I think that these distinctions and semantic arguments will fade with time. The 'space syntax' label came out of a particular relational approach to descriptive analysis and generative grammars, which at the time was to be seen in distinction to a prevailing semantic view of the way that 'meaning' might be constructed by architecture - remember 'semiotics' in the 1970s? The fact that a descriptive analysis based on representing and quantifying the relational properties of spatial configuration have shown such empirical-statistical explanatory power, have rather overshadowed the much more fundamental theoretical basis of the 'social logic of space'. This theory is built on the notion that society consists (largely) in relations between individual members, and is therefore syntactic in structure. The syntax of space and the syntax of social forms are intimately related, each producing the other.
This is a strong epistemological position, and one where debate now lies with psychology and neuroscience - how do the individual and their environment relate, how do the individual and the group relate, how much of this lies in the structure of the brain and how much in the structure of the world 'out there'? More lies with the maths of networks and complex dynamical systems, how much structure is present in the configuration of relations themselves; how might these structures emerge from simple generative rules? and at another level more with the individual life worlds of embodied and embedded experience; the phenomenology of modern human geography. Here I see 'space syntax' already becoming accepted as a paradigm in its own right which seems to link between radically different disciplines, partly because its focus on 'relations' is simple and generic enough to allow it to engage with and relate positively to a very wide variety of discourses.
Amongst the most important of these discourses are those of design practice. Again, relational thinking is a key. The placement of objects relative to each other in their effects on spatial relations, light, sound, air and people movement; the way these spaces are appropriated for use by people, and the way that this relates to communication, social networking and economic transaction, are all the material of tacit design. This is where syntax descriptive analysis, through visual representations of relational properties, makes a jump into a different theoretical domain: the tacit act of intuitive design, where one theorises about possible social forms and their construction by the material and spatial environment. The analysis allows designers a different kind of conversation with their sketches; in fact it allows the sketches to 'talk back' to the designer about aspects of the social world that may not be immediately apparent on the drawing board to the unaided eye. In this area the 'commercial' activity of Space Syntax Limited (and the many other firms using these ideas in design practice) is an integral, and leading, part of the theoretical development.
Alan
On 25 May 2010, at 14:11, Romulo Krafta wrote:
> Space Syntax could well be taken as a chapter of configurational analysis, (which is part of spatial analysis) if back there in the beginnings it hadn't had been proposed as a totally brand new branch of science that kept no relation to Urban and Human Geography whatsoever. Probably part of the rejection that Lucas mentions comes from some "spatial" scientists' déjà vu sense whenever they come across a SS statement. SS as a branch of Urban Geography would not look so magic, so appealing; although, as it would have had to deal with its actual interfaces with other, previous and current geographic approaches to the city, it could also be stronger.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lucas Figueiredo" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 9:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [SPACESYNTAX] Publication
>
>
> Hello Vinicius,
>
> I have advocated the use of a simpler (and broader) terminology and
> even another name to describe our approach, such as "configurational
> analysis". The name / term "space syntax" faces some kind of rejection
> in some fields (irrational rejection, I might say).
>
> Moreover, "space syntax" is, I argue, a descriptive theory of space,
> which is somehow confused with a much more important theory, the
> theory of the social logic of space, which could embrace other
> methodologies / analytical approaches.
>
> However, if the Journal succeeds in publishing high-quality research,
> the term "space syntax" can be restructured, recuperated from its
> current "illness", eliminating rejections and prejudices. The approach
> (the name of the Journal as "space syntax") is risky, but on the long
> term can be successful.
>
> Best Regards,
> Lucas Figueiredo
> PS: You are a bit young to be in a midlife crisis.
>
> On 24 May 2010 20:42, Vinicius Netto <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> JOSS has space syntax in its name. It remains obviously connected to the
>> syntax community.
>> But if one thinks that the strength of an approach lies -- among other
>> things but perhaps most crucially -- in how it mingles and is absorbed in a
>> broader field (and grasps attentions there) - say, urban studies as a
>> discipline (if we might say so!), the question remains.
>> Furthermore, what is the state of affairs for configurational and analytic
>> approaches to space (not only syntax) today.... Are we getting the attention
>> we believe our approaches deserve? Have we really had a strong impact on how
>> architectural and urban thinkers and researchers out there think? Have these
>> approaches penetrated the way people are researching about current problems
>> such as urban sustainability? Has the syntax community connected concepts
>> able to relate to those matters?
>> apologies for sharing these concerns. It might well be some sort of midlife
>> intellectual crisis kicking in earlier than it should
>> Vini
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> Vinicius M. Netto
>> Núcleo de Estudos e Projetos Habitacionais e Urbanos (NEPHU)
>> Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
>> Rua Almirante Teffé 637
>> 24030-080 Niterói - Rio de Janeiro
>> Fone: +55 (21) 9727-1512
>>
>> Visite www.urbanismo.arq.br
Alan Penn
Professor of Architectural and Urban Computing
Dean of the Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment
University College London
Gower Street
London WC1H6BT
+44 (0)20 7679 4567
[log in to unmask]
|