Response to "Virtual Space"

Suzanne Langer in her article "Virtual Space" describes the different perceptions of space that we conceive when creating paintings, sculptures or architecture. While the two dimensions of a painting are trying to create a three dimensional scene, an object [ a sculpture] that its already three dimensional creates a sense of space. This is the "kinetic domain" in relation to the user, while buildings, as she describes, are the "ethnic domain." These create an illusion where the relation goes beyond just the visual connection between the user and the object, into a more tangible and sensible one.

In the reading Langer concludes that the relationship with sculpture and architecture is inevitable. She then states, "the two art forms [sculpture and architecture] are, in fact, each other complements: whichever we start with, the others is its background . . . "

I believe that architecture should follow this idea, where by creating a sculpture/building becomes an ethnic domain to the inhabitant and therefore produces a kinetic relationship to the external observer. Maybe this is the line where these two practices meet, and the function to inhabit the building is not enough to differentiate these. The most important characteristic of a building or a sculpture doesn't rely on if it blends or contrasts to the space that surrounds it; once it is erected it transforms the space creating a new way of perceiving the environments.

__ nadia nunez

Mi photo for next week

Visual Space

Virtual Space

This article touches on many topics, not just sculpture, but architecture, culture, and painting, but what I pulled out from this article was a greater understanding of sculpture. Sculpture embodies volume, place, kinetic volume, scene, and materiality. All those aspects connect us to the sculpture through touch and vision. One of things I have always been fascinated by is how a sculptor can create a sculpture that is very much alive, possible holding in their very last breath through a material such as stone, a very hard material. It is the sculptures that contain the kinetic volume and motion that people should want to touch. I would like to disagree with the author that sculpture does not make people want to “handle every figure.” Most sculptures give off the presence that it shouldn’t be touched. Sculpture figures depending on their placement is directly connected to people wanting to touch it. A sculpture in the middle of a grass lawn simply asks not to be touched. A sculpture on the street immediately invites the viewers to look and touch. If sculptures were made to touch, why can’t we ever touch sculptures in museums? I have always wondered that.

The other interesting part of this article is the concept of creating space in architecture. What designers create may not be what is experienced. The intentioned is missed because we see it for its purpose and therefore the architecture if design is purely art because it does not relate to function. Where as in the case of a monument it is thought of less as a shelter and can be seen for what it is and its meaning. This simply makes me think of my own design. Is the design simply four walls or am I really designing something more? Simply by believing the space is a great multi-purpose space does not mean it will be used like the intended design. My thesis is using movable architecture to allow for a building to be multi-functional. Even though my project is very much hypothetical, how do I make a space used specifically the way I want to? And the only answer I have come up with is that it will require understanding the users and how they adapt to those uses. Anything that is too difficult or if there is one option that is more liked then the design may not become multifunctional. As much as I would like to sculpt my project for people to see, if it were to be built the building may not be used desired. Like sculpture if we simply look at it and see it as a piece of stone that is in the shape of a figure the desired intention may not be seen. Both sculpture and architecture require the users to understand the meaning and purpose to truly appreciate their creation.

Response to Suzanne Langer "Virtual Space"

In this excerpt from Suzanne Langer, the author discusses the different virtual spaces that sculpture and architecture create. Architecture is so close to us; it is so much a part of our everyday life that we grow quite unconscious of it. We are conscious perhaps of an especially tall building, or of a particularly big building, but they move us in no special wonder- wonder, in the sense that we should like to know how they came to be there or that they are a product of the human imagination. But, despite the ignorance of the principles of architectural design or the processes of design, they are the same principles and processes in any other art. Architecture is very much a three-dimensional art. Mass and proportion, heights and widths, walls and openings, mouldings and ornament, are the simple elements of the language of architecture, capable of infinite modulation and variety.

In sculpture, you are also dealing with ponderable substances; with three dimensions; with mass; with the play of light and shade which modulates the forms and transitions from form to form; with an actual rather than an apparent balance, such as the way a statue stands well poised on its feet; with rhythm, harmony, beauty, and always a general design. In many of its qualities it is closely allied with architecture, and in some with painting. In good sculpture one in not conscious of arms and legs, because they are arranged in such a way that they contribute the unity of the piece.

While when have seen that in architecture and sculpture, even painting, the materials, means, and modes of expression appropriate to each vary widely, the same principles and qualities are common to all- design, proportion, balance or symmetry, rhythm, pattern, harmony, contrast, style. These link them in an essential unity.

-Jessica Potts

Response to "Virtual Space"

In Suzanne Langer’s article “Virtual Space,” she discusses sculpture as a three-dimensional art that focuses on the self. This is opposed to her description of Architecture, which focuses on the “ethnic domain,” which is the environment created by self. In this regard, Architecture and sculpture are the complete antithesis of one another. Let us explore these ideas further.

Sculpture is the frozen moment in time of a kinetic form. No longer moving, this perception of movement is part of our understanding of what sculpture is. Unlike painting or other flat art, where a sense of space is perceived to be in existence though is in essence only represented in a flat plane, sculpture in its 3-dimensionality has the ability to morph and change based upon our vantage point, the levels of light, time of day/year/atmospheric conditions, and many other factors. This ability to be viewed, visually, in many different ways, is part of the draw for the viewer. Another interesting aspect of sculpture is how the negative space in and around the sculpture become a part of the sculpture. In the author’s argument, these negative spaces are what help anchor sculpture into the realm of self awareness. We are concerned with sculpture on a personal basis, especially when it is anthropomorphic. The sensory aspects of movement, touch, sight, and even smell of a sculpture are experienced on a personal level, for the self, to be viewed and appreciated by oneself.

Unlike the “scene” of pictorial art, or the “kinetic volume,” Architecture is “an ethnic domain.” Although the author first discusses Architecture as being vernacular in the most basic form, an argument that she seems to forget in her further argument, the ethnic domain, or public environment of Architecture is its main definitive difference from sculpture. No debate here on form or function or built or occupy-able ability, Architecture is whittled down to the environment around us. It is, in essence, the symbol of humanity created by a culmination of culture, technology, and materials accessible. This is an interesting concept to me. Though I don’t necessarily believe in the duality of Architecture and sculpture feeding off each other as a personal vs. public phenomenon, as I consider Architecture to often be very personal in nature as well, I do appreciate the observation that while Sculpture focuses inward, occupying an Architectural work has the viewer focusing outward.

-Rachel Dentel

Does this photo work for tomorrow?

Mugshot for friday

This is similar to how you photo for this week should look, fyi.