Frame or Fragment
Henri Lefebvre stated that "everyday life is that which remains once you have eliminated all specialized activities." I interpret this to refer to the wandering, in our case as students, between classes, taking a phone call, surfing the internet, chatting with a friend. The specialize activities are structured periods of time set aside in advance to accomplish certain goals. Everyday life is the chance encounters that accomplish nothing in particular. So, how does this relate to architecture? Well, we ask the question "how can architecture embody everyday life?" and we end up with two strategies that aim to answer that same question: a spatial strategy that frames a space for everyday life or a tactile approach of fragmentation and articulation. What does this look like?
The frame sets a boundary while the fragments create a maze. Is one approach better than the other? I would venture to say yes, in theory, one would seem to perform better. A frame feels constricting. There is a clear border that separates the interior from the exterior. And it is by restriction that everyday life is heightened. The limitations that the framework sets forth structures a place for everyday life to happen in its shelter.
On the other hand, fragmentation distinctly separates the places of specialize activities from the mundane happenings. In fact, this method shapes the places of activities into solid masses that break up the large void that is everyday life. A maze-like place is the result, fostering a sense of serendipity in the voids. I feel this method is a little open to growth, adaptation, and chance in a way that the strategy of framing can not.
In much architecture today, everyday life seems to be designed, which is completely counteractive to its definition. I feel like once the space for the everyday to happen, its becomes more of a specialized activities. Design increases and opportunities for everyday life decreases. For this reason, I think the spacial frame begins to oversteps its role in designing spaces. On the other hand, fragmenting space, in its nature, creates voids that provide a chance place for the everyday to dwell.
The frame sets a boundary while the fragments create a maze. Is one approach better than the other? I would venture to say yes, in theory, one would seem to perform better. A frame feels constricting. There is a clear border that separates the interior from the exterior. And it is by restriction that everyday life is heightened. The limitations that the framework sets forth structures a place for everyday life to happen in its shelter.
On the other hand, fragmentation distinctly separates the places of specialize activities from the mundane happenings. In fact, this method shapes the places of activities into solid masses that break up the large void that is everyday life. A maze-like place is the result, fostering a sense of serendipity in the voids. I feel this method is a little open to growth, adaptation, and chance in a way that the strategy of framing can not.
In much architecture today, everyday life seems to be designed, which is completely counteractive to its definition. I feel like once the space for the everyday to happen, its becomes more of a specialized activities. Design increases and opportunities for everyday life decreases. For this reason, I think the spacial frame begins to oversteps its role in designing spaces. On the other hand, fragmenting space, in its nature, creates voids that provide a chance place for the everyday to dwell.
Comments
Post a Comment