mankind inhabits nature, nature inhabits mankind

Since the diagrams don't show up too well, I'll describe my intentions for this project a little bit. As the title suggests, I believe there is a dual or symbiotic relationship between man and nature - but only to a degree. Man can gain a great deal studying nature in part or in whole, and the more contact man has with nature the more he understands nature and has the properties of the natural world influencing his thoughts - and actions toward the natural world. Likewise, nature can be made more suitable for human inhabitation, and in this sense improved as far as its suitability for human habitability is concerned. Mankind ultimately determines the nature of this relationship since he possesses a will, and nature is subject to the rules that govern its growth and propogation. Ultimately, mankind can gain an understanding of the physical properties of nature, and a clue to the greater governing laws of the universe, but cannot sharpen his will merely by this study. He must understand that the will dwells above nature, and is governed only by a will greater than his own. This project seeks to give mankind an opportunity to see nature in these different ways. First, on the ground level, is a necessary and intriguing element of shelter and study. Lessons are there for distilling as nature dominates. As mankind progresses to the upper level, he takes a route that gives glimpses of nature in a more exposes fashion, in this case mankind is pushing his limits of comfort, as he sees nature in a more direct way. The uppel level allows mankind and nature to cohabitate the same space in a way beneficial to both. Mankind realizes both the benefit of his natural surroundings, and the dominance of his will over it, but also ultimately his need to utilize nature in a wat that preserves it for his, and its, benefit.

Whew, maybe that makes some sense? Anyway, my question is wide open, but related to this topic: Where does mankind fit in the relationship between the governed and governor? Feel free to answer in any way you feel is appropriate.

The Color of Habitation

Color Theory is the study of the properties of color and the development of a taxonomic system of color. Color theory develops clarifying concepts such as hue, value, tone, and intensity. It also establishes clear relationships among types of colors, which then offer predefined techniques by which colors can be modified and controlled. Color theory is pure science, yet it acts as an important foundation for the work of virtually every serious painter. Doesn't this inevitably destroy the mystery and wonder of the act of painting, which is vital to painting as a creative pursuit? No. It destroys the mystery and wonder not of painting, but of paint. It identifies and clarifies the nature of paint as a substance (along with any other mixable, colored substance), which reveals non-obvious things about its nature, which are vital for painters to know in order to have full control of their medium. Knowing color theory does not turn painting into a formulaic process, it opens up new creative territory, which painters would otherwise struggle to see.

Habitation Theory is the study of the properties of human action and the development of a taxonomic system of human action. Habitation theory develops clarifying concepts such as movement, access, boundary, and threshold. It also establishes clear relationships among types of human activities, which then offer predefined techniques by which human activities can be modified and controlled. Habitation theory is pure science, yet it acts as an important foundation for the work of virtually every serious designer. Doesn't this inevitably destroy the mystery and wonder of the act of designing, which is vital to architecture as a creative pursuit? No. It destroys the mystery and wonder not of designing, but of human activity. It identifies and clarifies the nature of human activity as a substance, which reveals non-obvious things about its nature, which are vital for designers to know in order to have full control of their medium. Knowing habitation theory does not turn designing into a formulaic process, it opens up new ways of life for inhabitants, which designers would otherwise struggle to see.

Studying Human Habitation

In her response to Ted’s recent post, Jessie says: “This is perhaps why I have such a problem with the "simplicity" of this next project 4: You can never separate yourself from experience or from the outside city world while considering an active and passive life. Nothing is so simple that it can be expressed without reaction to other things, or be isolated from psychology or personal history.”

Regarding narrowness of the exercise: Many folks are probably feeling the same way. It is a very narrow exercise, isn’t it? (Well, not really. I hope you will discover ultimately that it is not narrow at all.) What does narrowness imply in a studio exercise? It could indicate a desire in a teacher to restrict creativity and experimentation. Well, I certainly don’t want to do that. Narrowness can also arise from a desire in a teacher to help students see something they normally take for granted. In this case “narrowness” is a preconception, one that the teacher hopes to help students overcome. Consider for example Project 1. The material study often seems very narrow to students at first – an extremely constrained exercise. But once students engage the exploration, they realize that the role of materiality in architecture is far broader and deeper and filled with vastly more creative potential than they had previously assumed. A new realm of creativity is opened, and what seemed narrow reveals its vastness.

Regarding the city: Is it true that we pursue the active life or the contemplative life only when out-and-about in town? Why would such pursuit be limited only to an urban context? Why can’t a person engage in active doing or in focused contemplating while inside one’s own abode or workplace? If this fundamental aspect of life (doing or contemplating) is limited to the outside of architecture, then what is left to the inside? It seems that the inside would be in danger of becoming irrelevant. I hope for the sake of everyone that inhabits architecture that the inside – the stage for the vast majority of human activity – has the capacity to influence the active life and the contemplative life. We sure need it to.

Regarding context: It is true that in order to act, we must act in a context, which I think is part of what Jessie is trying to say. The outside world (i.e., the city) provides part of this context, but not all of it. A person’s psychology and personal history also provides part of this context, but not all of it. Project 4 asks you to consider part of the context that is normally overlooked, neglected by designers as too narrow, too mundane. The context of Project 4 is a person’s interaction with the material framework of architecture – its walls, doors, windows, floors and ceilings. But more precisely: the question is how this material framework filters and constructs a person’s interaction with his own work (Scenario A), other people (Scenario B) or the natural surroundings (Scenario C). Each of these is in fact a crucial part of the context of human habitation.