 |
| Collage by Christina Fez-Barringten |
Art’s and architecture’s technical and conceptual metaphors (C).
Based on the two stasis to architecture being an art [I] : technical and conceptual
metaphors.
By Barie Fez-Barringten
Emails welcomed:bariefezbarringten@gmail.com
6,699 words on 14 pages
Abstract:
Dividing the discipline’s metaphors between technical and
conceptual is a reality not fully explored, nor I believe never noticed. In
addition to the multidisciplinary relevance and general use of metaphors,
metaphoric axioms, arguments in favor of the stasis of why architecture is an
art the two realities of the metaphor work separately and together in six creative ways.
My early monographs justifying architecture as the making of metaphors were
steeped in deductive reasoning since we could not find new information pertaining
to metaphors. Many of my monographs included analyzing and explaining the syllogism:
- Art[I] is the making of metaphors
- Architecture is an art[I]
- Therefore architecture is the making of
metaphors.
Art [I] is only
when skill is applied with intent and advanced development of some skill.
Till now we did nothing to reason why art [I] is the making of metaphors, why
architecture is an art [I] nor why
architecture is an art [I]. Since
1967 I proceeded to analyze the presumptions and find its many applications.
This new information in Metaphor and Thought by Andrew Ortony first published
in 1979, provides information to support inductive reasoning and to this end
each axiom is its own warrant to the inferences of the above syllogism and the answer
to questions of why metaphor is the stasis to any of the syllogism’s claims and
implications.
For over forty years I have
researched and written monographs presenting the evidence, inferences,
warrants, claims and resolution for
architecture as the making of metaphors and always another principle of
the resolution emerges. This time I would like to explain the stasis in terms of metaphor’s two technical and conceptual
dimensions. Both are valid separately
and even more acceptable in combination.
But how do they two operate and how does knowing this benefit design,
use and evaluation of built works?
The technical is that all art [I],
including architecture, expresses one thing in terms of another by its inherent
and distinct craft. On the one hand there is the architect who acts as the master builder (head carpenter); and on
the other the fountain of conceptual
metaphors which expresses ideas as built conceptual metaphors other wise
known as works of architecture. Techne
is actually a system of practical knowledge as a craft or art informed
by knowledge of forms.
For
example, the craft of managing a
firm of architects where even virtue is a kind of technê of management and design practice, one that is based on an understanding of the profession, business and market. In this
case the technai are such activities as drafting, specifying, managing, negotiating, programming, planning,
supervising, and inspection. By
association with these technai, we can include house-building, mathematics, plumbing, making money, writing, and
painting. So much so that the study
and practice of design is devoid from the humanities and downplays theories of
architecture; developing rather the crafts, skill and understandings needed to
engineer, plan, sketch, draw, delineate, specify, write, and design.
Contemporary architecture is
replete with axioms, principles and theorems guiding the geometry, applications
of science, use of engineering, and formal logic to produce technical metaphors
and justly excluding a whole conversation about the conceptual part of the
built metaphor.
Keywords:
metaphor, architecture, thought, commonality,
commonplace, dubbing, cognitive, knowing, stasis, art , [I] linguistic analogy,
equilibrium, equipoise, topoi, top-down, frame conflict, appreciate, conduit, parte,
design system, modified culture,
mapping, structure, domain, signs, apparatus, spaces, volumes, shapes,
forms, metaphorical mappings,
invariance principle, alive, dead, onomatopoeic, surrogates, appetite,
desire, mind, indirect use, direct use,
vision, gestalt, formulae, grand design, psychological, processes, metaphor
comprehension, memory, mnemonics, encoding,
mapping, categorizing, inference, assimilation, accommodation, attribution,
inferential import, structured programming, stability, referential specificity,
general acceptance of terms, vividness thesis, difference, identity, comparison sensible, communications,
technical, techne, conceptual,interdisciplinary, multi discipline, discipline
Biographical note:
(88 words)
Columbia University coursework in
behavioral psychology under Ralph Hefferline and others in voice Linguistics; Bachelor’s
of Fine Arts from Pratt Institute and Master of Architecture from Yale
University where I was mentored in metaphors and metaphysics by Dr. Paul Weiss.
For research I founded the New York City not-for–profit corporation called
Laboratories for Metaphoric Environments.
In addition to authoring over fifteen published monographs by learned
journals I have spent 20 years in Saudi Arabia and have written a book
containing pen and ink drawings on perceptions of 72 European cities.
Author
affiliation(s):
Global University ;American Institute of Architects; Florida Licensed
Architect; Programming Chairperson for the Gulf Coast Writers Association;
National Council of Architectural Registration Boards; Al-Umran association,
American Society of Interior Designers; and founding president of Architects
International Group/ Mid East.
Introduction:
Early monographs justifying architecture as the making of
metaphors were steeped in deductive reasoning since we could not find new
information pertaining to metaphors. Many of my monographs included analyzing
and explaining the syllogism:
- Art [I] is the making of metaphors
- Architecture is an art
- Therefore architecture is the making of
metaphors.
