tracing heidegger’s influence on architecture
DESCRIPTION
Groundwork for work on Heid. and Arch.TRANSCRIPT
HEIDEGGER’S INFLUENCE ON ARCHITECTURE: An Inventory of Ideas and a Bibliographical Genealogy
Benjamin Zenk Prof. Ron Bontekoe
PHIL 699 -‐ Heidegger May 16, 2014
1
INTRODUCTION
This study simply documents some of Heidegger’s influence on architecture and
architectural theory. After juxtaposing some of Heidegger’s most explicitly
architectural ideas with an old conflict between architecture and philosophy, it
offers a limited intellectual biography of Heidegger with attention to the works
and events in which Heidegger engages directly with architectural ideas. Next, it
offers a philosophical inventory of some of the ideas in Heidegger’s writings that
are architecturally suggestive. After that, it compiles some bibliographical entries
that begin to trace the influence of Heidegger’s thought on architects and
architectural theorists. It concludes with a recap of the general architectural
question that Heiddeger’s thought poses. There are of course resources here and
there that address Heidegger’s influence on architects and architectural theorists.
To my knowledge, however, no single study has gathered these accounts together
to give a succinct account of Heidegger’s promise and influence in this respect that
can also be broadly informative as a reference for those beginning to study
Heidegger with attention to what is architectural in his thought. While this brief
paper cannot hope to be comprehensive to that end in this limited space and
measured time, it begins the task.
PHILOSOPHY & ARCHITECTURE
Philosophers have often found it difficult to praise architectural forms as having
anything but derivative aesthetic value. After all, the art of building is constrained
by necessity and utility in a way that other arts are not, and this has deleterious
2
affects on the formal autonomy of such works.1
In the work of Renaissance architect and art theorist Leon Battista Alberti,
however, the tables are turned. There, one finds a clear devaluation of philosophy.
Alberti does not hesitate to make favorable reference to Plato’s Republic in his
defense of the pursuit of architectural ideals – perfectly beautiful and integrated
edifices. Yet, his attitude toward Plato is ambivalent. Alberti makes use of many
arguments from Plato, since they serve his purposes, but he rejects Plato’s
transcendent and metaphysical project. In Alberti’s satirical work Momus, his
devaluation of philosophy appears in full, often comical force. For instance,
Socrates is found bothering a shoemaker about the ideal leather,2 Apollo curses
himself for having asked the philosophers rather than the architects about the
ideal city,3 and the protagonist Charon declares that painters know more than
philosophers because they see the formal essences of bodies while philosophers
merely engage in “subtleties and verbal quibbles.”4 The pursuits of architects are
strongly appraised in Alberti’s works as being virtuous and as being proper – at
least more obviously so than the dialectical pursuits of Plato’s ideal philosopher –
for sustained and consequential reflection upon social and of course architectural
ideals.
1 Travis T. Anderson, “Complicating Heidegger and the Truth of Architecture,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 69, no. 1 (February 02, 2011), 71. Anderson mentions Hegel and Schopenhauer in pointing out this devaluation of architecture by philosophers. 2 Leon Battista Alberti, Momus, ed. Virginia Brown and Sarah Knight, trans. Sarah Knight, The I Tatti Renaissance Library ITRL 8 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), 253-‐255. 3 Ibid., 281. 4 Ibid., 307.
3
Heidegger can be read as engaged in polemics with philosophical pursuits
as traditionally conceived. He and Alberti have this much in common. They both
reject traditional, disembodied metaphysics and they both ultimately rely on
architectural concepts to give foundational accounts of human experience. To the
extent that Heidegger’s polemical thought is also architecturally suggestive, the
appropriation of his thought by architects and architectural theorists may be
implicated in a similar antagonism, an antagonism continuous with that of Alberti.
