In Praise of Shadows: Junichiro Tanizaki
In this essay Tanizaki goes into great detail regarding the
differences between Western Architecture (and culture) and that of the Far
East. The theme of the essay seemed to be comparing the modern movements search
for clarity and light, with the Eastern philosophy he described as having a
more tranquil effect. This is a difficult essay to digest, and the version I am
reading appears to be a translated version, so some of the word usage may just
be wonky translations. I find myself agreeing with much of what is described in
the essay in theory, though maybe not in practice. And in all honesty, I think
the major reason is just cultural differences. I love the use of wood and the
ability of wood to give character to a space or object. I also sympathize with
his struggles when doing projects in his own house (which I am assuming is in
Japan). He faced many of the same issues that I faced recently in my own
renovation. The essay to me was a little too focused on Japanese architecture,
but I was able to peel some ideas from it. He describes the balancing act in
much the same way I would have described my talks with the contractor doing the
work on my house. There were some very elegant details which I wanted to
include, similar to Tanizaki’s yearning for a wooden toilet (elegant? Maybe).
In order to get the visual representation he would have wanted, he would need
to spend a large amount of money on the high quality wood and to make it
work, or he would have to customize the standard toilet so much as to cheapen
the original idea. In architecture this is always the balancing game that we
play. How much of our personal ego/culture can we reasonably put into the work
without it being pretentious? The title “In Praise of Shadows” seems to turn a
cold shoulder to the modern trend of providing light and clarity at first
glance. However, as I read into it more, I felt that the author was more or
less struggling with the fact that the easily available methods and materials
of today were so westernized that they did not mend well with his own culture.
For example he needed to make so many compromises on materiality and aesthetics
simply because it wasn’t available at “home depot”. His focus seems to me to
try and celebrate some of the lesser perceived experiences and how sometimes
lack of light (or maybe more so, abundance of shade) may actually create a
better space than an arbitrary abundance of light provided just for the sake of
light. Take for instance his explanation of how the restroom is experienced. It
is always in a separate building, and is usually open to the sky and surrounded
by greenery and wood grained walls. This is a stark contrast to how western
restrooms are. Typically everything is shiny tile so that it is easy to clean.
Everything is white and bright so that the room appears clean and dirtiness is
immediately apparent. He compares this contrast in an interesting way. He
explains how it would be indecent for a woman to show her bare buttocks or feet
in the presence of others, yet we “expose the toilet to such execessive
illumination” He goes on to explain that some things are better left hazy. In
that light, he seems to have a point…
Thermal Delight In Architecture: Lisa Heschong
This article describes the conundrum that is the human need
to alter the temperature of our dwellings to be almost opposite what the actual
temperature outdoors is. Liking the cool weather myself, I have always been
intrigued by this practice. We very closely try to make the summer time feel
like winter, and the winter time feel like summer. It is absolutely fascinating
and weird, and also extremely expensive and complex. The article starts off
describing the sense of touch and how it is really different from the other
senses as it pertains to the feeling of warmth or cooling. The example of two
objects both at the same room temperature is relevant to our designs because
take for instance a piece of wood and a piece of metal. Both are the same
temperature, but when you pick them both up at the same time the metal feels
cooler because you are aware of the transfer of heat from your hand to the
metal. This is an interesting concept, and helps explain why architects will
describe wood as warmer than metal, even in a visual sense. I wonder if this is
an underlying internal concept we have come to learn from our sensory
perception of the world around us, and now as a result we express those
materials in our designs differently.
The Craftsmen – Arousing Tools: Richard Sennett
I read the chapter on Arousing Tools. In this chapter Sennet
describes tools in two ways; difficult tools that are not good enough (ie the
lens) and tools that work well, but which people have a problem inferring the
best use (ie the scalpel). The lens was a huge jump in science and as we
perfected our techniques and invented the micro and tele-scopes we learned how
inadequate the lenses of the times were. As you were able to magnify the image,
it became harder to discern the difference between a distant star and a pit in
the glass lens. So the tool that we transformed the use for (from eyeglass
lenses to telescope lenses) now was inadequate to perform the new task. The
concept of the tool was not changing, but the tool itself was not right. So the
methods of creating the lens got better and we learned to make them for the
correct task. The other example given
was of the scalpel. This is a tool that works well, but needs expertise to use.
A layperson off the street would have a difficult time performing the same
quality of surgery that a doctor with years of precision training would do. The
surgeons training would teach him to use the tool, and rather than using the
arm and shoulder muscles to apply force, more attention was focused on the
fingers. This is a long way of introducing his over arching idea in the book
regarding the hand. This debate is interesting and has manifested it in our
class last semester with the restriction of the use of Revit for designing. His
concept in the book is that our minds have evolved for such a long time based
on the use of our digits and our hands. There is something different about using
your hand and fingers to create in the same way that our bodies have been doing
for eons. The act of grasping an object, feeling its weight and applying
pressure in very precise and specific amounts to achieve a certain line weight
or type on a drawing arouses certain areas of the brain that aren’t aroused in
the same way if you were drawing the same lines but using a mouse. This concept was clearly explained to all of
us during design principles. The idea of getting in the Right-Brained mode took
time to kick in. When you first begin drawing, you are not in the mode. It
takes time for the mind to catch up to the task at hand and once you begin to
focus, your brain switches into the creative mode and you generally experience
the “in the zone” concept where you can lose complete track of time,
surroundings, and other tasks. While I do agree that this concept is valid, I
would also like to submit a counter point for discussion. I have noticed a
shift in that type of mentality in my writing. As a younger student I used to
love creative writing, and always hand wrote stories. With the introduction of
the computer into my life, my writing style changed. As I began to use the
computer every day and typing being the main thing it was used for, my writing
ability shifted from being able to hand write out stories to needing the
computer to get my creativity flowing. Anyone else feel similarly that writing
using the computer seems to flow much better than when trying to hand write out
thoughts or concepts?
