Frances to Armando...
You may have a good point to make here for my consideration in
probing whether a sound global theory of architecture is
possible, but it does escape me somewhat, thus the point might be
made clearer for me. On the surface, your claim defies what
science knows about stuff, if your statement is correctly
understood by me. The natural fact and truth in physics is that
all concrete matter is actually prone to the effects of gravity
to some degree. This law of nature for normal humans includes
their visible sense of color, and indeed their sense of any
stuff. The color sensed to be felt or found in an architectural
object would therefore qualify as being virtually or actually
affected by gravity. All natural essences attributed by normal
humans, as say for example colors and shapes and textures and
odors and tastes and sounds and motions, are manifested to sense
in some corporeal substance. The objects that carry them may be
mere phenomena that only seem to be as they are actually assumed,
but they are all nonetheless indeed prone to the impact of
physical gravity. The difference is in the degree to which this
stuff will be affected by gravity and impacted on sense. This is
the real plane of facts for the whole wide world, as it is the
only aspect of the world that is given to and taken by sense,
whether humans like it or not, because humans are not
supernatural beings. It would be my contention therefore that the
depiction imagined of implied gravity in a picture or sculpture
or architecture will be essentially virtual rather than strictly
actual, and its dominance or importance may even be classed by
sense modality, but it will still impact on sense with a
gravitational force. For example, a dark dense dull color will
seem sensed visibly as heavy and down and deep, which effect is
also usually relative to another adjacent color.
Armando wrote...
HERE IS ONE MORE FOR YOUR BOOK. COLORS, ODORS, FLAVORS AND SOUNDS
DEFY GRAVITY, So architecture color does not qualify.
Frances wrote...
Frances to Luis and Armando and William on gravity...
Allow me to cull the notions made by you all in some previous
statements, and post them here as understood by me, for the
purpose of inviting your correction.
(1) The process and progress of architecture seemingly requires
as its main procedure the manipulation and organization of
space,
which entails both the interior and exterior space of the
project, as well as their negative and positive space. This
empty
stuff sensed as space and the use of space of course must
adhere
to the natural laws of gravity, because space can only be
identified and defined by what really exists with it. If there
is
nothing in it or on it or around it, then presumably space does
not exist.
(2) The location and position and orientation and composition
of
parts in or on or around the space of the proposed
architectural
product must respect gravity in its actual presence; but may
defy
gravity in its virtual absence, if gravity is merely implied by
the parts adhering with the space.
(3) Even a pattern in the form of a grid with tiles on a plane
is
dependent on gravity, whether it is presented horizontally or
diagonally or vertically, and either upside down or inside out
or
right side up, which dependence is due to the implication of
gravity on the senses. The intention of the maker in presenting
a
pattern in a certain orientation, and the effect on the viewer
when sensing this pattern, are both irrelevant to the
determination of gravity, whether the positing of gravity is
covertly implicit or overtly explicit. The actual determination
of gravity and its experience will be real regardless of
whether
it is presented abstractly or represented concretely or even
say
derepresented discretely in the form of the pattern.
(4) The deliberate change of orientation for the pattern will
be
impacted on by a sense of gravity, whether the gravity is
signified implicitly or explicitly. The meaning of the object
referred in the pattern will also be impacted by orientation,
but
the degree of impact will be dependent on the kind the sign
originally is, be it an icon or index or symbol; and regardless
of whether the interpreted content of the sign is abstract or
concrete or discrete, and whether the referred object of the
sign
is merely possible or really actual or lawfully agreeable. An
upside down image of an iconic tooth with its roots upward
seems
to defy gravity, but the same tooth is signified regardless,
and
may in any event be an upper or lower tooth. An upside down
head
of an indexic arrow seems to depend on gravity, because a
different direction is signified. An upside down letter of a
symbolic word seems to deplore gravity, because the word is
difficult to code or read. In all instances, gravity will
nonetheless have some impact, because that is the nature of
humans on earth.
(5) It seems that virtual or actual gravity will be with
humans,
even if they travel through heavenly weightless space in
spaceships that were designed and fabricated and remained out
there, where no spatial orientation is likely required in the
architecture. Humans will still demand a sense of gravity, even
when none may presumably be necessary. What the human bodily
being needs in order to continue living in any environment
however is real gravity that remains constant and concrete, and
merely anchoring the feet of persons to the floor of ships will
not do it. This natural fact of gravity is why lengthy space
travel and residence for humans will probably be impossible.
