Architectures psychic sensibility

8/12/2019 Architectures psychic sensibility

1/13

Mathew Girling1

AR538 - CultureArchitectures psychic sensibility


2/13

Mathew Girling2

IntroductionEver since the modern movement got onto its feet, questions have been

asked about what it stands on (Ockman, 1993, p.227). The opening line ofJohn Summersons celebrated essay, The Case for a Theory of Modern Architecture(1957) illustrates how architects have endeavoured to discover an ideallanguage. Colin St John WilsonsArchitectural Reections(1992) illustrates theimportance of what Alvar Aalto depicts as the invisible ultra violet eld...where the rationally indenable requirements are hidden (Wilson, 1992,

p.42). Summersons and Wilsons philosophical debates will be used as atheoretical framework to elucidate my position that rstly there is no monisticarchitectural language, rather I favour the pluralistic idea that there are manywhich are interlinked. And secondly it must be said that the sensibilitiesgenerated through experiencing architecture are recurring. Therefore anyarchitectural proposition - meaning any intention by the architect to stimulatea particular psychological response - will have the same psychologicalstructure if they are to create the same sensibility, since the upholdingstructure is isomorphic with the sensibility.

John SummersonBefore proposing my position in architecture, I will interpret both texts

mentioned above.The 1957 article in the RIBA journal surmised of an architectural theorythat would be a statement of related ideas resting on a philosophicalconception of the nature of architecture (Ockman, 1993, p.228) - found in theMediterranean concepts of reason and antiquity. Summersons compactedtheory of reason takes us from the antique (a world of form) to theprogramme (a local fragment of social paern) of the modernists in the early20th century (Vidler, 2011, p.106).

Hitherto architecture had been occupied with formal imitation and it wasthe gures of antiquity which provided the authority which the architectreferenced. Subsequently we are presented with the question of what

the modern principia is: where, if not antique forms, or some equivalentsubstitute, is the source of unity (Ockman, 1993, p.230)? In responseSummerson alludes to the program as the source of unity ... a descriptionof... spatial relationships... required for the convenient performance ofspecic functions (Ockman, 1993, p.230) as the one new principle in modernarchitecture.

The dilemma Summerson identied as nave functionalism was howto translate such ideas in the programme into a suitable form. The cruxof the problem arose from the rst Congrs International dArchitecture

Moderne (CIAM) meeting in 1929. Le Corbusier proposed a mathematicalsystem of control, not of expression (Ockman, 1993, p.235), overlooking thatarchitecture is in fact realized through imitation, prudence and practice - asWigenstein postulates: when all possible scientic questions have beenanswered the problems of life remain completely untouched (Sluga, 2011,p.17).

Summerson presents Lszl Moholy-Nagy, of the Bauhaus, to encapsulatea new paradigm and advance the functionalist concept of the programme.

Moholy says: architecture will be brought to its fullest realization onlywhen the deepest knowledge of human life... is available (Ockman, 1993,p.232). This presents a new theory which would t the biological (let us saypsychophysical) needs of man like a glove (Ockman, 1993, p.232) and openedfunctionalism into the broader spectrum of psychology to which SandyWilson repeatedly alludes to in the Architectural Reections.

Colin St. John WilsonWilson analogises the nature of Summersons programme with Watson

and Cricks 1953 DNA model and with the recent discovery of a second codehiding within DNA (Seiler, 2013) again it appears to be an apt analogy todistinguish the pluralistic nature of architecture.

