Dear Tom /Alain and others,
Tom - thanks a lot for your reply and detailed reference. The questions I raised about Eisenman and Space syntax is not so academic in some sense. As I was in the Space Syntax London research community, I should be aware of the huge difference between them.
But the underlay reason I raised the question is that - why Space Syntax theory has so less interaction with other architecture theories?
I am now doing research in architecture department where people talks more about theories with key words such as semiotics, phenomenology, place, critical regionalism, tectonic, unfolding. Frankly speaking, I feel a bit lonely taken a space syntax point of view here. I even feel that I have much common language with people who are from planning school. But anyway, space syntax was initiated from architecture field!
It's curious that the term "space" we talked here is quite different from the space architects' mind - the 3 dimensional space. (I know we got advance on 3-d space, but still not deep enough.) And also the word "syntactic" we used is different from Eisenman's mind. It's not a good thing for doing research! It will add difficult for people outside space syntax community to understand SS. I hope there could be some good papers define these terms clearly. And there need to be papers clarify/compare the difference between space syntax thinking from the thinking of Rossi's typology, phenomenology (such as Bill had did is SSS5), New Urbanism etc. This will ease the way for people outside a lot. Also, this is significant for populating Space Syntax theory.
Alain - I appreciate your idea of generative syntax and performative syntax. Although understand only a half about how to make the practice. Maybe you can consider to write a paper on these ideas and even do some design to illustrate? You know this kind of paper can only be done by a person who is familiar with both design and Space syntax theory. : ) And as I understand, this part of knowledge is the essential bridge by which space syntax can assist design more efficiently.
Daisy Xiaoling Dai
Ph.D. Candidate
Architecture Department
Tongji University, Shanghai, China
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alain Chiaradia" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 2:04 AM
Subject: Re: Space Syntax & Eisenman's syntactic investigation on building form
Dear Daisy
This is a design process question:
To put it in one sentence: one is a generative syntax, the other one is performative.
As a designer one should be conversant in both.
Using software
The performative indicator may or may not be inbuilt into the generative syntax because the generative grammar however extensive would be nevertheless incomplete. So you may use performative indicator into your generative syntax then still allow for randomisation, and reapply performative analysis to gather the good one.
Creative designer are often very good at the generative but not very good at the performative. The best designer can do both. Nothing said that both should be done at the same time.
___________________________________________
Alain Chiaradia GradDipl (AA) Arch dplg
Director
SPACE SYNTAX
___________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: tom lists [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 28 June 2006 12:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Space Syntax & Eisenman's syntactic investigation on building form
Dear Daisy
I would suggest that Eisenman's 'syntax' is a fairly
simple question of rules about how shapes can fit
together, with the complexity in the reasoning behind
why that might have cultural significance.
Space syntax seems to me to have more complexity built
into the rules. As you say, Eisenman is configuring
shapes, but space syntax is looking at the
configuration of spaces from a particular point of
view.
In space syntax, one can have different places, which
have buildings of different shapes, but have identical
properties under a configurational analysis because
the _significant_ features are the same. This is part
of the power of the analysis, that it can find common
factors in apparently different situations, and thus
can show where differences are significant, or are
not.
So what aspects of space does SS measure? I would
say that it measures those features which are critical
to human interaction - features that can prevent
people in one area from seeing people in other areas,
and/or prevent them moving to meet each other.
To borrow a phrase from Gibson, it measures the
'affordance' of space, not the shape of space.
(where 'affordance' is taken to mean the perceivable
possibilities of action - see Gibson, J.J. (1979). The
Ecological Approach to Visual Perception)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Another important point is that SS is not limited to
_whether_ one location can be seen from another (for
instance), but extends analysis to the number of
'steps' between distant spaces. This allows SS to ask
'how much affordance' is provided, which is likely to
be important in relation to social phenomena. In more
recent variants this includes fractions of steps,
which seem to me to be significant on the
architectural scale.
But exactly what is being afforded, and even whether
it is always the same thing, seems to be a matter for
debate. And the important question of how the
affordance of some rather specific human actions
relates to interesting social consequences seems to be
a matter of some sensitivity in the research
community.
I should point out that I am not a member of that
research community, and have only tried to make sense
of SS in terms of my practice of architecture. I am
aware that even the guarded views expressed above my
be controversial, someone may wish to put me right?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
My knowledge of Eisenman's work is also limited, but
what strikes me is his approach involves finding ways
of inhibiting people in their daily lives, in contrast
with SS which tries to assist the successful
functioning of daily events. I seem to remember
reading Eisenman replying to an angry client that "If
he wanted a house to live in, he should not have
commissioned an Eisenman building," which would
suggest he is producing art, and not architecture.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
You might want to check out some work by Sophia
Psarra, who looks at applying SS procedures to the
shape building plans. The following link points you
in the direction of her papers on this matter -
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/spsarra/analysis_of_space_and_form
Regards,
Tom Dine
Chassay+Last Architects
London
--- dai Xiaoling <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear All,
I am currently writing an essay about the different
meaning of "syntax" in Eisenman's housing projects and
Space Syntax theory.
. . . .
4.Also, it seems that the syntax Eisenman talks about
is a bit different from SS's conception. Eisenman
focus on the rule of generation and transformation. SS
seems focus on the deep structure. Comments?
5.I remember in Hillier's lecture, he once talked to
us the potential that syntactic approach may one day
be applied to analyze elevations of building. As
Eisenman already made a step using syntactic idea to
generate form. Should we learn from him and can we
learn from him?
Sincerely!
Daisy Xiaoling Dai
Ph.D. Candidate
Architecture Department
Tongji University, Shanghai, China
___________________________________________________________
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" - The Wall Street Journal
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
|