The most readily adopted architectural notions from Heidegger’s
philosophical vocabulary are ‘building’ and ‘dwelling.’ According to Heidegger,
dwelling is the necessary condition of building: “We attain to dwelling, so it seems,
only by means of building.”5 It follows from this that to the very extent that
dwelling is made comprehensive in Heideggerian thought, building is also made
comprehensive. On the one hand, the literality of this primordial "building" may
thus be understood as reduced to an architectural metaphor. On an equally
plausible reading, however – one that is perhaps of more use to architectural
theorists – Heidegger is implying that architectural ideas are fundamental to
human being-‐in-‐the-‐world in a non-‐metaphorical way. This is not a new
suggestion, by any means, and it is this reading that seems to sustain the relevance
of Heidegger’s work in an architectural context.
In Alberti’s Momus, mockery at the frivolousness of asking Socrates what
the most just city would look like is a recurring theme. Only an architect, it is
5 Martin Heidegger, “Building Dwelling Thinking,” in Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, ed. David Farrell Krell, trans. Albert Hofstadter, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1993), 347.
4
suggested, can pose relevant answers to such fundamental questions. The
suggestion one finds in tracing the evolution of Heidegger’s thought is that
perhaps the most fundamental questions are in fact architectural. Plato's Socrates
insisted that no remnant of Kallipolis would ever come into being until
philosophers became kings or kings became philosophers. Via Alberti’s Momus
and via an architectural reading of Heidegger (a reading perhaps implied by later
Heidegger himself), a further stipulation suggests itself: for Kallipolis to be
achieved, either these philosophers must become architects or architects must
become philosophers.
HEIDEGGER & ARCHITECTURE
Heidegger as philosopher eventually gave way to Heidegger as architect, if only in
a metaphorical way. Heidegger’s philosophy, especially in the later period of his
intellectual output, engages metaphors that are unmistakably architectural. This
thinking is exemplified by his 1951 lecture “Bauen Wohnen Denken” (“Building
Dwelling Thinking”), where the concepts of building, dwelling, and thinking are
integrated in a way that accords with Heidegger’s more general phenomenology of
being as carried over from his magnum opus, Sein und Zeit (Being and Time).
Heidegger’s architectural thought, then, is not limited to the concepts in this 1951
essay.
Heidegger apparently understood his own thought to have advanced in
three stages. In the first, from his earliest work to the publication of Sein und Zeit,
he was concerned with the question of meaning. Specifically, of course, he was
5
interested in the question of the meaning of being and in undertaking an overhaul
of traditional metaphysics. The second stage of his thought began with the
publication of Sein und Zeit and faded along with his disillusionment with the
National Socialist party (sometime between the early 1930s to the 1950s). This
stage was marked by Heidegger’s concern with truth. Major works such as “The
Origin of the Work of Art” (1935), “On the Essence of Truth” (1949), and “The
Question Concerning Technology” (1950) were penned during this stage. The third
period was characterized by a concern, on Heidegger’s part, with issues of place.6
This explicit concern with issues of place began in 1951 at the latest. It was
on August 5th of that year when Heidegger delivered a lecture to a noteworthy
audience of architects and scholars at the school of architect Hans Scharoun in
Darmstadt. This conference, an iteration of the Darmstädter Gespräche
(Darmstadt Colloquia) had been convened that year on the topic of “Mensch und
Raum” (Man and Space). It is where Heidegger presented his well-‐known essay
“Bauen Wohnen Denken” (Building Dwelling Thinking) for the first time.
Heidegger's essay exposed a dilemma with regard to what was then being referred
to as the Wohnungsfrage (the question of dwelling): Is there a shortage of
dwellings because of an existential problem, namely that humans don't know how
to dwell, or is there a shortage because of a technological problem, namely that
dwellings cannot be produced quickly enough?7
6 Adam Sharr, Heidegger for Architects, Thinkers for Architects 02 (New York: Routledge, 2007), 20. 7 Branko Mitrovic, Philosophy for Architects (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2011), 131.
