English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Historically, there have been two ways of perceiving space that have been considered opposed to one another and that have significant implications for the way in which architecture is understood. The first is real space, which relates to the direct, sensory and embodied perceptions of architecture as built. This space generates the symbolic meanings of architecture and is understood as our primary way of understanding space. The Second is the analytical, measured space of representation - the drawings and models architects make, which have historically been called the instrumental as they are instruments in the description of architecture. This work challenges that these are independent and oppositional ways of understanding space. I argue that this perceived separation perpetuates the notion of the instrumental and symbolic meanings of architecture to be held in a dichotomous relationship. The aim of this research is to reorient the instrumental and symbolic meanings of architecture toward a reciprocal relationship by examining their presence within both real and representational space. The research first explores the distinct characteristics of real and representational space that have perpetuated the notion they are distinct entities. Once these characteristics are identified, two central case studies explore ways in which they are translated through real and representational space in order to engender a more meaningful reciprocity. Referencing Michael Webb’s Temple Island (1966 - ongoing) and Guarino Guarini’s Santissima Sindone in Turin (1667-1694) as revealing examples, this thesis argues that the qualities of real and representational space are constantly permeating the assumed boundaries of each other, and that consequently, an architectural space exists between them. Indeed, this thesis aims to examine the existence of a metaphorical interval between a physical building, and its representation in drawings and modeling. This research proposes that pure instrumentality is an illusion, maintaining its legitimacy through a self-imposed autonomy. The research concludes in a design project that suggests a more complex form of inhabiting architecture may challenge the gap between real and representational space, and by extension the separation of the instrumental and symbolic meanings of architecture. It sets out to achieve this through an allegorical investigation exploring a more complex way to occupy architecture - where both real space and the space of representation can be occupied simultaneously. The design research seeks to dissolve the distinctions between how architecture is designed and represented, and how it is understood experientially as built. The thesis concludes that by collapsing the sensory, embodied complexities of real space, with the abstract, analytical characteristics of representational space, the instrumental and symbolic meanings of architecture can be understood in a reciprocal relationship, where one gives structure and meaning to the other.

A Projective Site: Inhabiting the Metaphorical Interval between the Instrumental and Symbolic Meanings of Architecture