In
this interesting paper Christine Kenline analyses Heidegger’s essay “Building Thinking
Dwelling” as part of an exploration into the architectural design process.
Building
and dwelling are separate concepts.
Dwelling presupposes the process of building, which is basically a way
of separating and sheltering the individual from the external environment. But not all building is carried out with an
understanding of dwelling, that is, with the mental, emotional and physical
effect of the building on the inhabitants, with a balance between beings and
buildings.
Kenline
references Heidegger in his use of etymology to understand the real nature of
building which incorporates a fuller sense of dwelling. Once we listen to language, then we access an
authentic existence embodied in the root meanings of words. For example, Heidegger believes in the
“thingness” of objects and in their role in “gathering” and focussing
experience. “Andenken” (memory) is a kind of thought which discloses this
gathering.
Kenline
suggests however that there is a language of communication between beings and
buildings but this is her interpretation and is not mentioned by Heidegger in
his text. But, she claims, architects can build
in a way that enhances and encourages dwelling in a fuller sense, which
respects the nature of materials, the context of the building and the
emotional, mental and physical needs of the inhabitants. She does not elaborate on what exactly this
means. She also discusses whether dwelling in the deeper sense is in fact realistic
in our modern culture, “where beings have forgotten how to be”.
Architects
need to be aware of this kind of thinking, according to Kenline, so that the
true nature of buildings can be revealed.
They should approach building with “thingness” in mind rather than
thinking of building as an opportunity for self expression. Buildings are “non-representational”
creations rather than “artworks with aesthetic value”. The loss of such an attitude to building
reflects and results in a subjective and over-individualised way of life.
Nowadays
humans have little awareness or respect for the fourfold – the coexistence of
earth, sky, spirituality and mortals – and of the fact that we are defined by
how we dwell with things. This in turn defines
how we dwell within the balance of the fourfold and preserve its balance. Buildings should not disturb the four-fold or
nature, but act as sites or gathering points for it. Location is very important in considering an
architectural design. “Man’s relation to location, and through
locations to spaces, inheres in his dwelling”. Heidegger argues that the main focus of
architecture should be the human experience in the widest sense. He also sees
the work of art in a wider sense as an artefact which preserves the truth, that
is, which cultivates the life of beings.
Kenline
is a proponent of design research as an essential part of the design
process. “The architect’s role is to understand the cultural, social, physical
and emotional needs of beings in order to develop an understanding of beings
and buildings… the architect needs to make the nature of a building visible so
that it can be dwelt in. If a specific
type of building does not show its true nature… then beings will stay in a
state of anxiety, unable to rest as a ”mode of being-in-the-world”.
Alexander
and many other architects acknowledge the importance of Heidegger’s ideas, and “question the authority of professional
expertise and sought instead to validate non-expert building”.
Kenline
surveys various architectural movements.
Functionalism, she considers, does not consider the true nature of
dwelling. Structuralism is too rigid,
without the necessary flexibility and freedom.
Postmodernism and phenomenology are too representational. For her, design research incorporates the
lived experience of beings into the process, in conjunction with the specialist
knowledge of architects.
In
this article, Kenline loosely interprets Heidegger’s ideas to support her
belief in design research. In the
process, she sometimes goes beyond his actual statements. For example, he does not mention the
“language of buildings”as a form of interaction between building and inhabitant. I do not find her analysis very helpful in
clarifying some of his ideas, for example, the relation between “site” and
“location”. In fact Heidegger’s writing
in this article is deceptively simple.
His belief about “thingness” and “beings” is derived from a much deeper
philosophical analysis, explored at length in his other writings, including
“Being and Time”. It is easy to cherry-pick
from Heidegger’s text but less easy to clarify what he actually meant. Kenline's writing was a welcome find as part of my exploration into the ideas of Alexander, but she gives few clues about how to create the perfect dwelling and how to collaborate between design research and formal architecture.
Another writer whose ideas are deceptively simple is Christopher Alexander. It should be noted (click here) that Alexander was a scientist and mathematician before he became an architect. His architectural theories are based originally on an application of set theory (please see an earlier post in this blog), and as such can be quite difficult to grasp by the non-mathematician. His ideas have an attractive naturalness but are underpinned by this initial theory. Those attempting to critique his work need to be aware of this rigorous aspect.