6
Adam Sharr, in his 2007 volume Heidegger for Architects, suggests that
Heidegger’s consideration of dwelling was to some extent a response the
requisitioning of his home during this time.8 Having been forced to resign from
teaching in 19469 after the Freiburg de-‐Nazification hearings, and having been
compelled to share his Freiburg home with several families to make room for post-‐
war refugees,10 the questions of where one belonged and whether and in what
sense someone lived somewhere – essentially philosophical dimensions of the
more logistical Wohnungsfrage – would certainly have been of personal
significance to Heidegger.
In June of 1950, after his teaching ban was “relaxed,” Heidegger delivered his
lecture “The Thing.” This was his first public appearance since de-‐Nazification.
“The Thing,” “Building Dwelling Thinking,” and another essay entitled,
“…poetically, Man dwells…” (delivered at the Bühler Höhe spa in Baden Baden)
were among Heidegger’s most explicitly architecturally themed works. They mark
the shift in his orientation from questions of truth to questions of place. In his
volume, Heidegger for Architects, Sharr treats these three essays as complementary
foundations to an understanding of Heidegger that is worth elaborating in relation
to architecture. These essays are the “most architectural,” according to Sharr,
because of the authority given therein to “immediate experience.”11
8 Adam Sharr, Heidegger for Architects, 22. 9 Ibid., 19. 10 Ibid., 21. 11 Ibid., 4.
7
In addition to these essays, it is critical to mention that Heidegger’s later
ideas on architecture bear clear resemblances to his earlier work – e.g., Being and
Time (1927) or “The Origin of the Work of Art” (1935) – and that these ideas are not
reducible to the three essays. Heidegger’s 1971 essay “Art and Space,” for example,
is yet another source of his architecturally pertinent thought.
As mentioned, Heidegger identified three phases in his own work –
meaning, truth, and place. Sharr and Clark have identified three regular residences
that Heidegger may have related to most personally in articulating his
architectural views in the last of these phases. Sharr represents these primary
experiences of “dwelling” as two-‐fold: Heidegger's urban home in Freiburg-‐im-‐
Breisgau is contrasted with his rural refuge in Todtnauberg. In his review of Sharr’s
book Heidegger’s Hut, Timothy Clark points out that a third basis for Heidegger’s
experiences of dwelling is wanting of mention: Heidegger often spent time back in
his hometown of Meßkirch.12 This, after all, is where Heidegger came from and
where, at his own request, he would eventually be buried. Clark points out that
acknowledging this third residence “creates a triangle of Heideggerian bases –
rural, urban, and small town – all situated in the area of the Black Forest.”13 Of
course, the fact of this diversity of residences could easily be overemphasized. Be
that as it may, Heidegger spent much of his life at each, and he found his hut in
Todtnauberg most conducive to thought.
12 Heidegger celebrates his childhood home in his 1949 essay, “Der Feldweg.” Cf. Timothy Clark, “Can a Place Think? On Adam Sharr’s Heidegger's Hut,” Cultural Politics 4, no. 1 (2008), 103. 13 Ibid.
8
The location of Heidegger’s hut – just above Todtnau and a days walk from
Freiburg – its simple layout and design, and its contrast with his life in Freiburg-‐
im-‐Breisgau has been thoroughly explored by Adam Sharr in his study. Clark
suggests, critically, that Sharr’s book evades the challenge of Heidegger's thought
by treating it as an “empirical spectacle.”14 Clark's review, titled, “Can a Place
Think?” wrestles with the suggestion that, at Todtnauberg, Heidegger's thinking
was itself emergent out of the place, as if Heidegger himself had no agency in the
matter. Clark also claims that Heidegger's notion of “earth” is crucial to the
thinker's experiences at Todtnauberg, and that Sharr underappreciates this by
reducing this notion to a “‘datum’ for personal identity.”15
Whatever the case may be, it is clear that Heidegger identified his time at
the hut as more valuable and more philosophically significant than his time at his
home in Freiburg-‐im-‐Breisgau. Heidegger’s architectural thought, whether it bears
any direct connection to his experiences in his respective homes or not, can be
applied to an understanding of those places.