For Wilson the rst strand embodies the pragmatic concepts required for abuilding to solely full its function; which a conventional functionalist wouldinterpret as constraints to be solved independently. Isolating the functions inthis mathematical approach overlooks the overlapping resemblances of eachfunction. As Wigenstein points out, it goes without saying that... everythingwe observe around us... interconnected in so many ways will play a part inhis(mans) thinking (Sluga, 2011, p.159) - he recognises a diversity of world-views linked from the very beginning by a complex network of similarities.Together they represent a shared human form of life, we might continue tosay that we also share similar psychological states and sensibilities, perhapsa shared catalogue of innate behaviours. This opens the doors to the secondintertwining strand concerned with the ambiguous psychological andcultural demands and those symbols for what Aalto called lifes ungraspabledicult unity (Wilson, 1992 p.89). This is moving beyond the surveyableparameters based on operational and environmental function towards thepsychophysical aspect of architecture, and begins to make the transcendentalpsyche explicable to the architect.

Having compared Summerson and Wilsons views on architecture, I shallnow, with the support of Ludwig Wigenstein and Carl Jung portray myposition, building on the correlating points made by Summerson and Wilson.


3/13

Mathew Girling3

1. Monism vs PluralismMonismHannes Meyer, an early champion of functionalism (Wilson, 1992,

p.25) claimed that the plan determines itself from the following factors...(Wilson, 1992, p.28), epitomising the analytic approach to design whichWilson describes as determinist nonsense. With this view the apparentdiversity of architecture is only a facade which covers the unifying principle.Wigensteins understanding of philosophy and science can be used to

elucidate my pluralistic position: I do not regard the apparent multiplicityof the world as consisting merely in phases and unreal divisions of a singleindivisible reality (Sluga, 2011, p.31). Wigenstein is teaching the hopelessand meaningless search for a unifying principle, pertinent perhaps to CERNsannouncement of discovering the Higgs Boson or God Particle, in March2013, then only to comprehend that it doesnt really tell us anything aboutourselves (g 1). We overlook the multiplicity of the world due to ourcraving for generality... We tend to look for something in common to allentities which we commonly subsume under a general term (Sluga, 2011,p.89). The hitch of any monistic theory is its inability to tell a coherent storyof how plurality can spring from an unconditioned unity (Sluga, 2011, p.86).

In light of monisms inevitable reduction of architecture I will investigate thebenets and limitations of a pluralistic approach.

PluralismStanding in contrast of our tradition in architecture to sustain a universal

notion of harmony is what both Summerson and Wilson were alludingtowards. Instead of producing something common to all... these phenomenahave no one thing in common... but that they are related to one another inmany dierent ways (Sluga, 2011, p.87). This is borrowed from Wigensteinslater understanding of language in the Philosophical Investigations(1953)whereby he saw to characterize these similarities in no beer way than

through the word family resemblances (Sluga, 2011, p.88). And it is thehuman form of life to recognize clusters of overlapping and crisscrossingresemblances (Sluga, 2011, p.98). Our capacity to do so allows a multitude ofarchitectural languages to be used as we can formulate dierent concepts andstress a variety of similarities. This is similar to ideas by Niesche, suggestedin his essay On Truth and Lies in a Non-Moral Sense, which can be represented

by Max Ernst, Leaf Landscape (1920) (g 2): it is certain that the conceptleaf is formed by arbitrarily discarding these individual dierences and

by forgeing the distinguishing aspects (Sluga, 2011, p.93). Two questionsarise from this postulation; rstly, what are the limits of our connection ofsimilarities and concepts? And what we should exclude to invoke the concept

or sensibility intended by the architectural proposition?

Fig 1.Cartonn dipicting our high expectations of nding a unifying principle.

1

2Fig 2.Max Ernst, Leaf Landscape (1920). Showing how we naturally use similarities in aaining a concept.


4/13

Mathew Girling4

The rst can be explored through the origin of Wigensteins theory onfamily resemblances. It was based on his understanding of language and theunderlying principle can be summed up by the phrase, the meaning of a wordis its use in the language (Sluga, 2011, p.40). This exemplies the functionalistideas of the early twentieth century; however it is not the mechanical outlookof Le Corbusier or Meyer who used predetermined concepts and imposedthem onto architecture.

