Space as Meaning and Misunderstanding: Phenomenal Transparency

Visual interpretation of the negative space in the Herbert F. Johnson Museum.

My dad once told me that there are two kinds of architects: the ones who can understand spatial transparency (the privileged) and those who cannot (the rest). Robert Slutzky and Colin Rowe develop in “Trasparency” and “Transparency 2″ (from Architecture Culture: 1943-1968, by Joan Ockman) an understanding of how a building’s formal structure can demarcate spaces. They single out two types of transparencies: the literal and the phenomenal.  The first refers to how a material like glass, although physically “transparent,” is still tangibly present in the structure’s form. In contrast, phenomenal transparency allows for a simultaneous perception of different spatial locations within the same space. The idea is that, like in an optical illusion, forms are suggested –or implied, as Peter Eisenman would prefer to say– rather than depicted. In other words, it allows for spatial stratification within given limits. Phenomenal spaces are never different, but differentiated. Like in Cubist paintings, phenomenal forms are suggested, not stipulated. The viewer defines what he/she sees.

Read the rest of this entry »

First Explorations in Drawing

Herbert F. Johnson Museum: Exploring how the negative space of the facade blends in with its environment.

As part of the first exercise for first-year drawing class of the M.Arch. I at Cornell’s Architecture School, my classmates and I were asked to go around the campus and free-hand draw three structures. The assignment was completely open, as we could draw anything we wanted to portray. The purpose of the exercise  was to begin thinking about how we “see” buildings and how we can represent those ideas about them. I centered on the Herbert F. Johnson Museum, the Sage Chappel, and Uris Library. I wish to share part of my outcome… Read the rest of this entry »