., p.33 55 Ibid., p.34

47

applies to the composition of parts in Architecture.

This observation is carried out by historian Rudolf

Wittkower, who elaborated that the building, like

the Animal, composes of parts—the inside and the

outside; the interior as well as the exterior—and is

bound together by a system of mathematical ratios

that must comply with Vitruvius’ ideology of “the

proportions of the human body”56.

The similarity that exudes prominence between

Architecture and the Animal is the fact that both

Architecture and the Animal appear to be

submissive towards a ‘higher cosmic’ that

determines its existence as a whole. For the Animal,

the constitution of parts must abide to the orders of

the ‘unmoved mover’—assumed to be the Creator.

An architect simply cannot erect a building based on

calculations that he has made on his own as

architecture is governed by a specific system of

mathematical ratios which determine its stability

and capability to exist. Hence, for architecture its

56 Ibid., p.34

48

‘unmoved mover’, or Creator, is the system of

mathematical ratios that it must abide by in order

for it to be constructed. The similarities between

Architecture and the Animal that have just been laid

out might not have explained the ways in which the

Animal has acted directly or specifically as a

conditioning force, but it is perhaps a preliminary

realization that Architecture, when placed on par

with the Animal in the context and laws of

existence, has already begun to undergo

anthropomorphization.

Labor is a term proposed by Arendt to define the

“activity which corresponds to the biological

process of the human body…”.57 Life itself is

perceived by Arendt to be the human condition of

Labor.58 In the chapter ‘Labor and Life’ in The

Human Condition, Arendt explains that life

corresponds to the biological process of the human

body by conditioning the body through the activity

of growth and decay: “Life is a process that

57 Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, p.7 58 Ibid., p.7

49

everywhere uses up durability, wears it down,

makes it disappear, until eventually dead

matter…”59 Arendt’s statements, albeit rich in

interpretations, can be simplified to say that Labor

is the natural process of growth and decay that the

Human-‐Animal is subjected to throughout the

course of its life.

Arendt is keen to argue in her thesis that “it is

only within the human world that nature’s cyclical

movement manifests itself as growth and decay.”60

The implication of this statement thus frames the

world of the Human to be a world of Labor— a

world that conditions anything that comes into its

existence to undergo growth and decay. The

Human-‐Animal, existing in the open—the world of

Man, is already sentenced to Labor from the day of

its existence.

As Architecture is planned, built and inhabited by

the Human-‐Animal in the world of Man, it seems

59 Ibid., p.96 60 Ibid., p.97

50

almost rational to speculate that it will too be

subjected to the conditions of Labor. Like the

Human-‐Animal, Architecture, from the point of its

existence in the human world, will be sentenced to

the process of growth and decay. Referring to Henri

Lefebvre, Architecture is the space that will bear the

epoch of life’s “childhood, maturation,

private/public existence, Animal/Human

formations, the history of the species, ideologies of

the body, psychological phantasms.”61 The process

of Labor inflicted unto architecture over time will

wear it down, put its durability to the test, weather

its material, and at the same time allow it the

privilege of maturation—a historical significance in

the world of Man.

The concept of Labor runs parallel with

Ingraham’s theory that Architecture and the natural

sciences seem to share an intersection of shifts

which subjects both the Animal and Architecture to

61 Catherine Ingraham, p. 10

51

maturation and decline.62 Architectural ruins,

bearing similarities to fossils-‐ demonstrate evidence

of evolution in Architecture over the course of time

and space, the way the Animal does.63 In the same

way that the Animal is a representation of “the last

link of a chain uninterrupted over some three

thousand million years”64, placing it as a historical

creation, the remnants and rubble of Architecture

hold the evidence of the history of life, archiving

“knowledge and mythologies about human life

history”.65

Labor for the Animal, in a biological sense, can

also be related to the context of Architecture

through the analysis of the organism’s natural cycle

involving the concept of permeability: “Biological

life, in order to survive, has always required

something like a free passage between the inside

and the outside; some vital movement from

62 Ibid., p.97 63 Ibid., p. 97 64Ibid., p. 97 65 Ibid., p. 97

52

protected to open air.”66 Permeability is a crucial

condition in the Animal’s internal system that

enables the natural cycle of circulation (Labor) to

occur, be it the respiratory or pulmonary process. It

is through the existence of this permeability within

the animal that enables it to be in a state of

equilibrium, allowing it to function properly.

Perhaps it is the internal nature of the Animal to

crucially require this condition of permeability that

causes it to subconsciously incline itself externally

towards the need for permeability in Architecture.

The concept of permeability is no less different in

the architectural context. In fact, Architecture is

conditioned and strictly defined to the concept of

permeability that an entombed space with no

openings will not be considered Architecture as it

does not permit circulation of its occupants from

‘interior’ to the ‘exterior’; from ‘inside’ to ‘outside’.