Wilson convincingly elaborates on an organic concept of use, referencing

the architects belonging to what he calls the other tradition of modernarchitecture (Wilson, 1992, p.v). One of which is Hugo Hring who claimedthat we want to examine things and allow them to discover their own images(Wilson, 1992, p.168). We can compare this to Peter Collins publication,Changing ideas in modern architecture(1967), which introduces the biologicalanalogy within the sphere of functionalism. Collins postulates that whereasin the functional analogy, the relationship between form and function isconsidered as necessary beauty, in the biological analogy, it is consideredas necessary to life (Collins, 1967, p.155). This suggests the limitations

between our connection of similarities and concepts - by introducing a level ofpurposefulness through our common needs, interests and form of life.

To direct us towards the second question, Wigenstein suggests these donot dier so readily from one experience to the next. This is demonstratedin his Remarks on Frazers Golden Bough(1967) where he questions our abilityto understand the world of ancient mythology, apparently unrelated to ourmodern thinking: There are dangers connecting with eating and drinking,not only for savages, but also for us; nothing is more natural than the desireto protect ourselves from these (Sluga, 2011, p.98). The innate mechanismsWigenstein is suggesting can be explored by the architect to invoke aparticular sensibility.

Wilson gives an account of how dierent architectural languages can stillstimulate the same sensibility using Hans Scharouns Philarmonie (g 3)and Karl Friedrich Schinkels Atles museum (g 4) as examples. He suggeststhat although completely dierent in their architecture there are commonvariations upon the theme of envelopment and release... in various sequencesand degrees of spatial pressure (Wilson, 1992, p.xiii). The language of thesespatial forms is based on our archetypal feelings of being enveloped orexposed or on the threshold in-between (Wilson, 1992, p.xiii).

This points towards my second position; that two architectural propositionswill have the same psychological structure if they are to create the samesensibility.

3

4

Fig 3.Interior of Hans Scharouns Berlin Philharmonie showing the feeling of envelopmentFig 4. Portico to Karl Friedrich Schinkels Atles museum also showing the feeling of envelopment but with a totallydierent architectural language


5/13

Mathew Girling5

2. Recurring sensibilitiesRulesThe over arching suggestion from my rst position is there are a multitude

of relations between architectural propositions. They may expand, overlap,or be totally reliant on surrounding propositions, but instead of an absoluteunity I am promoting the modulated control of relationships which unitearchitecture.

This is not simply a combination of similarities but is articulate, as

Wigenstein states: only in the nexus of a proposition does a name havemeaning (Sluga, 2011, p.56). This oers a series of rules guiding the links

between multiple propositions. Two antinomies to Wigensteins explanationof rules can be classied by the individualist and collectivist perspective,whereby the rst proposes that rules are standing intentions that can beentertained, in principle, by a single individual (Sluga, 2011, p.133). NaturallyI support the collectivist view that rules are based on a shared consensusof social principles. David Bloor in his publication Wigenstein, Rules andInstitutions(1997) builds a convincing case for the collectivist viewpoint,suggesting the real source of constraint preventing our going anywhere... arethe local circumstances impinging upon us: our instincts, our biological nature

(Bloor, 1997, p.20). Rules rely on our natural form of behaviour and I maintainthat this is how we communicate in architecture, through a nexus of spatialforms carrying the archetypal sensibility capable of inuencing how we feeland behave.

ArchetypesReturning to Wilsons examples we can propose that spatial forms generate

a cluster of resemblances that are similar enough to create a typical responsein the psyche. Carl Jung postulated that we all have a common inborn psychicstructure, enabling typical experiences to be witnessed in all people. This hecalled an archetype, an inherited mode of functioning ( Jung, 1953-78, XVIII,para.1228), and it is when a psychological phenomenon is typical to all peoplethat it is described as an archetype of the collective unconscious. Actualisationof an archetype is when the stimulus, in our case an architectural proposition,is presented; releasing the innate behaviour which through evolution is suitedto the situation.