Till now we did nothing to reason why art is the making of metaphors,
why architecture is an art nor why architecture is an art. Since 1967 I proceeded
to analyze the presumptions and find its many applications. This new
information in Metaphor and Thought by Andrew Ortony first published in 1979,
provides information to support inductive reasoning and to this end each axiom
is its own warrant to the inferences of the above syllogism and the answer to
questions of why metaphor is the stasis to any of the syllogism’s claims and
implications.
 |
| Collage by Christina Fez-Barringten |
Three levels of
axioms matching three levels of disciplines:
- Multidiscipline: Macro most general where the metaphors and axioms and metaphors used by the widest and diverse disciplines, users and societies. All of society, crossing culture, disciplines, professions, industrialist arts and fields as mathematics and interdisciplinary vocabulary.
- Interdisciplinary axioms are between fields of art [I] whereas metaphors in general inhabit all these axioms drive a wide variety and aid in associations, interdisciplinary contributions and conversations about board fields not necessary involved with a particular project but if about a project about all context including city plan, land use, institutions, culture and site selection, site planning and potential neighborhood and institutional involvement.
3. Micro
Discipline: Between architects all involved in making the built
environment particularly on single projects in voting relevant arts[I],
crafts, manufactures, engineers, sub-con tractors and contractors; as well
as owners, users, neighbors, governments agencies, planning boards and
town councils.
Axioms definitions:
Axioms (shown in Roman numerals)
are self-evident principles that I have derived out of Ortony’s Metaphor and Thought[1.0] and accept as
true without proof as the basis for future arguments; as postulates or
inferences including their warrants
(which I have throughout footnoted as 1._._). These axioms are in themselves clarification, enlightenment, and illumination removing ambiguity where the derivative
reference (Ortony) has many applications. Hopefully, these can be starting
points from which other statements can be logically derived. Unlike theorems, axioms
cannot be derived by principles of deduction as I wrote: "The
metametaphor theorem" published by Architectural Scientific
Journal, Vol. No. 8; 1994 Beirut Arab University. The below axioms define
properties for the domain of a specific theory which evolved out of the
stasis defending architecture as an art and
in that sense, a "postulate” and
"assumption" . Thusly, I presume to axiomatize a system of knowledge
to show that these claims can be derived from a small, well-understood set of
sentences (the axioms). “Universality, Global uniqueness, Sameness,
Identity, and Identity abuse” are just some of the axioms of web
architecture. Francis Hsu of Rutgers
writes that “Software Architecture Axioms
is a worthy goal. First, let's be clear that software axioms are not
necessarily mathematical in nature”.
Furthermore, in his book titled The Book of Architecture Axioms Gavin Terrill wrote: “Don't put your
resume ahead of the requirements Simplify essential
complexity; diminish accidental complexity; You're negotiating
more often than you think ;It's never too
early to think about performance and resiliency testing; Fight repetition;
Don't Control, but
Observe and Architect as
Janitor”. In “Axiomatic design
in the customizing home building industry published by Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management; 2002;vol 9;
issue 4;page 318-324 Kurt Psilander wrote
that “the developer would find a tool very useful that systematically and
reliably analyses customer taste in terms of functional requirements (FRs).
Such a tool increases the reliability of the procedure the entrepreneur applies
to chisel out a concrete project description based on a vision of the tastes of
a specific group of customers. It also ensures that future agents do not
distort the developer's specified FRs when design parameters are selected for the
realization of the project. Axiomatic design is one method to support such a
procedure. This tool was developed for the manufacturing industry but is
applied here in the housing sector. Some hypothetical examples are presented”. Aside
from building-architect’s axioms directing that “form follows function”; follow
manufacturers requirements and local codes and ordinances, AIA standards for
professional practice architectural axioms are few and far between.
1.4.6
Metaphorical language (building) is a surface manifestation of conceptual
(program, design and contact documents) metaphor. The built metaphor is the residue, excrement, product and
periphery of the deep and complex reality of the building’s creative process
and extent reality. As we don’t know the inner workings of our car and yet are
able to drive so we can use our buildings. What we design and what we read, not
the metaphor, but a surface manifestation of the concept metaphor.
A concept which we can only know as
well as we is able to discern metaphorical language. The construction and the
metaphor beneath are mapped by the building being the manifestation of the
hidden conceptual metaphor. To know the conceptual metaphor we must read the building.
 |
| Collage by Christina Fez-Barringten |
Axioms:
Axiom VI.9.0 Since metaphor is the
main mechanism through which we comprehend abstract concepts and perform
abstract reasoning: 1.4.3 what is built is first thought and
conceived separately from building, as thinking and conceiving is separate from
the outward expression, so metaphor is a process; and, architectural metaphor
is a process, and what we see is what the process issues; not the manifest
metaphor. If the metaphor were to manifest it would be a series of interacting feelings
about thoughts, words, impulses and decisions.
Axiom
VII. .9.0 the metaphor-building clarifies
our place, status and value.
As metaphor is the main mechanism through which we
comprehend abstract concepts and perform abstract reasoning so works of
architecture inform our social, psychological and political condition.
Architects as many other arts as
well as users and connoisseurs can find sufficient satisfaction with only the
aesthetics of the technical before ever considering the conceptual metaphor.