AN INVENTORY OF IDEAS
With such application in mind, it will be worthwhile to take some stock of the
Heideggerian concepts that present themselves as having potentially significant
architectural resonances. In Heidegger’s thought, building and dwelling are the
most obvious candidates for insight into and reflection upon architectural issues.
Nonetheless, there are many more concepts in Heidegger’s thought that are also
14 Ibid., 105. 15 Ibid., 101.
9
good candidates for sustained architectural reflection. In no particular order, this
section offers brief surveys as to the significance that such concepts may hold in
this respect.
building/dwelling
Christian Norberg-‐Schulz considers “Building Dwelling Thinking” to be
foundational for the field of architecture in bringing us back to thinking about
authentic dwelling.16 As mentioned above, Heidegger first delivered his mature
versions of these ideas to an audience of architects and others in Darmstadt in
1951. His concern then was with the then significant Wohnungsfrage, or “question
of dwelling.” It should be noted that Heidegger arleady articulated his concept of
dwelling in Being and Time, so this notion was not merely a response to the
Wohnungsfrage as a social concern in the late 1940s. Of dwelling and building in
Heidegger, Travis Anderson writes,
To dwell means to remain in a place, to make it one’s own. And to do that, one needs to build—in all the rich and subtle senses of that word and in a relationship to the elemental that transcends all practical, theoretical, or merely aesthetic relationships.17
Jeff Malpas articulates the architectural significance of dwelling in the following
way,
To dwell is to stand in such a relation of attentiveness and responsiveness, of listening and of questioning. The question of dwelling is never a question ever settled or finally resolved. To dwell is to remain in a state in which
16 Christian Norberg-‐Schulz, “Heidegger’s Thinking on Architecture,” Perspecta 20 (1983), 66-‐67. 17 Anderson, “Complicating Heidegger and the Truth of Architecture,” 77.
10
what it is to dwell—and what it is to dwell here, in this place—is a question constantly put anew.18
As both of these authors point out, dwelling is a certain primordial and authentic
comportment, and it is upon such comportment that building in the truest sense
of the word depends.
space/place
As a property of being-‐in-‐the-‐world, spatiality (Räumlichkeit) is significant
architecturally.19 Heidegger’s 1971 essay "Art and Space," too, could be utilized in its
attention to the relationship between the concepts in its name.20 It is, however, the
“convergence of place and space”21 that make these concepts especially salient for
architectural reflection, since a mere piece of architecture strives to stay in the
aesthetic foreground while a place of dwelling is “near” to us even when it is
physically far from us.22
topology
Malpas insists that Heidegger’s “earlier thinking is just as topological and spatially
rich as Heidegger’s later thinking. The difference is that the earlier work is simply
not as clear about these matters as the later.” In tracing this connection, Malpas
has written Heidegger’s Topology (MIT Press, 2008). Malpas takes the term
18 Jeff Malpas, “Rethinking Dwelling: Heidegger and the Question of Place,” Environmental & Architectural Phenomenology Newsletter, 2014, http://www.arch.ksu.edu/seamon/Malpas_Heidegger_Place.htm. 19 Christian Norberg-‐Schulz, “Heidegger’s Thinking on Architecture,” 46. 20 Glen Hill, “REVIEW: Heidegger for Architects,” Architectural Theory Review 13, no. 1 (April 2008), 117. 21 Anderson, “Complicating Heidegger and the Truth of Architecture,” 72. My italics. 22 Hill, “REVIEW: Heidegger for Architects,”116.