I now am moving beyond ones individual feelings and pursuing thecommon archetypal nature of typical experiences. There is a domain ofexperience a domain that is indeed the primary source of the one languagethat is truly universal and to which we have given the name of bodylanguage (Wilson, 1992, p.16). Wilson here brings aention to our capacity

for empathy which permits an emotional sensibility, originating fromarchitectures body language i.e. Spatial forms. The importance of spatialconsiderations has been made clear by Rob Kriers publication Urban Space(1979). He presents a copious array of spatial variations (g 5), however it is

beyond the scope of this work to describe the nature of this inuence (Krier,1979, p.25) and does not mention the common psychological consequence ofthe dierent forms.

5

Fig 5. Rob Kriers examination of urban spatial forms in Urban Space (1979)


6/13

Mathew Girling6

Jungs aitude to archetypes diers from Kriers and other typologies intheir dynamic nature, always pursuing their actualisation and appears todevelop through concepts of association, determined by the rules of similarityand contiguity. The contiguity - that is to say the sensation of spatial forms dueto continued proximity - causes us to subconsciously assimilate the experiencewith a number of in-built archetypes (g. 6). I will return once again toWilsons examples of Scharoun and Schinkle, where he determined the feelingsof envelopment and exposure as said experiences caused by the organisation

of spatial forms. These feelings immediately [becoming] associated with thesense of being safe or in danger, reassured or threatened: feelings furthermorewhose simultaneous conjunction of opposite modes are as inexplicable asthey are exciting (Wilson, 1992, p.xiii). The apparent innocuous experienceof entering the portico of the Atles museum provoked a momentous latentpsychic phenomenon of actualising the opposing psychological positionsof envelopment and exposure. The rst of these which can be assimilatedwith Jungs mother archetype becomes active due to the contiguity of aprotective and benevolent environment. Experienced through the spatial andtactile forms similar enough to the structure of the innate mother archetype.This is then succeeded by the transition to the opposed position of exposure

represented by the infant archetype - whereby the infant has an awareness oftheir uniqueness and own identity.On entering the grounds of Carlos Scarpas museum at Castelvecchio, via

the timber drawbridge, shifting between the bright exposure of the streetinto the enclosed and shadowed courtyard I too felt the energy caused by thefriction of two opposed forces, exposure and envelopment (g. 7).

6

Fig 6. Diagram of Jungs model of archetypes and their inuence on the self. Whereby A = the Archetype and C= aComplex. Whereby the protective and tangible entrance portico has actualised the mother archetype. The confrontationof the exterior creates a feeling of exposure stimulating the infant archetypal feelings of uniqueness.

7

Fig 7. Photograph of the entrance courtyard of Castelvecchio. The feelings of exposure and independence felt by beingconfronted by the tall fortied walls actualises the latent infant archetype. Whilst the shadowed courtyard makes themother archetype active due to feelings of envelopment and security.


7/13

Mathew Girling7

We have a natural tendency to orientate around a dyad of positions -Niesche compared Apollonian and Dionysian in The Birth of Tragedy(1872)to categorise two opposing values in Greek culture (g. 9), the Swiss poetCarl Spieler dealt with the antipathy between imagination and objectivityepitomised in the characters of Prometheus and Epimetheus (g. 8). Bothillustrate a distinction between extraversion and introversion, something

Jung picked up on and built-into his psychological types. Although neveracknowledged in Jungs text this appears to have derived from the French

psychologist Alfred Binets division of the intellectual aitude in Ltudeexperimentale de lintelligence (1903). Binet characterizes introspection as theknowledge we have of our inner world, our thoughts, our feelings andexternospection as the orientation of our knowledge toward the exteriorworld as opposed to the knowledge of ourselves (Ellenberger, 1970, p.703).These aitudes can be directly transposed to the two feelings of envelopmentand exposure respectively, however it is important to recognise that the latentpsychic phenomenon is only one path into the exploration of sensibility theother will be explored in the following paragraph.