The building, song, ballet, painting, poem has an intrinsic beauty satisfying
the five senses leaving thought and concepts for a later time. For example
today we can relish in the great royal residences of France leaving aside the
sociopolitical concepts they expressed. Voices in harmony to soft music are a
background as may be a cityscape of buildings designed in harmony with one
another; both being perceived as technical and not conceptually.
On the other hand, after my studies
at Columbia and arriving in Rome I ran to see my conceptual metaphor of St.
Peters; the form and its dazzling scale only later came into focus. The same
can be said for my first visit to Rome’s coliseum, Spain’s bull fight arenas, Bloir
Valley palaces, English castles where I first saw the concept and later
reiterated the details and architectural orders.
Conceptual metaphors are
exemplified by a game where you name a string of common characteristics and the
challenger then may answer:” things that are on animals, in buildings, etc. In
other words people can identify the metaphor once given a set of common characteristics.
What has windows, doors, is in Manhattan, symbol of New York and houses office
workers: “the Empire State building”. The challenger makes a metaphor between
the words and association best suited to those words. When naming the thing and
it coincides with the proponents the challenger is correct. Neither the
referent image nor the correct answer is the metaphor. What is the metaphor but
the process of making the association between the words and something stored in
the mind. Whether automated, instinctive, educated, licensed, indigenous or
cultural the fact remains that a bridge that transfers one from another
permeates all forms of thought. In fact the artifact that we see is a remnant of
the technical and conceptual metaphoric processes. To say that art is a
metaphor and then that architecture too must be a metaphor assumes that the art
is the manifest work and not what it represents.
Early classic music in the age of Mozart known as the Rocco
period was a music of technique; it wasn’t until Tchaikovsky, symphonies and
the romantics that conceptual metaphor in music was born.
One 93 year old lady once remarked
that she knew when she remembered some thing came to mind but where was that
thing stored. She even could accept the associations that brought the
recollection; but where was it until then. That was a question which remained
unanswered till she departed.
Let us leave all of that to other monographs but now
concentrate on the wonderful coincidence of these two different characteristics
of the metaphor occurring simultaneously, and separately. What’s happening? To explain this operation we refer to the
axioms of metaphors of architecture and presume the workings of the conduit.
Axiom III 9.0. . 1.2.2/1.2.3
A conduit is a minor framework which
overlooks words as containers and allows ideas and feelings to flow, unfettered
and completely disembodied, into a kind of ambient space between human heads.
Irregardless of the details the
overall concept is “transferred “from one to the other, irrespective of
sub-dominant and tertiary design elements.
Six principles are
at work.
Explained by applying axioms (shown in Roman numerals)
Predicate to six principles
at work:
Axiom XIII. .9.0: Commonalities are the keys to mapping across conceptual domains; sifting
through the program the architect seeks the “commonality” between the reality
and experience to make the metaphor. Mapping
is only possible when he knows the “commonplace”, the commonality, the
characteristic common to both, the terms that both the source and the target
have in common in which the mapping takes place. The architect’s design agenda
and the user’s requirements find both their commonalities and differences.
As the architect structures his
program, design and specifications he simultaneously structures the metaphor of
his work of architecture. Architecture consists of program specifics where the
conditions, operations, goals and ideals are from heretofore unrelated and
distant contexts but are themselves metaphors “mapped across conceptual domains”.
Architects
translate their architectural conception from philosophy, psychology,
sociology, etc into two dimensional scaled drawings and then to real life full
scale multi dimensions conventions consisting of conventional materials,
building elements (doors, windows, stairs, etc).1.4.9 As maps are the result of cartographers
rendering existing into a graphics for reading so is mapping to the reading of
metaphors where the reader renders understanding from one source to another. As
the cartographer seeks lines, symbols and shadings to articulate the world
reality so the reader’s choices of heretofore unrelated and seemingly
unrelated are found to have an essence
common to both the reality and the rendition so that the metaphor can be
repeated becoming the readers new vocabulary. As the reader can describe the
route he can identify the building.
1.4. 10 Each mapping (where mapping is the systematic set of
correspondences that exist between constituent elements of the source and the
target domain).
Many
elements of target concepts come from source domains and are not preexisting.
To know a conceptual metaphor is to know the set of mappings that applies to a
given source-target pairing. The same idea of mapping between source and target
is used to describe analogical reasoning and inferences, for
example, reception area to receive people, doors and door frames, columns as
vertical supports, parking spaces for cars, Iron and stained glass design
patterns, and typical design details appropriated for a given building system.
1.4.11 Aside from articulating a program
architects carry-over their experiences with materials, physics, art, culture,
building codes, structures, plasticity, etc. to form a metaphor.
Identifying conditions, operations, ideals and goals are combined to form
plans, sections and elevations which are then translated in to contract
documents.
Later the contractors map this
metaphor based on their schemes of cost, schedule and quality control into
schedules and control documents. It is not until equipment, laborers and
materials are brought to the side that the metaphor starts to form. Once formed
the only evidence for the user (reader) are the thousands of cues from every
angle, outside and inside to enable use and understanding. An informed user can
read the building’s history from its inception to opening day.
