Pallasma argues that there is a bias toward vision in architecture, and a tendency for present architecture to be conceived and taught of as a visionary subject, rather than relating to the other senses, or being sensory. Pallasma has an indepth interest in the senses, and the notion of hapticity, the tactile sense of experiencing the world by being in it. "The body is the locus of perception, thought and consciousness". He expresses concern for the way architecture is perceived and taught, and that life-enhancing architecture, must stimulate all the senses, particularly the skin, and not just be visually seductive. If this occurred, then our sense of experiencing the world, would be strengthened through our architecture and it would be the very representation of meaning. Significant architect, in fact, is beyond meaning, it directs our consciousness back to the world and toward a sense of 'being'.
We share a similar concern to Pallasma that digital representation, whilst being visually appealing, is limited in sensual or meaningful interpretation. There is a strong argument to suggest there has been a loss of criticality in architecture, since the advent of digital technology in the architectural field in the 1980s. Our use of Pallasma's book in experiment three, is to anchor our digital experimentation so that it may become more meaningful than simply 'form generation' in 3D Max. Rather, through the use of an underlying metaphorical theme, predator and prey, or zoo-morphism, the viewer can 'experience' the architecture with heightened sensitivity, even though it is viewed through a screen.
No comments:
Post a Comment