Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

Transitional object in architecture

Lookup NU author(s): Kati Blom


Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.


With the concept Einfühlung, empathy, the German philosophers Wilhelm Worringer (1907, 1908), Robert Vischer (1873), Adolf von Hilderbrand (1893) studied the interconnectedness of object and subject in the perception of a work of art and a work of architecture. In an aesthetic experience bodily memory and residues from past experiences interlink with the experience in hand, giving meaning and relevance to the experience. Later, the problem arouse about the fitness of these theories to respond to the challenges of modern urban world full of fears and subjective alienation. The abstraction (Worringer) became dominant. The dominance of the visual suppressed the kinaesthetic elements from architecture. The successive presentational mode (Vesely 2001) in easily managed and leaves close, haptic scale unexpressed.The recent dominance of 2-D screen architecture and projected images has neglected the differentiation between haptic and orientation realm- and the detailing of the architectural works have been reduced to those of rhetoric, so figures of fictional, rather than those with tactile qualities, so literal presentations of spatial realism. The representational imagery of media invades the realism of body and its haptic operations. The latest minimal responses by Maurizio Pezo and Sophie von Ellrichshausen are discussed as typical reduced approached. The exterior is typically to this style without tactile details but rather the texture is important and consequently the exterior is treated like a homogenous material sample, typical fictional approach. The results implies for a strictly controlled (reconstructed) aspect as in art (Roman Ingarden, 1989), rather than in architecture, where multiplicity of experiential and perceptual aspects are prevailing (the array of concretization in Ingarden’s aesthetics). This transitional pieces of work (Ingarden 1989) cause diffusion and prevent the architectural piece of work become an aesthetic object through a lived in complexitySOURCES:Farnell, B. “Moving Bodies, Acting Selves.” Annual review of Antropology, VOl. 28 (1999), 341-373.Ingarden, Roman. Ontology of the Work of Art. The Musical Work. The Picure. The Architectural Work. The Film. (original 1961 Untersuchungen zur Ontologie der Kunst. ) Athens: Ohio University Press, 1989.Lakoff, G, and Johnson, M. Philosophy of Flesh. Basic Books, 1999Koss, Juliet. “On the limits of empathy.“ The Art Bulletin, Vol 139, March 2006, 139-157.Worringer, W. Abstraktion und Einfühlung: Ein Beitrag zur Stilpsychologie. (1907, 1908) 1996.Shiff, Richard, “Cézanne’s Physicality: The Politics of Touch,” in Language of Art History, ed. Salim Kemal and Ivan Gaskell (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991)Vesely, Dalibor. Architecture in the age of divided representation. The Question of Creativity in the Shadow of production. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: The MIT Press, 2004.

Publication metadata

Author(s): Blom K

Publication type: Conference Proceedings (inc. Abstract)

Publication status: Published

Conference Name: 18th International Congress of Aesthetics (ICA)

Year of Conference: 2010