Six Principles at
Work:
First: Inform one another
The two inform each other; that is
the technical and conceptual learn from each other. That is the aspects of the
craft, building technology, shape and form, geometry, strength of material, and
Dimensions Bridge, carry-over to ideas about people, places, events, social
status, scale, significance and moods. Contrarily ideas of pomp, pageant,
royalty translate into techniques producing large scale, great height,
decorations, symbols, etc. 1.2.2/1.2.3 Conduit
of City-wide metaphor: Geometry of urban blocks and the location of
building masses that reflect one anther is a scheme to sharply define the
volume and mass of the city block and experience of city streets (Vincent
Scully). In New York City the grid and this insistence on buildings reflecting
the geometry of the grid is a metaphor of city-wide proportions.
The streets are defined by the 90
degree corners, planes and tightness of the cubes and rectangles to the city
plan. In this way the metaphor of the overall and each building design no mater
where it’s location on the block; no matter when or in what sequence the
metaphoric constraint of appropriateness or zoning formulas, all lead the ideas
to flow from one to another architect. Furthermore, the reader is able to
“appreciate” (to attach importance to a thing because of its worth) the street,
its geometry, limits and linearity as an idea on the 1.2.2/1.2.3 conduit from the architect, through the metaphor and
to the reader. In formulating the architectural program with all its general
and specific dimensions the architect summons his technical knowledge
conditioning the clients stated requirements to determine site selection,
budget, building program, financing, construction applicable government
regulations traffic, transportation and utility availabilities. At this stage both
the technical and conceptual of each metaphor of each must be articulated,
valued and their implications to each other determined. Financial access, value
and importance must be determined both by itself as what Weiss calls a 1.4.11
“emphatic
against the sky”.
How will
the financing affect the budget and the budget affect achieving the program’s
goal. The admixture of financial, budget and business planning all inform one another
as well as the other technical and conceptual process.
At work is
technical knowledge and abilities in banking, book keeping, estimating,
budgeting, construction contact cash flows, etc. All of these to establish the
very money available to program, plan and design. Yet establishing the cost
relative to the type of project, location, and context tests the interaction of
concept to technique and proving just one of the conditions of the program as well as the value of the
ideal and the extent to which operational and building goals can be achieved. The
technical metaphor contains conceptual metaphors and their combination informs
the conceptual metaphors of the each subsequent metaphor and their sub-metaphors.
Each is bridge, each expresses one thing in terms of the other and each expresses
itself in terms of another. An estimated bill of quantities will be expressed
as a budget, a bank loan as a draw schedule, etc.
Second: Prioritizing where one comes before the
other.
1.11.2
“In
principle, three steps, recognition, reconstruction, and interpretation, must
be taken in understating metaphors, although the simplest instance the
processing may occur so rapidly that all three blend into a single mental act.”
When we face a new metaphor (building) a new context with its own vocabulary is
presented, one which the creator must find and connect and the other which the
reader must read and transfer from previous experience.
Axiom IV. .9.0 Architecture shapes the culture. Building
shapes and forms tend to reflect common geometry; building types tend to share
common facilities; building code use designations influence the selection of
applicable code requirements, architecture, forming clusters and community
spaces create opportunities for neighborhood identity and nurturing cultural
identity. 1.3“It's a strange thought,
that culture is a product of man-made, unnatural things, that instead of
culture shaping the architecture, architecture shapes the culture. I. Parte, model and concept: After
assimilating the program in the process of making a habitable conceptual
metaphor, the very first step in the design process is to develop a “parte’ as 3.0 (presumptive) resolutions
of the argument.
It is a “top-down” approach later
followed by designs which meet the parte.
Alternatively, the parte may follow
the design process and be presented to defend the design.
The 1.1 generative metaphor is “carrying –over” perspectives from one
domain of experience to another where you build one thing in terms of another
where the other is the model, and, what you build is the application, the model
being the “ideal” of the proposed design. While architects may initially state
an ideal, it most likely evolves and even radically changes by the time the
design process yields an architectural configuration (building
manifestation).
Once achieved the “parte”
(concept/gestalt) manifests and can be articulated.
“Form follows function” is such an order of priority where
architect first organizes the operations of the program prior to shaping the
building. It also implies that the ultimate form will somehow reflect the operations
and function of the building.
Third: Sequencing
where the first dominates the second.
Just the evolution of a design, deciding
on what to build, where, how and then assembling the team each affects the
other. Project managers schedule process which may continue in parallel with
others while others are critical to the overall and the next step occurring.
Making an architectural metaphor
with out an agreed program can be both expensive, disappointing and result in a
metaphor which is neither compatible to the metaphoric expectation of the
users, within the limits of the finance and a nightmare to the contractor. To
one degree or another is the subject of why there are so many “change orders” during
the course of the design and constitution process because the first metaphor
was incomplete, not comprehensive and not coordinated. The affect of the first
on the second is pronounced. Where as a well conceived and approved program
including all the technical and conceptual metaphors will only lead to the perfect
start of a controlled design process. A process which begins with a parte, schematic,
preliminary and then final design. The technical metaphor of the allocation of
spaces, building materials, and building systems all was being coordinated with
the cost of construction and building schedules. Metaphorically the value of
the design meeting the budget is dominates the conceptual as a parameter to
manifest the metaphor as a building.