11
“topology” from Heidegger, and notes that it can be found in Heidegger’s ‘Seminar
in Le Thor 1969’, in Four Seminars (Indiana University Press, 2004).
homestead
Anderson points out that by 1942, Heidegger had begun to re-‐conceptualize the
significance of architecture in relation to other works, going so far as to suggest
that the “homestead” is the “site of all sites.”23 Anderson takes this wording from
Heidegger’s lecture course, “Hölderlin’s Hymn The Ister” (Indiana University Press,
1996).
ready-‐to-‐hand/present-‐at-‐hand
According to Anderson, the Vorhandenheit/Zuhandenheit distinction in Heidegger
is complicated by the introduction of art and architectural objects in the PHIL of
Heidegger as early as 1935-‐6.24 Anderson maps out these complications in some
detail, and has laid a groundwork for further study of the compatibility of
Heidegger’s notion of architecture with the ontological constraints of his thought.
work
"The Origin of the Work of Art" could be read for its notion of "work" and to
explore the extent to which architecture is indeed art.25
23 Anderson, “Complicating Heidegger and the Truth of Architecture.”, 77. 24 Ibid., 69. 25 Hill, “REVIEW: Heidegger for Architects,” 117.
12
authenticity
Malpas is careful to trace the connection, even identification of the concept of
dwelling -‐ which only briefly appears in Sein und Zeit – with Heidegger's concept of
authenticity (Eigentlichkeit).26
technology/enframing
An analysis of Heidegger’s “The Question Concerning Technology" could show
how enframing occurs negatively in architecture, too.27
“Language is the house of Being.”
This phrase, from Heidegger’s 1946 “Letter on Humanism” is obviously a useful one
in determining the extent to which Heidegger’s architectural language is merely
metaphorical. In that essay, another architecturally suggestive phrase immediately
follows this one: “In its home man dwells.”28 Norberg-‐Schulz has actually taken
rather literally Heidegger's conception of language as the "house of being" in its
connection to architecture and dwelling, claiming that the key to architectural
authenticity is a matter of letting the language of architecture, the language of
being, speak, so that it may invite us in, and so that in it we may authentically
dwell.29
26 Malpas, “Rethinking Dwelling: Heidegger and the Question of Place.” 27 Hill, “REVIEW: Heidegger for Architects.” 28 217. 29 Christian Norberg-‐Schulz, “Kahn, Heidegger and the Language of Architecture,” Oppositions no. 18 (1979), 46.
13
truth
It has been suggested that architecture, in a way unexplored even by Heidegger
himself, is foundational for him in its role of disclosing truth.30 Norberg-‐Schulz
expresses the same view, and adds with reference to Heidegger’s discussion of the
Greek temple in “The Origin of the Work of Art,” that through gathering together
an inhabited landscape, a work of architecture reveals that landscape as “what it is
in truth.”31
A BIBLIOGRAPHICAL GENEAOLOGY
Having taken account of some of the architecturally suggestive aspects of his
thought, it seemed prudent also to document and give account of some of the
work that has already been done in connecting Heidegger’s work with
architectural practice. To this end, this paper compiles a number of bibliographical
entries documenting architects and architectural theorists with whom
Heideggerian connections are either explicit or suggested. The architects and
theorists listed are arranged alphabetically by last name. The dates and countries
of origin cited are gathered from various Internet sources. This section is intended
to be a guide for further research into the Heideggerian connections that can be
made to the work of these architects and theorists. Hence, while the dates and
home-‐countries mentioned below are believed to be accurate, they are not cited
because of the ready accessibility of such biographical details and the tedium of
citing such information in each case. Furthermore, the designations “architect”
30 Anderson, “Complicating Heidegger and the Truth of Architecture,” 79. 31 Christian Norberg-‐Schulz, “Heidegger’s Thinking on Architecture.”
14
and “theorist” are merely intended to designate whether the person in question
designs buildings, writes about designing buildings, or both.
