Words or Shapes - the Great Debate

1

ARCH8011 Assignment 2: Words and Shapes Brokenshire 1404463

The Great Debate

Words or Shapes, which are more important?

2


Introduction

The debate is essentially about how we, as humans, think, specifically whether we think in

words or do we think in shapes? Do we think the words 'box, cardboard, large' or do we simply

picture a large cardboard box in our mind (based on a generic image that our mind holds in its

data base)? When we communicate an idea of a large cardboard box to someone else using

words, they might respond by picturing a held-image in their mind or by thinking the words,

'large cardboard box' (no innocent eye). Is the phrase ‘innocent eye’ one you need to ref? The

debate extends to suggest that our mind has the ability to generate or create a new shape or

image that is not held in our individual data base, and that it does this without forming words

to describe it first.

Philosophers and theoreticians have deliberated and written about this debate for the last two

millennia.1 Some of this discussion has been supported by scientific opinion of the time.

Science continues to influence the debate as previous theories about the workings of our minds

are disproved through more recent experimentation and research.2

The writings of Mitrovic3 and Zangwell4 suggest that the debate should shift from

conceptualism towards moderate formalism i.e from words to words and shapes. Clearly it is

an intriguing debate, particularly for philosophers, academics, and theoreticians, which

scientific research continues to enrich and develop. These considerations and the debate have

particular relevance to architecture. The essential core of built architecture is about

constructed shapes of negative or positive space, whereas a back-story (words) supports or

provides meaning to the shapes that have been generated - whether the back-story originated

before, during or after the shape was devised. Either way, words will be involved in the process

of making architecture and in the subsequent critique of that work.

It is reasonable to assume that architects look at the works of other architects and possibly

their own by way of awards, magazine articles, internet, television, and other media. They visit

the works of others and experience them first hand. They may exchange digital or printed

plans and converse with their peers. They will converse with their clients. Their consideration

and critique of these works will therefore be based on the medium of printed and spoken word

along with all the symbolic, cultural, abstract conceptual theories, and narrative meanings that

may overlay images or the visual, spatial, and sensory nature of the actual works.

1 Mark Gage ed., Aesthetic Theory: Essential Texts for Architecture and Design (W.W.Norton & Company, New York

, 2011) 2 Branco Mitrovic, Visuality for Architects. Architectural Creativity and Modern Theories of Perception and

Imagination (Charlottesville, University of Virginia Press, 2012), p18 3 in Mitrovic, Visuality for Architects

4 in Nick Zangwill's The Metaphysics of Beauty, (Cornell University Press, New York, 2001)

3


They (architects) might also enter into this debate on the importance and relevance of words

versus shapes within their own practice and within the industry in general. What is therefore

relevant and more interesting (in the view of the writer) is this discussion as it applies within

the real world. This writing will consider the debate of words versus shapes within a real-world

context and thus reflect on the importance of this debate in current professional practice

within New Zealand.

It is important to define the meaning and context of words and shapes within this discourse.

Words: literally written and spoken but also suggesting symbolic, cultural, abstract conceptual

theories and narrative meanings. Conceptualist.

Shapes: forms, visual, colour, positive and negative space, spatial composition. Formalist.

A real-world context implies that the debate should be considered not just in the context of

architecture in general but particularly from the position of architects making architecture. This

writing will propose that it is during this process that this debate has particular application in

the real world. Lectures on the topic of design process by David Chaplin of Unitec have

relevance as will be outlined below. This writing will then state a position on the Great Debate

and argue this position.

Making architecture

The process of making architecture will differ from practice to practice, architect to architect,

however the differences will be minimal as the outcome has similarities i.e. the solving of a

design problem and the provision of a building for a client. For the purposes of this writing, a

process originally designed by Professor Gordon Smith and introduced by David Chaplin in his

lecture series; Design Process ARCH6618 is a useful model.5

Prof. G Smith, Design Process Model, (School of Architecture, University of Auckland. 1969-71)

5 David Chaplin, Design Process Lectures Semester II 2013

SITE

4


Smith's "Design Process Model" involves repeatedly moving in and out of what he calls the

"design world" which exists within the "real world." It considers site, building, context, brief,

problem statement, alternate proposals, chosen proposal and sketch design. It places these

elements either within the real world or the design world. Chaplin subsequently used this

model as the basis of a more detailed construct which adds greater depth to Smith's initial

model. The writer considers that Chaplin's model comprehensively represents the core

activities that occur in the creation of architectural works. This process is represented in a

more linear fashion by the New Zealand Institute of Architects Guide to Architects’ Services.6 It

is understandable that some architects might follow variations of these processes in order to

achieve the desired outcome (a building for their client) yet it is logical to presume all processes

will have many similarities, particularly iteratively switching between design world and real

world. For the purposes of this writing, Smith/Chaplin's representative model will be used to

illustrate the writer's position on the debate; words or shapes and their respective importance

in the creation of architectural works in New Zealand today.