A design which begins with line drawing allocation,
organizing functions as well as sketches of the possible building
configuration, once agreed can be overlaid and developed into more detailed
technical ideas and conceptualizations of the metaphor until the architects and
the owners agree on one acceptable metaphor.
1.13.8
“Central to the mapping process is the principle of “systematicity: people
prefer to map systems of predicates favored by higher-order relations with
inferential import (the Arab tent), rather that to map isolated predicates. The
systematicity principle reflects a tacit preference for coherence and
inferential power in interpreting analogy”.
1.13.9“No
extraneous associations: only commonalities strengthen an analogy. Further
relations and associations between the base and target- for example, thematic consecutions-
do not contribute to the analogy.”
Axiom V. .9.0 Metaphor is a mental image. 1.4 Metaphor maps the structure of one domain onto the structure of another”. 1.4.1 for example, the “superimposition of the image of an hour glass onto the image of a
woman’s waist by virtue of their common shape”.
As before the metaphor is
conceptual; it is not the works themselves, but the mental images. In this case
metaphor is a mental image. “Each metaphorical mapping preserves image-schema
structure:”
In acting it is called a” handle”
where your whole character’s peculiarity is remember by one acting device
(accent, slang, twang, wiggle, walk, snort, etc) ;in architecture the
building’s roof top, cladding, silhouette, interior finishes, lighting,
gargoyles, entrance, rounded corners, etc.
If the facade of a building is
designed in one order of architecture you can presume the other parts are in
like arrangements where the whole may be of that same order including its’ plan, section and
details because of mapping and channeling one idea from one level to
another.
Frank Lloyd Wright designed his
prairie architecture with dominant horizontal axis thrust to his structure as
common to the horizontal axis of the land upon which the building sat. In geometrical formal parts of an
architectural metaphor we note those common elements where fit, coupling and
joints occur.
Forth: Interactive
Chain where the technical begets the conceptual begets the technical and so
forth.
1.4.13
A conceptual system contains thousands of conventional metaphorical mappings
which form a highly structured subsystem of the conceptual system. Over the year’s society, cultures, families
and individuals experience and store a plethora of mapping routines which are
part of society’s mapping vocabulary. As a potential user, when encountering a
new building-type, such as a hi-tech manufacturing center, we call upon our
highly structured subsystem to find conceptual systems which will work to
navigate this particular event.
1.4.11 Architecture as a surrogate is accepted
at face value. As a surrogate (a work of architecture) is "a
replacement that is used as a means for transmitting benefits from a context in
which its’ user may not be a part”, architecture’s metaphor bridge from the
program, designs and contractors to a shelter and trusted habitat. The user
enters and occupies the habitat with him having formulated but not articulated
any of its characteristics. Yet it works.
1.4.11 “It makes sense, therefore, to speak
of :
a. Two sides to a surrogate, the
user side and the context side (from which the user is absent or unable to
function). “Each of us uses others to achieve a benefit for ourselves. “We have
that ability”.
b. “None of us is just a person, a
lived body, or just an organism; we are all three and more. We are singulars
who own and express ourselves in and through them. As Weiss proclaims
c. that we cannot separate these three from each other so that it follows
that we may find it impossible to separate us from the external metaphors.
Inferences that are not yet warranted can be real even before we have the
evidence.
d. Metaphors are accepted at face value and architecture is accepted at
face value. Accustomed to surrogates architecture is made by assuming these
connections are real and have benefit. Until they are built and used we trust
that they will benefit the end user. Assembling the ambulatory we assume the
occupancy, frequency and destinations. We each are surrogates to one another
yet fitted into one message. When this passage had been used as read as had
been other passages, corridors and links.
e. Like a linguistic, the building stands, like a
great, stone dagger, 1.4.11 emphatic against
the sky. The stair, the exit, the space
calls, gives emphasis and is strongly expressive.
Fifth: Triangulation where the technical and the
conceptual combine and form a single cognition containing the characteristics
of both technical and conceptual.
1.5.4
Metaphor is in the mind: So while architecture
is the making of metaphors and architects
are making metaphors, their works, though metaphoric, are not themselves
the metaphors but the shadow of the metaphor which exists elsewhere in the
minds of both the creator and the user, and, it is there that the creator and
the user may have a commonality (not commonplace). Ideally, if one designs
one’s own house, decorates one’s own room there will likely be that
commonality. If an architect is selected from a particular neighborhood his
metaphor will likely be sympathetic (common) to the culture of the area. Or, a
concerted effort on the part of the design team to assemble the relevant and
commonplace information.
1.5.5
Architects make a spatial representation
in which local subspaces can be mapped into points of higher-order hyper-spaces
and vice versa is possible because they have a common set of dimensions.
Architects organize broad categories of operations and their subsets seeing
that they are different from each others so as to warrant a separate group and
that their subsets fit because they have common operational, functional
conditions, operations, models and object is. Hotel front and back-of-the-house
operations; Hospital surgical from outpatient and both from administration and
offices are obvious sets and subsets.