Alexander, Christopher (1936 – ; Austrian) Architect, Theorist
According to Sharr, Christopher Alexander has sought to validate non-‐expert
building in a way that is consonant with Heidegger’s anti-‐academic mood.32 See,
for example, Alexander’s The Timeless Way of Building (Oxford University Press,
1977).
Frampton, Kenneth (1930 – ; British) Architect, Architectural Theorist
Malpas mentions Frampton as a theorist influenced by Heidegger, and
Miguel de Beistegui mentions Kenneth Frampton “in particular”33 in this respect.
de Beistegui claims that it is Heidegger’s “ontological interpretation of place and
regionality” which gives Frampton (and Norberg-‐Schulz) the opportunity to “call
into question aspects of modernist and postmodernist architecture.”34 Kenneth
Frampton’s anxieties over globalization are emphasized in his essay, “Towards a
Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance,” in The Anti-‐
Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture (Bay Press, 1983), and Hill has pointed out
that this work praises architects like Alvaro Siza (1933 -‐ ; Portuguese) and Carlo
Scarpa (1906-‐1978; Italian).35
32 Adam Sharr, Heidegger for Architects, 3. 33 Miguel de Beistegui, The New Heidegger (New York: Continuum, 2005), 196. 34 Ibid. 35 Hill, “REVIEW: Heidegger for Architects,” 115.
15
Gehry, Frank (1929 – ; Canadian-‐American) Architect
Travis Anderson suggests that Frank Gehry has created near perfect examples of
Heidegger's understanding of architectural works.36
Harries, Karsten (1937 – ; German-‐American) Theorist
Karsten Harries is a professor of philosophy at Yale University. Sharr has noted
that Harries’ work is responding to “dwelling” and “place” and has explored the
“ethical parameters for architecture.”37 Harries’ most recent book is titled, Truth:
The Architecture of the World (gm. Wahrheit: Die Architektur der Welt (Broschiert,
2012)).
Holl, Steven (1947 – ; American) Architect, Theorist
VonderBrink has suggested that Steven Holl draws upon Heidegger's notion of
gathering in conceiving of architectural spaces.38 Sharr notes that Holl is also
responding to “dwelling” and “place,” and that Holl “discusses phenomena and
paints water colours evoking architectural experiences.”39 Some of Holl’s book
length works include Architecture Spoken (Rizzoli, 2007) and Parallax (Birkhäuser,
2000)
George Hill has referred to Holl (along with Peter Zumthor) as a
“phenomenological architect.”40
36 Anderson, “Complicating Heidegger and the Truth of Architecture,” 78. 37 Adam Sharr, Heidegger for Architects, 1. 38 David Thomas VonderBrink, “Architectural Phenomenology: Towards a Design Methodology of Person and Place” (Miami University, 2007), 10. 39 Adam Sharr, Heidegger for Architects, 1. 40 Hill, “REVIEW: Heidegger for Architects,” 115.
16
Kahn, Louis (1901 – 1974; American) Architect, Theorist
After citing the importance of the thought of Merleau-‐Ponty and Bergson in the
architectural process of Louis Kahn, VonderBrink adds, "It is also evident that
Heidegger’s thoughts on language and poetry seep into Kahn’s method, even if not
explicitly. Through reading Kahn’s poetry and narratives, one can see the influence
of language on his designs and the connection to Heidegger’s notion of being-‐there
rather than being-‐thus.”41 Christian Norberg-‐Schulz, too, interprets Heidegger as a
plausible (he does not go so far as to say a necessary) supplement to understanding
Louis Kahn's message about architecture, and more specifically to understanding
the latter's posing of the question of what a building wants to be.42 He insists that
both Heidegger and Kahn understand being as unitary and take an existential
rather than abstract-‐theoretical approach to understanding the significance of
beings. Much of Kahn’s written work on architecture can be found in Louis Kahn:
Essential Texts (WW Norton & Company, 2003).
