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.