Sixth: Co-mingling of vocabulary between technical
and conceptual
Stratification and leveling where either the conceptual or
the technical characteristics simultaneously exist on separate levels.
A. Diagonal association may occur
between conceptual and technical on different levels as a technical on one
level finding commonality with conceptual on another level.
1.10.1”
A metaphor involves a nonliteral use of language”. The building design and the
program cannot be a perfect mapping. A non-literal use of language means that
what is said is to have an affect and but may not be specific. At each moment in its use the metaphor may
mean different things, least of which may be any intended by its authors.
Axiom XIV. Elegant architectural metaphors are those in which the big
idea and the smallest of details echo and reinforce one another. Contemporary
architects wrapping their parte in
“green”, “myths” and eclectic images” are no less guilty than was their
predecessors of the Bauhaus exuding asymmetry, tension and dissonance as were the
classics and renaissance insisting on unity, symmetry and balance. The
architect’s parte and the user’s grasp of cliché parte were expected and
easy “fill-in” proving the learned mappings, learned inference trail and
familiarity with bridging.
1.5.1 People
ascertain the deep metaphor that underlies one or more surface metaphors by
filling in terms of an implicit analogy”. A unique building metaphor may be
reckoned by its apparent similarity to another from a previous experience. As a
grain silo is to a methane gas plant and to oil tank storage; what may be
implicit are the shapes, appurtenances, and locations.
1.5.2
We see the architectural metaphor, we read its extent, we synapse, analogies
and metaphorize absorbing its information, contextualizing and as much as
possible resurrecting its reasons for creation.
The architectural metaphor only speaks through its apparent shape, form,
volume, space, material, etc that the concepts which underlie each are known to
the user as they would to a painting, poem, or concerto.
1.5.3
Architecture is often more suggestive and trusting rather than being pedantic;
it leads and directs circulation, use recognition while abstracting shapes and
forms heretofore unknown, but
ergonometric. Furthermore as
observation, analysis and use fill in the
gaps users inference the locations of concealed rooms, passages and
supports; the user infers from a typology of the type a warehouse of
expectations and similes to this metaphor from others. In this way there are
the perceived and the representations they perceive which represents when
explored and inert what we call beautiful, pleasurable and wonderful. Upon
entering a traditional church in any culture we anticipate finding a common
vocabulary of vestibule, baptistery, pews, chancel, and choir area including
transepts, chapels, statuary, altar, apse, sacristy, ambulatory and side
altars.
1.8.1
A “problem of the metaphor concerns the
relations between the means of expression and design meaning, on the one hand,
and architect’s meaning or sketch meaning, on the other” “Whenever we talk about the metaphorical
meaning of a word, expression, or sentence, we are talking about what a speaker
might utter it to mean, in a way it that departs from what the word, expression
or sentence actually means”.
1.8.2
a. What are the principles which relate built design meaning to metaphorical design
meaning” where one is comprehensive, complete and coordinated while the other
is merely an incomplete scanty indication of a non specific.
1.8.3 How does on thing remind us of
another? The basic principle of an
expression with its literal meaning and corresponding truth-conditions can, in
various ways that are specific to the metaphor, call to mind another meaning
and corresponding set of truths”. Unlike a legal brief, specification and
engineering document a work of architecture with all its metaphors tolerates
variety of interpretations, innuendo and diverse translations. Building owners are asked to translate a two
dimensional set of drawings ass fulfilling their design requirements to what
might eventually be built.
Post script
In another time when kingdoms
created their dynasty’s iconic buildings, the architect and artisans took their
ques from the reigning monarch. In our modern pluralistic society the free
reign of ideas and opinions as to contexts and their meanings are diverse. As
the doctor takes the Hippocratic oath, the lawyer vows to defend all so there
is one whose call is to capture the ethos (4.0
The Oxford English Dictionary, is
defined as "the characteristic spirit, prevalent tone of sentiment, of a
people or community” ) of his time into built metaphors, he is called
architect.
Not only is my childhood quest
relevant but the essence of the responsibility of today’s architect who not
only reasons the technical but individually reasons the conceptual. It is to
the architect that society turns to be informed about the shape and form of the
context in which life will be played. With this charge the need to know that we know and do by reasoning
what science verifies by the scientific method to know that we know about the buildings, parks, and places we set
into the environment.
It is a public and private charge
included in the contract for professional services but unspoken as professional
life’s experience; to prove the relevant, meaningful and beneficial metaphors
that edify encourage and equip society as well as provide for its’ health, safety
and welfare. So it is critical to realize, control and accept as commonplace
that the role of the architect is to do much more than build but build masterfully.
Citations listed alphabetically:
Boyd, Richard; 1.14.0
Conrad, Ulrich; 1.3
Fraser, Bruce; 1.10.0
Gentner, Dedre ;
1.13.0
Gibbs,
Jr., Raymond W.; 1.9.0
Glucksberg,
Sam; 1.12.0
Jeziorski, Michael; 1.13.0
Kuhn, Thomas S.; 1.15.0
Keysar,
Boaz; 1.12.0
Lakoff, George;
1.4
Mayer,
Richard E.; 1.17.0
Miller,
George A.; 1.11.0
Nigro, Georgia;
1.5.0
Ortony,Andrew;1.0
Oshlag,
Rebecca S.; 1.18.0
Petrie,
Hugh G; 1.18.0
Pylyshyn, Zeon W.; 1.16.0
Reddy.
