Hierarchies of Forms in Terms of Their Affordance to Enhance the Inside-Outside Relationship Through Place

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD. Faculty of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Professor, Faculty of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background and objectives: Form is a multifaceted concept serving as the foundation of a place. Within the semantic spectrum of form, the relationship between appearance (i.e., the objective aspect) and meaning (i.e., the subjective aspect) is considered as presenting a comprehensive interpretation of form. Appearance embodies the meaning of a place. However, the relationship between inside and outside plays a significant role in defining a place. Such a relationship can be understood across three layers: interior and exterior space, human and physical form, and meaning and appearance. The connection between meaning and appearance arises from the interplay between the first two layers. The objective of this research is to achieve a profound understanding of form. This study draws upon the concept of affordance to explore the various interpretations of form in the relationship between appearance and meaning by scrutinising the multilayered interplay between the inside and outside. It is hoped that by introducing affordance, this research contributes to the connection between the human, the physical form, and the environment, particularly at the boundary between inside and outside. The primary question is: How can forms enhance the affordance of a place to foster a deep, multifaceted, and multilayered connection between inside and outside? Previous research has explored the philosophical dimensions and various aspects of form; this study emphasises the theoretical dimension of form in architecture by linking these concepts to place and transitioning from a superficial understanding of form to a more profound conceptualisation.
 
Materials and Methods: The research method is logical argumentation, and the final theoretical model was developed through initial conceptual modelling. For this purpose, the various interpretations of form were presented to the appearance-affordance-meaning model, which serves as a comprehensive representation of these interpretations. The three layers of the relationships between the inside and the outside were then explained and integrated with the initial model. Three levels of affordance were incorporated into this structure, resulting in the development of the conceptual model. Then, the levels of form are explained in detail within the conceptual model. The outcome was presented as a theoretical model that delineates the levels of form to enhance the affordance of place in the relationship between inside and outside.
 