Fig 8. Prometheus, Heinrich Fueger, (1817) Showing Promethesus ability for forethought, inventivmness and imaginationFig 9.Apollo and Marsyas, Hans Thoma (1888). Depicting Apollo holding the Kithara a string instrument symbolisingreason. And Dionysus holding the Aulos, a reed instrument, based on emotions and instincts.

8

9


8/13

Mathew Girling8

Mind and bodyBodily traits are not merely physical, nor mental traits merely psychic

(Jung, 1959, p.76). Jung suggests that there is no separation within thedichotomy, there is in fact a unity between body and mind. I say this to showaentiveness to the tactile quality of architecture, something the conventionalphenomenologist will make explicit. They have raised the possibility that a

buildings meaning might be more accurately ascertained through thedirect physical experience of the building itself (Crysler, 2012, p.139). However

I have asserted myself apart from the emblematic use of Martin Heideggerand Peter Zumthor in an aempt to elucidate the archetypal spatial and innerpsychic possibility of the philosophy. Saying this I nd the ideas of Heideggermotivating, what is there in the room... is the table... at which one sits in orderto write The side is not the east side but rather the one at which my wifesits in the evening when she wants to stay up and read (Heidegger, 1999,p.69). His work has illuminated the perception of an objects purpose throughparadigmatic memories and physical relation to its surroundings. Everythingthat I would assert as being true, however I postulate that although pastexperience is essential to architectures sensibility we can draw upon a deeperstructure, the collective unconscious through spatial forms.

OppositesWe have removed the apparent duality of mind and body in the previousparagraph and Wilson brings aention to Adrian Stokes to explain how thepositions of envelopment and exposure are also not necessarily separate. Heperceives the secret to lie in their fusion In reecting such combined yetantithetical drives a work of art symbolises the broader integrate processes(Wilson, 1992, p.8). This could be compared to the visual wonder ofGestalt psychology which discusses the phenomenon and impossibility ofsimultaneously registering opposing positions (g. 10). Normally one or theother will dominate but the counterpoint claims that masterpieces manage toactualise both.

The conversation of Sverre Fehns work is usually dominated by discussionsof the physical context, materiality and construction. However close analysisof the spatial forms shows the simultaneous psychic sensibility this essay haselucidated towards. His Norwegian Glacier Museum (1991) makes possible theparadox of simultaneously experiencing both envelopment and exposure. InThe Paerns of Thoughts (2009) Per Olaf Fjeld tells of how the project developedfrom the image of a hollow stone rather than a concept or idea. This objectsymbolises both wholeness and independence, the architectural analogue ofthe laer position of exposure. As well as the qualities of protectiveness andintimacy associated with the position of envelopment. Fjeld speaks of how

one leaves something of oneself on the viewing platforms, something of asoul (Fjeld, 2009, p.241) (g. 10). This feeling of independence actualises thelatent feelings of exposure, however the hollowness in the image of the stoneis important since its limitations recognize natures spatial enormity (Fjeld,2009, p.240) - expressed through the surrounding glaciers and mountainswhich remove any sense of a horizon.

The opposed position of envelopment has been actualised throughthe intimacy of the continuous interior articulations (g 12). Similar to the

rhythmic forms of owing and merging continuity (Wilson, 1992, p.6)Wilson perceives in Scharouns Berlin Philharmonie. Moving throughthe building the full height slanted glazed walls (g. 13) blends into highclerestory windows (g 14), reinforcing the dierence between the exteriorand interior.

Fig 10. Optical phenomenon claiming the impossibility of observing both the vase and the people kissing at the same time- Gestalt Psychology

10


9/13

Mathew Girling9

11

12

Fig 11.On-top of the Norwegian Glacier Museum, showing the feelings of exposure which are actualised through thesense of independence in relation to the open exposed environment.

Fig 12. Interior of the Norwegian Glacier Museum, showing the intimacy of the continuous interiorarticulations.


10/13

Mathew Girling10

13 14

Fig 13.Interior of the Norwegian Glacier Museum, showing the tall sloped glazed wall Fig 14. Interior of the Norwegian Glacier Museum, showing the high celestory windows.


11/13

Mathew Girling11

ConclusionI have discussed the feelings of envelopment and exposure and the

simultaneous experience of these polar modes (Wilson, 1992, p.8). This is onlyone archetypal relationship which I have chosen to focus on - the pluralisticnature of architecture allows for an exuberant number of relationships whichcan be manifested in many ways peculiar to the architect. It is importanthowever to follow a teleological approach; aaining a level of completeness inthe psyche of the inhabitant which can be encapsulated by the ancient Greek

word Kalon - notions of the beautiful and of that which is worthwhile of itsown nature (Wilson, 1992, p.30). This is achieved through specic aentionto the buildings purpose and use, predicated by the pluralistic organisationof archetypal relationships which are isomorphic with the desirable psychicsensibility.

Word Count: 3290 (Excluding footnotes, Illustration sources, Reference list andBibliography)


12/13

Mathew Girling12

Illustration sources

1. Artist unknown. God exists, and he is American. (-) Drawing. At: www.bainclan.co.uk/FUTURE/Higgs-Boson.php

2. Ernst, M, Leaf Landscape. (1920). Painting.At: www.emergingmodernisms.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/artistic-construction-and-the-original-leaf/

3. Liebscher, M. Philharmonie, Foyer. (2005). Photograph. At: www.m-liebscher.defami-liebilderphilharmonie1.jpg

4. Schinkel, K. F. Staircase. (1829). Drawing. At: www.commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Altes_Museum_Treppe_Schinkel.jpg

5. Krier, R. Geometrical Variations. (1979). Drawing. At: Krier, R. 1979. Urban space. NewYork: Rizzoli International Publications.

6. Stevens, A.Mmodel of the psyche. (1994). Drawing. At: www.jung.org/jungs%20model%20of%20the%20psyche_gad.html

7. Girling, M. Entrance to Castelvecchio. (2013). Photograph.

8. Fueger, H. Prometheus.(1817). Painting. At: www.citiesoight.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/prometheus-epimetheus-rethought/

9. Thoma, H.Apollo and Marsyas.(1888). Painting. At: www.yestercenturypop.com/tag/

apollo-and-dionysus/10. Artist Unknown. The Rubin goblet.(-). Drawing. At: www.intropsych.com/ch04_sens-es/gestalt_psychology.html

11. Magnus, B. DSC_13345. (2009). Photograph. At: www.ickr.com/photos/crashbone/3798034200/in/photolist-5b7hu-arRzac-2comEr-arRzon-arUc7j-arUbPL-2comzt-6MxJyx-6MBVmh-6MxJL6-6MBV-arh5Dd-mhBaJ-mhBaG-arUbqU-ar-RxCT-arh6eu-arUb2u-arUbeo-arRxjM-mhBaL-dZVcet-dZVcgp-e11TCw-dZVcwz-e11TBG-2comBZ-e11TWw-e11TFC-e11UsY-5DdbqL-5D8VfB-5aK5jK-iHiFfn-iHnDNY-iHkA6j-5DdbHd-5D8Vvc-arRyuH-8gRAN2-agx2aG-agugQ6-e12Qkh-e12Qsd-agudGP-e12QDE-agueDK-6aiwzE-maBBT-6zqVVW

12. Helgersen, S. E/Fehn, S. Interior Views. (-). Photograph. At: Fjeld, P. O. 2009. Sverre

Fehn: the paern of thoughts. New York: Monacelli Press.