Position

This writer's position is that both words and shapes are not only equally important but an

essential duo in the real-world creation of architectural works. This is not to say that words and

shapes are of equal importance at all stages of the design process; their relative importance

alternates from stage to stage. However both words and shapes are essential. One cannot exist

without the other and they work in harmony, not opposition.

Counter

The counter arguments to this position are that either words or shapes are more important

throughout the entire design process. Additionally, that either words or shapes can exist

without the other throughout the design process.

Norberg-Schulz talks about an architectural design process, suggesting that an "evaluation of

alternatives" occurs, "From a set of specific situations man abstracts meaningful forms and

principles of organisation which make a more general planning possible." So although this is not

talking about words per se, it is talking about a decision making process based on conceptual

reasoning in relation to choices made in the process of making architecture.7 This would

suggest the privileging of conceptualism (words) over formalism (shapes). On the other hand,

Scott in his book, "The Architecture of Humanism: A Study in the History of Taste" suggests that

Renaissance architects "liked to be surrounded by forms of a certain kind" which had no

6 Architects Guide to Architects’ Services, obtained as a PDF download from http://www.nzia.co.nz/ 3 August 2014

7 Christian Norberg-Schulz Meaning in Western Architecture (Rizzoli, reprinted 1993), p225-26

5


relationship to production, material, or function.8 This led to them valuing forms for their own

sake and suggests the privileging of shapes over words.

The design process

D Chaplin, G Smith, The Design Process Model, 1969-71 & 2001

Initial examination of the Design Process Model would suggest that it is conceptually biased - it

appears to consist principally of words. The design process begins in the real world with a client

contracting an architect and providing a brief. The architect, using the brief in combination

with the site and context, creates a problem statement in the design world. At this preliminary

stage, the design process has already moved from the shape world - the client forming ideas

from the visual world of images and real buildings - to the word world; articulating these ideas

into a narrative; a brief, either verbally, in writing, or both. Shapes came first, possibly. The

process undoubtedly moved back and forth between shapes and words numerous times.

During the briefing process the architect, listening to, or reading the brief, begins to form visual

images in his or her mind; words translated as shapes. A conversation occurs between

architect and client. Images (shapes) are translated into words. Images are displayed, sketches

made in response, discussion continues.

8 Geoffrey Scott The Architecture of Humanism: A Study in the History of Taste (Gloucester, Massachusetts, Peter

Smith, 1965), p36-37

6


You might consider that the conceptual components - the conversation and the written brief -

take precedence at this stage of the process and therefore argue that the narrative is more

important than shapes, that words take precedence. Although this is a reasonable position, the

design process has only begun.

Moving into the design world, the architect continues with the problem statement. This exists

as series of concepts; predominantly words but also shapes; sketches from a site visit, initial

doodles - design ideas formed and sketched from the words of the brief. The architect must

hold this information in their mind while they begin the creative process of formulating

alternative proposals, of synthesising concepts and narrative into forms and shapes. This

becomes a think-draw-see-think loop; the language is predominantly shape although words will

creep in - notes and dimensions added to sketches as reminders.

think-draw-see-think loop - by the writer

The previous stage of the process was word dominated, this stage of the process is shape

dominated. This is the actual shaping of the eventual outcome.

Moving on

The architect has chosen an alternative proposal (or several alternatives) and presents these to

the client. Both words and shapes are presented. This is an important stage in the

relationship. This is where an architect who is aware of the psychology of visualisation can

maximise the communication of their ideas by choosing the right balance between words and

shapes to match their impression of the client's visualisation style.9

9 This idea is based on the Guilford Model as presented by David Chaplin in Design Process lecture at Unitec,

Auckland, 8 August 2013

7


Even once the design is at the implementation stage, the interplay between words and shapes

continues. A contractor suggests an alternative method of achieving an outcome or the client

or architect sees a view they hadn't considered from the ground. The sketch pad comes out,

words and concepts are exchanged over shapes, further decisions made.