Michael J.; 1.2
Rumelhart, David E.; 1.7.0
Sadock, Jerrold M.; 1.6.0
Schon, Donald A. ; 1.1
Searle, John R.; 1.8.0
Sternberg,
Robert J.; 1.5.0
Thomas
G. Sticht; 1.19.0
Tourangeau,
Roger; 1.5.0
Weiss,Paul; 1.4.11
 |
| Gibe by Barie Fez-Barringten |
Footnotes:
1.0 Metaphor and Thought: Second Edition
Edited by Andrew Ortony: School of Education and social
Sciences and
Institute for the learning Sciences: North Western
University
Published by Cambridge University Press
First pub: 1979
Second pub: 1993
1.1 Generative metaphor: A perspective on
problem-setting in social policy: by Donald A. Schon
1.2 The conduit
metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language: by Michael
J. Reddy.
1.3 In Programs and Manifestoes on 20th-Century
Architecture about Glasarchitektur Ulrich Conrad'
1.4 The contemporary
theory of metaphor by George Lakoff
1.4.11 "Surrogates," published by Indiana
University Press. By Paul Weiss
1.5.0 Metaphor, induction, and social policy: The
convergence of macroscopic and microscopic views by Robert J. Sternberg, Roger
Tourangeau, and Georgia Nigro
1.6.0 Figurative
speech and linguistics by Jerrold M. Sadock
1.7.0 Some problems
with the emotion of literal meanings by David E. Rumelhart
1.8.0 Metaphor by John
R. Searle
Section on “Metaphor and Representation”:
1.9.0 Process and
products in making sense of tropes by Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr.
1.10.0 Interpretation
of novel metaphors by Bruce Fraser
1.11.0 Images and models,
similes and metaphors by George A. Miller
1.12.0 How metaphors
work by Sam Glucksberg and Boaz Keysar
1.13.0 In the Metaphor
and Science section of the book: The
shift from metaphor to analogy in Western science by Dedre Gentner and Michael
Jeziorski
1.14.0 Metaphor and theory change: What is”
metaphor” a metaphor for? By Richard Boyd
1.15.0 Metaphor in science by Thomas S. Kuhn
1.16.0 Metaphorical imprecision and the “top
down” research strategy by Zeon W. Pylyshyn
Zenon W. Pylyshyn is Board of Governors Professor of
Cognitive Science at Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science. He is the author of Seeing
and Visualizing: It's Not what You Think (2003) and Computation and
Cognition: toward a Foundation for Cognitive Science (1984), both published
by The MIT Press, as well as over a hundred scientific papers on perception,
attention, and the computational theory of mind.
Metaphor and Education
is the final section:
Readers may
wish to review my monograms on Schools
and Metaphors (Main Currents in Modern Thought/Center for
Integrative Education Sep.-Oct. 1971, Vol. 28 No.1, New Rochelle, New York
and The
Metametaphor of architectural education", (North Cypress, Turkish University. December, 1997)
1.17.0 The instructive metaphor: Metaphoric
aids to students’ understanding of science by Richard E. Mayer
1.18.0 Metaphor and learning by Hugh G Petrie
and Rebecca S. Oshlag
1.19.0 Educational uses of metaphor by Thomas
G. Sticht
References:
A. 3.0 “Argumentation: The Study of Effective
Reasoning, 2nd Edition; by Professor Dr. David Zarefsky of Northwestern
University and published by The Teaching Company, 2005 of Chantilly, Virginia
B # =Wikopedia on the www.
C. 4.0 WWW
D. 5.0 “Difference and
Identity”: 4.0 Gilles Deleuze
(French pronunciation: [ʒil
dəløz]), (18 January
1925 – 4 November 1995) was a French philosopher of the late 20th century.
Deleuze's main philosophical project in his early works (i.e., those prior to
his collaborations with Guattari) can be baldly summarized as a systematic
inversion of the traditional metaphysical
relationship between identity and
difference.
Traditionally, difference is seen as
derivative from identity: e.g., to say that "X is different from Y"
assumes some X and Y with at least relatively stable identities. To the
contrary, Deleuze claims that all identities are effects of difference. Identities are neither
logically nor metaphysically prior to difference, does Deleuze argue,
"given that there are differences of nature between things of the same
genus." That is, not only are no two things ever the same, the categories
we use to identify individuals in the first place derive from differences.
Apparent identities such as "X" are composed of endless series of
differences, where "X" = "the difference between x and x'",
and "x" = "the difference between...” and so forth. Difference goes all the way down. To
confront reality honestly, Deleuze claims, we must grasp beings exactly as they
are, and concepts of identity (forms, categories, resemblances, unities of
apperception, predicates, etc.) fail to attain difference in itself. "If philosophy has a positive and direct
relation to things, it is only insofar as philosophy claims to grasp the thing
itself, according to what it is, in its difference
from everything it is not, in other words, in its internal difference."
In analyzing a metaphor we
ask: “What are its commonalities and
significant differences and what are
the characteristics common to both”.