This is further clarified by Ingraham’s argument:

“Buildings require literal doors and windows, and

66 Ibid., p.7

53

Architecture requires both literal and symbolic

openings; these openings are an integral part of any

architectural treatment of its interior space and its

boundaries.”67 The permeability attained by

architecture through these openings thus creates an

architectural state of equilibrium, of ‘constrained

freedom’ in which the Human-‐Animal is capable of

the freedom of movement in a space that is

enclosed from the exterior.

67Catherine Ingraham, p.7

54

Conclusion

Undoubtedly the relationship between

Architecture, Animal and Human is one that is

extremely peculiar, shifting between

anthropomorphization, the question of dominance

between Human and Animal, and the acceptance of

the Animal in the world of Man. The relationship

between the triad is indeed symmetrical, albeit on

the part of the Human/Animal, the conditioning

force possessed by them seemed to be of a more

subtle magnitude as compared to the conditioning

force possessed by Architecture. Nevertheless, it

can be deduced that the relationship between the

triad is interdependent: the Human-‐Animal cannot

live without the enclosure of Architecture, just as

architecture cannot be called Architecture without

the existence of its occupants.

In the initial stages of this discussion, the Animal

exists to be what Catherine Ingraham perceives as

the being which symbolizes regression. “Life of the

Animal in Architecture is clearly held to be of lower

55

value, which one might initially think would make

its architectural value also lower.”68 Perhaps it is

appropriate to add here that the Animal in this

sense suffered a similar wrath to that of Le

Corbusier’s metaphor of the donkey in The City of

Tomorrow, where he describes in his text, how

ancient cities organized around animal paths (in this

case, the “wandering, mindless donkey”69) depict

sites of congestion and disease, as opposed to

modern cities which exude ‘health’ and ‘rightness’

of the human mind by means of straight avenues

based on right angles. 70

The Animal at first obscured, almost lost in the

humanized version of the modern day Man, was

shown to develop and began to garner its freedom

of existence through the conditioning force of

Architecture. It is as though Architecture had

symbolically unleashed the Animal that the modern

day Man has suppressed within himself. The

68 Ibid., p.19 69 Ibid., p. 13 70 Ibid., p. 13

56

Animal, having gained its freedom, thus began to

exhibit an almost indirect and subtle influence

towards Architecture—it became the

anthropomorphist. Perhaps it was architecture that

enabled the acceptance of the Animal in modern,

‘post-‐animal’ life. As Heidegger had concluded at

the end of his thesis:

“(a) Posthistorical man no longer preserves his own

animality as undisclosable, but rather seeks to take it on

and govern it by means of technology; (b) man, the

shepherd of being, appropriates its own

concealedness, his own animality, which neither

remains hidden nor is made the object of mastery, but

is thought as such, as pure abandonment.”71

71 Giorgio Agamben, The Open, p. 81

57

Bibliography

Agamben, Giorgio, The Open, Stanford University Press, 2004.

Agamben, Giorgio, Homo Sacer:Sovereign, Power and Bare Life,

Stanford University Press Stanford California, 1998.

Arendt, Hannah, The Human Condition, The University of Chicago Press,

1998.

Aristotle, Parts of Animals, Harvard University Press, 1961.

Derrida, Jacques, The Animal that Therefore I am (More to Follow),

Fordham University Press, 2008.

Ingraham, Catherine, Architecture, Animal, Human: The Asymmetrical

Condition, Routeledge 2006.

Karp,Walter and Burrow, J.W, (eds.); Charles Darwin and the Origin of

Species, London: Casell 1969

Mateo, Josep Lluis, Natural Metaphor: An Anthology of Essays on

Architecture and Nature, Barcelona: Actar 2007.

Polansky, Ronald, Aristotle’s De Anima, Cambridge University Press,

2007.

Ramirez, Juan Antonio, The Beehive Metaphor: from Gaudi to Le

Corbusier, Reaktion Books, 2000.

Riley, Terence, The Un-‐Private House, The Museum of Modern Art,

1999.

58

Farey, Cyril A., Architectural Drawing, Perspectives and Rendering,

London Batsford, 1931.

Hartt, Frederick, A history of Italian Renaissance art: Painting, sculpture,

architecture, London: Thames and Hudson, 1970.

‘Animal Architecture: Explorations in Cospecies Coshaping’

http://www.animalarchitecture.org/about/ accessed 26th September

Juhani Pallasmaa, Architecture of the Essential:Ecological Functionalism

of Animal Construction, http://www.animalarchitecture.org/juhani-‐

pallasmaa/ accessed 26th September 2010

Image Sources

Figure 1. Cyril A. Farey, Architectural Drawing, Perspectives and

Rendering, London Batsford, 1931.





Figure 4.Catherine Ingraham, Architecture, Animal, Human: The

Asymmetrical Condition, Routeledge 2006

Figure 5. ‘Animals in Architecture’

http://omgarchitecture.com/2010/04/03/animals-‐in-‐architecture/

accessed 7th January 2011

Figure 6. Frederick Hartt, A history of Italian Renaissance art: Painting,

sculpture, architecture, London: Thames and Hudson, 197

The Symmetrical Relationship between Architecture, Human and Animal

Documents

Transcript of The Symmetrical Relationship between Architecture, Human and Animal