The purpose of stepping through these stages in this detail is to illustrate that it is difficult to

say that either words or shapes are more important than the other. At one stage words

dominate, at another, shapes. Throughout many stages the focus is alternating so rapidly it is

difficult to say which dominates. The relative importance of conceptualism or formalism

cannot be sensibly weighted to provide a numerical or quantifiable comparison; both are

inextricably intertwined within the process of making architecture.

This commonsensical approach supports the writer's position that in the real-world design

process, both words and shapes are necessary and that they have an interdependent

relationship; thus negating the counter argument that either one or the other is more

important throughout the process.

This design process for the most part occurs without conscious reflection on the Great Debate

by the players involved. However the psychology behind the debate remains inherent in the

making of architecture within the real world. This is not to say that the rhetoric, the discussion

of words versus shapes, is an active or on-going conversation in any professional practice. It is

hard to imagine that this would be so.

As seen by others

If we look to Zangwell and consider a building as the outcome of the design process, we find

that Zangwell takes the view that formal properties are a kind of aesthetic property - a

property you would look for in an architectural work. He refers to Kant's position that

dependent architectural beauty can also have free beauty through its function but then states

that through moderate formalism, it is possible to get the best understanding of art works

(including architecture) in general.10 This suggests that a completed building can have aesthetic

value due to its appearance as well as having a meaningful narrative due to its function,

context, or perhaps the back story behind its construction. In other words, the result possesses

both shapes and words and who is to say which is of the greater importance?

Mitrovic suggests that conceptual frameworks are "insufficient" when it comes to making

decisions about formal properties in relation to architecture.11 From this you could surmise

that Mitrovic supports the idea that shapes are also important in making architecture. You

10

Nick Zangwill The Metaphysics of Beauty, (Cornell University Press, New York, 2001), p57-59, 67-69, 76-77 11

Mitrovic, Visuality for Architects, p53

8


could extend this to mean you need a conceptual framework supported by shapes - or vice

versa. Mitrovic mentions and supports Nick Zangwill's position on moderate formalism.

Various theories of philosophy have favoured a conceptual way of thinking about the creative

arts: architecture, art, writing and music; that a narrative is more important than the shapes

that may be components of these works. While this is logical for writing or music, it makes less

sense applied to architecture or art (with the obvious exception of conceptual art).

These theories have been responsible for the basic processes of academic architectural learning

in recent decades. Our understanding of human thought processes has evolved - Mitrovic

argues that architectural analysis, teaching and therefore design have not kept pace with this

evolution.12

The academic world

Mitrovic relates a (theoretical?) studio crit in his Visuality for Architects, where a tutor has a

narrow conceptual way of looking at student’s work.13 Mitrovic goes on to illustrate the

importance of matching student with tutor. This brings into this discussion the teaching of

architecture in tertiary institutions and an observation by the writer pertaining to Unitec

specifically. In the experience of the writer, studio tutors at Unitec are for the most part

conceptually motivated. If a student can swing a good back story, it does not matter that their

proposal would be ruinously expensive to build, impossible structurally, or simply a cover for

the fact they have done no work whatsoever, they would command a meaningful discussion

and receive a good grade for being so 'poetic....' During the writer's three and a half years at

Unitec, active teaching about formal aesthetics has been minimal.

This experience supports Mitrovic's position and finds a place where this debate exists in the

real world in a meaningful manner. It is perplexing when a tutor finds work 'poetic' - what

exactly are the conceptual qualities that make it poetic? These are never clearly enunciated let

alone understood by the class. Clearly the writer tends towards formalism.

