2006
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2303.2006.00355.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

HOW DO BUILDINGS MEAN? SOME ISSUES OF INTERPRETATION IN THE HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE1

Abstract: Architectural history as we know it has been written tacitly adhering to the crudest version of the paradigm of communication: all the attention has been focussed on the design of the new forms, none on their interpretation. It is time to realize, that even within the limits of the paradigm of communication, there should be a history of meaning, not only a history of forms. 2 -Juan Pablo BontaYou think philosophy is difficult enough, but I can tell you it is nothing to the difficulty of being a good architect.… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
28
0
6

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 83 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
(10 reference statements)
0
28
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…Structuralism, however, could not adequately explain the multidimensionality of architecture -how it is experienced, not just by the mind but also by the body. Post-structuralist thought then offered new avenues of exploration, capable of accounting for shifting meanings and multiple readings, including those of inhabitants and users (Whyte 2006). Thus, the plot began to thicken: more and more architectural historians and theorists stressed how architecture cannot really be reduced to a symbolic language, but lies at the crossroads of many different forms of communication (explicit representation of intended meanings, structural requirements, functional needs, material necessities, aesthetic concerns, etc.).…”
Section: Space As Receptormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Structuralism, however, could not adequately explain the multidimensionality of architecture -how it is experienced, not just by the mind but also by the body. Post-structuralist thought then offered new avenues of exploration, capable of accounting for shifting meanings and multiple readings, including those of inhabitants and users (Whyte 2006). Thus, the plot began to thicken: more and more architectural historians and theorists stressed how architecture cannot really be reduced to a symbolic language, but lies at the crossroads of many different forms of communication (explicit representation of intended meanings, structural requirements, functional needs, material necessities, aesthetic concerns, etc.).…”
Section: Space As Receptormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Istorikas Williamas Whyte'as mini kelias visaverčio pastatų suvokimo stadijas: "Nuo idėjos prie plano, nuo plano prie brėžinio, nuo brėžinio prie pastato, nuo pastato prie jo naudojimo, nuo naudojimo prie vartotojų ir žiūrovų interpretacijos. Kaip ir vertimas, šis procesas gali būti suprastas tik kontekste" (Whyte 2006;172). Kiekvienoje stadijoje būtini skirtingi žodynai, įgūdžiai ir žinios.…”
Section: Urbanistiniai Garsai: Transpozicijos Ir Skirtingas Interpretunclassified
“…There is potential for comparison both historically (considering different buildings designed for the same purpose at different points in time) and also geographically (considering different buildings designed for the same purpose in different locations): the former may reflect changes in understanding of a concept, the latter may reflect different cultural or regional differences in understanding. In a fascinating paper, Whyte () makes similar points: drawing on Bahktin, he argues that buildings cannot merely be “read”, as any building has many meanings for different people. These meanings change not only as the building is “planned, built, inhabited and interpreted” (Whyte, , p. 153) but also across time and between cultures.…”
Section: Social Psychology and Architecturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a fascinating paper, Whyte () makes similar points: drawing on Bahktin, he argues that buildings cannot merely be “read”, as any building has many meanings for different people. These meanings change not only as the building is “planned, built, inhabited and interpreted” (Whyte, , p. 153) but also across time and between cultures.…”
Section: Social Psychology and Architecturementioning
confidence: 99%