13. Craven, J. Cafe of Norwegian Glacier Museum. (-). Photograph. At: www.architecture.about.com/od/greatbuildings/ss/glacier_8.htm

14. Sommarset, J. A. Sverre Fehn - Norsk Bremuseum i Fjrland. (2011). Photograph. At:www.ickr.com/photos/sanjoy87/6199790223/in/photolist-5b7kr-5b7nf-5b7qT-5b7dh-5b7eo-5b7aJ-5b7hu-5b7s9-4AGHwt-ad3EJc-acMias-acMj57-acJuwF-cYF9qy-ad6urd-acJum6-ad6u65-ad6LRE-arh5VS-areqsg-arh6Bf-arh5Dd-arRzac-arUbqU-arRzon-2com-Er-arRxCT-arh6eu-arUc7j-arRxjM-arUbPL-arUbeo-arUb2u-2comzt-6MxJyx-6MBVmh-6MxJL6-6MBV-e11TBG-5aK5jK-2comBZ-5DdbqL-5D8VfB-iHiFfn-iHnDNY-iHkA6j-5DdbHd-5D8Vvc-arRyuH-8gRAN2

Reference List

Websites

Seiler, S. (2013). Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW Today.[online]Available at: hp://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/ [Accessed: 10 Apr 2014].

Books

Bloor, D. (1997). Wigenstein, rules and institutions. London: Routledge.

Collins, P. (1967). Changing ideals in modern architecture. [S.l.]: Faber.

Crysler, G. (2012). SAGE Handbook of Architectural Theory.SAGE Publications, Limited.

Ellenberger, H. F. (1970). The discovery of the unconscious. New York: Basic Books.

Fjeld, P. O. (2009). Sverre Fehn: the paern of thoughts. New York: Monacelli Press.

Heidegger, M. (1999). Ontology - The Hermeneutics of Facticity.Trans. J. V. Buren.Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press.

Jung, C. G. (1959).Modern man in search of a soul.New York,: Harcourt.

Jung, C. G., Read, H. and Hull, R. F. C. (1953-78). The collected works of C. G. Jung.

Vol. XVIII. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Krier, R. (1979). Urban space.New York: Rizzoli International Publications.

Ockman, J. and Eigen, E. (1993).Architecture culture, 1943-1968.[New York]: Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation.

Sluga, H. D. (2011). Wigenstein. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Vidler, A. (2011). TROUBLES IN THEORY PART I: THE STATE OF THE ART1945-2000. The Architectural Review, CCXXX (1376), pp. 102-107.

Wilson, C. S. J. (1992).Architectural reections.Oxford: Buerworth Architecture.


13/13

Mathew Girling13

Bibliography

Websites

Seiler, S. (2013). Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW Today.[online]Available at: hp://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/ [Accessed: 10 Apr 2014].

Books

Bloor, D. (1997). Wigenstein, rules and institutions. London: Routledge.

Collins, P. (1967). Changing ideals in modern architecture. [S.l.]: Faber.

Crysler, G. (2012). SAGE Handbook of Architectural Theory.SAGE Publications, Limited.

Ellenberger, H. F. (1970). The discovery of the unconscious. New York: Basic Books.

Fjeld, P. O. (2009). Sverre Fehn: the paern of thoughts. New York: Monacelli Press.

Heidegger, M. (1999). Ontology - The Hermeneutics of Facticity.Trans. J. V. Buren. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press.

Jung, C. G. (1959).Modern man in search of a soul.New York,: Harcourt.

Jung, C. G., Read, H. and Hull, R. F. C. (1953-78). The collected works of C. G. Jung.Vol.XVIII. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Krier, R. (1979). Urban space.New York: Rizzoli International Publications.

Ockman, J. and Eigen, E. (1993).Architecture culture, 1943-1968.[New York]: ColumbiaUniversity Graduate School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation.

Sluga, H. D. (2011). Wigenstein. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Vidler, A. (2011). TROUBLES IN THEORY PART I: THE STATE OF THE ART 1945-2000.The Architectural Review, CCXXX (1376), pp. 102-107.

Wilson, C. S. J. (1992).Architectural reections.Oxford: Buerworth Architecture.

Wigenstein, L. and Anscombe, G. E. M. (1963). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: BasilBlackwell.

Architectures psychic sensibility

Documents

Transcript of Architectures psychic sensibility