E. 6.0 Webster’s standard dictionary
G. 8.0 The
Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: a perspective from Chinese by Ning Yu
H. 9.0 Axiom Roman
Numeral references: Metaphor’s
Architectural Axioms monograph by Barie Fez-Barringten
I. Art is the intentional and skillful act and/or product
applying a technique and differs from natural but pleasing behaviors and useful
or decorative products in their intent and application of a developed technique
and skill with that technique. Art is not limited to fields, persons or
institutions as science, government, security, architecture, engineering,
administration, construction, design, decorating, sports, etc. On the other
hand in each there are both natural and artistic where metaphors (conceptual
and/technical) make the difference, art is something perfected and well done in
that field. For example, the difference between an artistic copy and the
original is the art of originality and authorship in that it documents a
creative process lacking in the copy.
Researched Publications: Refereed and
Peer-reviewed Journals: "monographs":
Barie Fez-Barringten; Associate professor Global University
1. "Architecture the making of metaphors"
Main Currents in Modern Thought/Center for
Integrative Education; Sep.-Oct. 1971, Vol. 28 No.1, New Rochelle, New York.
2."Schools and metaphors"
Main Currents in Modern Thought/Center for
Integrative Education Sep.-Oct. 1971, Vol. 28 No.1, New Rochelle, New York.
3."User's metametaphoric phenomena of
architecture and Music":
“METU” (Middle East Technical
University: Ankara, Turkey): May 1995"
Journal of the
Faculty of Architecture
4."Metametaphors and Mondrian:
Neo-plasticism and its' influences in
architecture" 1993 Available on Academia.edu since
2008
5. "The Metametaphor of architectural education",
North Cypress, Turkish University. December, 1997
6."Mosques and metaphors" Unpublished,1993
7."The basis of the metaphor of
Arabia" Unpublished,
1994
8."The conditions of Arabia in
metaphor" Unpublished, 1994
9. "The metametaphor theorem"
Architectural
Scientific Journal, Vol. No. 8; 1994 Beirut Arab University.
10. "Arabia’s metaphoric images" Unpublished, 1995
11."The context of Arabia in metaphor" Unpublished, 1995
12. "A partial metaphoric vocabulary of Arabia"
“Architecture: University of
Technology in Datutop; February 1995 Finland
13."The Aesthetics of the Arab architectural
metaphor"
“International Journal for Housing
Science and its applications” Coral Gables, Florida.1993
14."Multi-dimensional metaphoric
thinking"
Open House, September 1997: Vol. 22;
No. 3, United Kingdom: Newcastle uponTyne
15."Teaching the techniques of making
architectural metaphors in the twenty-first century.” Journal of King Abdul Aziz University Engg...Sciences; Jeddah: Code:
BAR/223/0615:OCT.2.1421 H. 12TH
EDITION; VOL. I and
“Transactions” of
Cardiff University, UK. April 2010
16. “Word Gram #9” Permafrost: Vol.31 Summer 2009 University of Alaska Fairbanks;
ISSN: 0740-7890; page 197
17. "Metaphors
and Architecture." ArchNet.org. October, 2009.at MIT
18. “Metaphor as an
inference from sign”; University of Syracuse
Journal of
Enterprise Architecture; November 2009: and nomnated architect of the year in
speical issue of Journal of Enterprise Architecture.Explainging the unique
relationship between enterprise and classic building architecture.
19. “Framing the art
vs. architecture argument”; Brunel University (West London); BST: Vol. 9
no. 1: Body, Space & Technology
Journal: Perspectives Section
20. “Urban Passion”:
October 2010; Reconstruction &
“Creation”; June 2010; by C.
Fez-Barringten; http://reconstruction.eserver.org/;
21. “An architectural
history of metaphors”: AI & Society: (Journal of human-centered and
machine intelligence) Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Communication: Pub:
Springer; London; AI & Society located in University of Brighton, UK;
AI & Society. ISSN
(Print) 1435-5655 - ISSN (Online) 0951-5666 : Published by Springer-Verlag;; 6 May 2010 http://www.springerlink.com/content/j2632623064r5ljk/
Paper copy: AIS Vol. 26.1. Feb. 2011; Online ISSN 1435-5655; Print ISSN
0951-5666;
DOI 10.1007/s00146-010-0280-8; :
Volume 26, Issue 1 (2011), Page
103.
22. “Does Architecture
Create Metaphors?; G.Malek; Cambridge; August 8,2009
Pgs 3-12 (4/24/2010)
23. “Imagery or
Imagination”:the role of metaphor in architecture:Ami Ran (based on
Architecture:the making of metaphors); :and Illustration:”A Metaphor of
Passion”:Architecture oif Israel 82.AI;August2010pgs.83-87.
24. “The soverign
built metaphor”: monograph converted to Power Point for presentation to
Southwest Florida Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. 2011
25.“Architecture:the
making of metaphors”:The Book;
 |
| Book cover design by Barie Fez-Barringten |
12 Back Chapman Street
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE6 2XX
United Kingdom
Edited
by
Edward Richard Hart,
0/2 249 Bearsden Road
Glasgow
G13 1DH
UK
