"Architecture is experienced in a state of distraction"
-- Scott Drake
We can say that we spend most of our time in built spaces, but we
barely realize this. We instinctively react to the surroundings according
to norms and common sense ie. we drive on roads, enter the building through
doors. We live as the norms towards the architecture direct us. We
react this way because it is a conventional thing to do. Everything has a meaning, they are meant to be
use in certain way.
But what if we disagree? Of course, each person has his/her
own perspective, his/her own interpretation.
One object can have several meanings because people see it
differently.
There are times that norms are broken, too. In warfare,
soldiers could defy the "walls are solid, impermeable" by performing
a wall breaching. Now they actually enter the building through walls, not
doors as supposed to be.
Preposterous? Yes, but possible
according to the military’s perspective, and more effective than walking around
for the entrance. They, by this, created
the new meaning for the wall, thus new interaction towards walls.
Parkour is another good example of defying the conventional. Walls are now for running up, back-flipping,
balancing on the ledge. It is completely
open up for imagination of how to use them.
I think this theory of meaning is really useful for
architects. By using this concept, we
could define anything according to our interpretation, so it really opens the
possibility to approach our goal up. It could
lead to a more abstract art and architecture, or even new form of them.