Results and Conclusion: Based on the research findings, the distinction between inside and outside is established at the first level through the formation of boundaries, transitions, and surface in the form. At the second level, the continuity between the inside and the outside is maintained by establishing a territory, a hierarchy of evolution, and a framework for interactions, while at the third level, the interactions between inside and outside are defined by the creation of privacy, a gradual presence, and the representation of identity. The levels in the conceptual model delineate the relationship between meaning and appearance across three levels: physical-environmental, functional-behavioural, and perceptual-semantic. Form can be understood at three levels: spatial limitation, spatial penetration, and spatial representation. In terms of spatial limitation, the predominant direction of forces is from the inside to the outside. Conversely, in spatial representation, the direction is from the outside to the inside. Spatial penetration, on the other hand, involves a bidirectional interaction. The relationship between meaning and appearance influences attitudes toward form through three key concepts: morphology, physiology, and ecology. The relationship between the inside and outside in morphological form is based on visual structures; in physiological form, it relies on both visual structures and behavioural-social frameworks; and in ecological form, sensory perceptions and emotions are integrated into these factors. Ultimately, the internal connections among these levels can enhance the discovery of meaning within the environment, facilitating its generation.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Adeli, Samira and Hadi Nadimi. “Form as Affordance: The Theoretical Basis and Conceptual Framework for the Meaning of Architecture”. Soffeh, vol. 32, no. 1 (2022): 21-40. (In Persian).
Adeli, Samira and Hadi Nadimi. “Conceptual Limits of Form in Architecture”. Bagh-e Nazar, vol. 17, no. 89 (2020): 55-70. (In Persian).
Alexander, Christopher. The Nature of Order. Transl. Reza Sirous Sabri & Ali Akbari. Tehran: Parham Naghsh, 2017. (In Persian).
Aliniay Motlagh, A., R. Shakoori, and A. Einifar. “A Rereading of the Concept of Liminality in Architecture and the Explanation of its Denotational Hierarchies based on the Etymology of the Term and Architectural Thinkers’ Views”. Soffeh, vol. 29, no. 4 (2019): 39-58. (In Persian).
Arnheim, Rodulf. The Dynamics of Architectural Form. Transl. Mehrdad Qayyoomi Bidhendi. Tehran: Sazman-e-Samt, 2013. (In Persian).
Banimasood, A. Western Architecture Roots. Tehran: Honar-e-Memari Qarn, 2021. (In Persian).
Carman, Taylor. Merleau-Ponty. Transl. Masood Olia. Tehran: Qoghnoos, 2015. (In Persian).
Dodds, George and Robert Tavernor. Body and Building: Essays on The Changing Relation of Body and Architecture. Cambridge: The MIT press, 2002.
Eslami, Gh. Lesson of Speech about Theoretical Foundations of Architecture, Build our Glasses Ourselves. Tehran: Elm-e-Memar, 2013. (In Persian).
Forty, Adrian. Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture. London: Thames and Hudson, 2000.
Gibson, Eleanor J. “Where is The Information for Affordances”. Ecological Psychology. no. 12 (2010): 53-56. DOI: 10.1207/S15326969ECO1201_5
Gibson, James J. An Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979.
Giedion, Sigfried. Space, Time and Architecture: The Growth of a New Tradition, 1941. Harvard University Press, 5th edition, 2003.
Haghir, S. and M. Sadat Masalegoo. “The Impact of Modern Architecture on Expanding the Domain of Audience Consciousness and Its Derivation from the Merleau-Ponty’s Theory of Body-Subject”. Bagh-e-Nazar, vol. 17, no. 87 (2020): 19-28. (In Persian).
Hertzberger, Herman. Lessons for Students in Architecture. Trans. Ina Rike, Rotterdam: 010 publishers, 2005.
Ingarden, Roman. “The General Question of the Essence of the Form and Content”. Journal of philosophy, vol. 57, no. 7 (1960): 222-233. DOI: 10.2307/2021863
Johnson, Paul-Alan. The Theory of Architecture: Concepts Themes & Practices. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1994.
Kahn, Louis I. “Order and Form”. Perspecta, vol. 3 (1955): 46-63. https://doi.org/10.2307/1566835
Lang, Jon T. ‎Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design. Transl. A. Einifar. Tehran: Tehran University, 2012. (In Persian).
Lonescu, Vlad. “Architectural Symbolism: Body and Space in Heinrich Wölfflin and Wilhelm Worringer”. Architectural Histories, vol. 4, no. 1 (2016): 1-9. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/ah.213
Madrazo, Leandro. The Concept of Yype in Architecture: An Inquiry into The Nature of Architecture Form. Swiss: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 1995.
Merleau-ponty, Maurice. The Visible & Invisible (Studies in Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy. Ed. Claude Lefort. Transl. Hazel E. Barnes. Evanston: Northwestern university, 1968.
Meiss, Pierre Von. Elements of Architecture: From Form to Place. Transl. Simon Ayvazian. Tehran: Tehran University, 2013. (In Persian).
Mohammadi, M., H. Nadimi and M. Saghafi. “Investigating the Application of the Concept of Affordance in the Design and Evaluation of the Built Environment”. Soffeh, vol. 27, no. 2 (2017): 21-34. (In Persian). 
Motalebi, Gh. “Environmental Psychology: A New Science at the Service of Architecture and Urban Design”. Honar-ha-ye-Ziba, no. 10 (2001): 52-67. (In Persian).
________ . “Recognizing the Relationship between Form and Function in Architecture”. Honar-ha-ye-Ziba, vol. 25, no. 25 (2006): 55-64. (In Persian). 
Monshizade, Arezou. “The Evolution of Objectifying Body in Architecture: From Anthropomorphism to the Phenomenal Body”. Soffeh, vol. 32, no. 1 (2022): 5-20. (In Persian).
Nesbitt, Kate. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory. Transl. Pouyan Rouhi. Mashhad: Kasra, 2017. (In Persian).
Neufert, Ernest. ‎Architect’s Data. Transl. Korosh Mahmoodi. Tehran: Ayandesazan Shahr Ab, 2003. (In Persian)
Norberg-Shulz, Christian. Existence, Space and Architecture. Transl. Vida Norouz Boarazjani. Tehran: Parham Naghsh, 2014. (In Persian).
________. Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. Transl. MR. Shirazi. Tehran: Rokhdad-e-No, 2009. (In Persian).
Pallasmaa, Juhani. The Embodied Image: Imagination and Imagery in Architecture. Transl. Ali Akbari. Tehran: Parham Naghsh, 2016. (In Persian).
________. The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses. Transl. Ramin Qods. Tehran: Parham Naghsh, 2014. (In Persian).
Parcell, Stephen. Four Historical Definitions of Architecture. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-queens University Press, 2012.
Relph, Edward. Place and Placelessness. Transl. MR. NoghsanMohammadi, et al. Tehran: Armanshahr, 2010. (In Persian).
Robinson, Sarah. Articulating Affordances: Toward a New Theory of Design. Ed. Bob Condia. Kansas: New Prairie Press, 2020.
Rykwert, Joseph. The Dancing Column: An Order in Architecture. Cambridge: The MIT press, 1996.
Seamon, David. “A Singular Imapact: Edward Relph’s Place and Placelessness”. Environmental and Architectural Phenomenology Newsletter, vol. 7, no. 3 (1996): 5-11.
Sharr, Adam. Heidegger for Architects. Transl. Roozbeh Ahmadinezhad. Tehran: Tahan / Haleh, 2010. (In Persian).
Tatarkiewicz, Wladyslaw. A History of Six Ideas: An Essay in Aesthetics. Ed. Jan T.J. Srazednicki. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, 1980.
Twombly, Robert. Louis Kahn: Essential Texts. Transl. MR. Rahimzade, et al. Tehran: Entesharat-e-Elmi, 2017. (In Persian).
Url1: https://www.vajehyab.com [visited at 2023/3/3].
Urmson, James Opie. “The Evolution of the Meaning of the Word Idea in the History of Western Philosophy”. Transl. Sh. Pazooki. Name Farhang, no. 34 (1999): 154-160. (In Persian).
Van Eyck, Aldo. “Door Step, in Otterlo Meeting”. In congress Team 10 in Otterlo. Ed. Alison Smithson. London: Vista, 1968.
Venturi, Robert. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. New York: Museum of Modern art, 1966.
Vitruvius, Pollio. Vitruvius: The Ten Books on Architecture. Transl. R. Fayaz. Tehran: Honar University, 2008. (In Persian).
Zafarmand, SJ. “The Concept of Form in Art”. Honar-ha-ye-Ziba, vol. 11, no. 11 (2002): 13-21. (In Persian).

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 30 July 2023
  • Revise Date: 21 April 2024
  • Accept Date: 20 July 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics