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. 3 -Ludwig Wittgenstein ABSTRACT Despite growing interest from historians in the built environment, the use of architecture as evidence remains remarkably under-theorized. Where this issue has been discussed, the interpretation of buildings has often been likened to the process of reading, in which architecture can be understood by analogy to language: either as a code capable of use in communicating the architect's intentions or more literally as a spoken or written language in its own right. After a historiographical survey, this essay, by contrast, proposes that the appropriate metaphor is one of translation. More particularly, it draws on the work of Mikhail Bakhtin to suggest that architecture-and the interpretation of architecturecomprises a series of transpositions. As a building is planned, built, inhabited, and interpreted, so its meaning changes. The underlying logic of each medium shapes the way in which its message is created and understood. This suggests that the proper role of the historian is to trace these transpositions. Buildings, then, can be used as a historical source, but only if the historian takes account of the particular problems that they present. In short, architecture should not be studied for its meaning, but for its meanings. As historians we are always translating architecture: not reading its message, but exploring its multiple transpositions.

Space as Receptor, Instrument or Stage: Notes on the Interaction Between Spatial and Social Constellations

“…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.).…”

The Soundscape of Klaipėda (II): An Auditioned City

“…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.…”

What can Social Psychologists Learn from Architecture? The Asylum as Example

“…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.…”

“…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.…”