Back to the real world

The importance of this debate also exists in the relationship between client and architect. The

client is unlikely to have heard of the Great Debate and will operate in whatever

communication mode is comfortable and habitual to them. The architect however is

potentially knowledgeable and can therefore match their presentation style to that which, as

12

Mitrovic, Visuality for Architects, p8, 51 13

Mitrovic, Visuality for Architects, p8

9


they have observed, is the client's. A greater depth of communication is therefore possible

resulting in a better relationship and final outcome.14

Conclusion

This piece of writing has articulated the author's position on the Great Debate; Words or

Shapes. It considers how the psychology of visualising applies within the process of making

architecture. The writer has argued that both words and shapes are important within the real-

world design process; that they are intertwined within a symbiotic relationship. The design

process model has been used as the basis to illustrate the complexity of the shifting importance

of conceptualism versus formalism throughout the process of making architecture. The writer

has then supported this position with the views of two writers on the topic; Mitrovic and

Zangwill.

The current educational position in relation to the debate has been introduced through

Mitrovic's writing with the writer's personal experience supporting Mitrovic's view. The debate

is clearly important because of its influence on architectural education at a tertiary level and

therefore how architecture is being practiced in New Zealand today.

It is appropriate that Mitrovic has the final word.

"Many fundamental problems of architectural theory are manifestations of wider

philosophical problems. The problems that an architect must resolve in design practice -

questions of proportion, spatial composition, relation to the environment,

representation, meaning, appropriateness to time, and so on - have, more often than

not, their wider philosophical articulation."15

14

David Chaplin in Design Process lecture, Unitec, Auckland, 8 August 2013 15

Branko Mitrovic Philosopy for Architects, (Princeton Architectural Press, New York, USA 2011), p10

10


Research Question: Assignment 1

Initially the topic of tectonics seemed to be a logical starting point however developing a

research question became problematic – what would interest me for a year of research? This

option is not excluded yet but meantime a number of questions kept bubbling up that may not

obviously develop the tectonic question. They emerge as three strands:

1. What elements make Koh Kitayama’s ideas successful? How could these in between

spaces be developed further?

2. Can these spaces be adapted to operate in a Passive House context? If so, how?

3. Can these concepts be applied in a New Zealand context? If so, how?

These questions seem to have little to do with the tectonic making or sculptural nature of

previous studio projects however the above design questions could be considered through a

lens of materiality, junction, form - and above all, explored through model making.

The three stands may be too broad at this stage although EEH and Passive House papers have

provided a good grounding in that subject which reduces the potential field of research. The

formulation of a Research Question will be – by its very nature - an iterative and organic

process and the exercise completed in this paper has gone some way to clarifying (and

discarding) some concepts.

My particular interest in this field could develop into an exploration of the Buffer Zone concept

applied to New Zealand residential design.

The Research Question has now developed as follows:

In answer to the three questions raised above, a site is proposed. This site is a city block in

Christchurch between Gloucester Street to the north, Latimer Square to the east, Worcester

Street to the south, and Manchester Street to the west. Following demolition of buildings after

the earthquakes that occurred in Christchurch in 2011 and 2012, most of this site has been

leveled. This city block has personal significance to me in that I began my first career here,

working at three separate locations within this block during the first fifteen years of my working

life. None of these buildings now exist. I experienced an earthquake within one of these

buildings during this time which is a memorable experience to this day. I project managed a

move of more than fifty percent of the staff to another of these buildings.

11


Of the questions above, my interest in energy efficient passive architecture and the idea of in

between space - or buffer zone - remain. I am now extending these ideas to the planning of

this city block with the intention to provide a mixed-use design appropriate to the re

inhabitation of Christchurch CBD; this location being one block from Cathedral Square. My

question will relate to the idea of re inhabitation of a city following a disaster, the opportunities

that may exist following a disaster of this magnitude, and the reinvention of a city centre to

make it a better place than it was before for the inhabitants of the city.

Questions are proposed within the context of a city CBD which to a large extent has abandoned

itself and moved to the suburbs in a necessarily scattered fashion. Can the heart of this city be

made to beat again? Can in fact the city heart be made healthier than it could ever have been

before the events that destroyed so much of it?

The idea extends to the replication of the concept that will be devised through this research to

other blocks within the city CBD with the objective of making the new Christchurch a highly

desirable city to live in.

Previous research which will be pertinent to this project will be the wind velocity study research

by a Unitec Masters student in 2012. In addition, research relating to other post disaster

studies, building on similar ground types to that beneath Christchurch, energy efficient

architecture for this climate type, and very importantly, urban form in relation to mixed use

within a city CBD and quality of living environment will all be very relevant.

Words or Shapes - the Great Debate

Documents

Transcript of Words or Shapes - the Great Debate