Norberg-‐Schulz, Christian (1906-‐2000; Norwegian) Architect, Theorist
Much of Norberg-‐Schulz' later work consists of illustrating and clarifying
Heideggers’ “Building Dwelling Thinking.”43 This work constitutes a Heideggerian
“turn” in former’s work and includes his Meaning in Western Architecture (Rizzoli,
1993), Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture (Academy, 1980), and
41 VonderBrink, “Architectural Phenomenology: Towards a Design Methodology of Person and Place,” 12. 42 Christian Norberg-‐Schulz, “Kahn, Heidegger and the Language of Architecture,” 29. 43 Mitrovic, Philosophy for Architects, 138.
17
The Concept of Dwelling (Rizzoli, 1993).
Norberg-‐Schulz, through Heidegger, contributed an account of the
architectural relationship between space and place. (140-‐141). As Mitrovic puts it:
[T]he Heidegger-‐derived discussion of place did enable Norberg-‐Schulz to describe the problems that derive from the facelessness of modernist architecture and its impact on the urban environment. At the time he was writing, the global impact of modernist architecture on the urban environment was becoming painfully obvious, and the modernist urban interventions often led to the destruction of what people called place.44
Indeed, it seems that for Norberg-‐Schulz, dwelling is an “antidote to modernity.”45
Christian Norberg-‐Schulz’ appropriation of Heidegger in his account of
place and identity have had further influences on the interpretations of the work
of Frank Lloyd Wright (1867 – 1969; American) and Louis Kahn.46
The most explicit and well-‐known appropriator of Heideggerian thought to
architectural theory, Norberg-‐Schulz was responding most prominently to
Heidegger’s notions of “dwelling” and “place”47 – he even takes "The Origin of the
Work of Art" as his primary Heideggerian example in his 1983 essay “Heidegger's
Thinking on Architecture” – and his work is also deeply concerned with “spirit of
place” and how Heideggerian thought may aid in thinking such a notion
through.48
44 Ibid., 141. 45 Malpas, “Rethinking Dwelling: Heidegger and the Question of Place.” 46 Hill, “REVIEW: Heidegger for Architects,” 115. 47 Adam Sharr, Heidegger for Architects, 1. 48 Ibid.
18
Pallasmaa, Juhani (1936 -‐ ; Finnish) Theorist
Juhani Pallasmaa has written The Eyes of the Skin. Architecture and the Senses.
(Wiley, 2005), wherein he, too, is responding to Heidegger’s notions of “dwelling”
and “place.”49
St. John Wilson, Colin (1922-‐2007; British) Architect, Theorist
Colin St. John Wilson, via his Heidegger-‐influenced work such as The Other
Tradition of Modern Architecture: The Uncompleted Project (Black Dog Publishing,
1995), has “canonized” the work of architects such as Alvar Alto (1898 – 1976;
Finnish), Gunnar Asplund (1885 – 1940; Swedish) Hans Scharoun (1893-‐1972;
German).50
Vesely, Dalibor (1934 – ; Czech) Theorist
A student of Hans-‐Georg Gadamer (Gadamer was a student of Heidegger), Vesely
is another theorist who has responded to Heidegger’s notions of “dwelling” and
“place.” He has done so in taking up the relationship between architecture and
hermeneutics and with his notion of a “crisis of representation.”51
Zumthor, Peter (1943 -‐ ; Swiss) Architect, Theorist
Referred to as a “phenomenological architect” by George Hill (along with Steven
Holl),52 Peter Zumthor is yet another architectural theorist who can be understood
as responding critically to Heidegger’s notion’s of “dwelling” and “place,” taking
49 Ibid. 50 Hill, “REVIEW: Heidegger for Architects,” 115. 51 Adam Sharr, Heidegger for Architects, 1. 52 Hill, “REVIEW: Heidegger for Architects,” 115.
19
them up in particular to deal with the “atmospheric potential of spaces and
materials.”53
CONCLUSION
Miguel de Beistegui concludes a thought-‐provoking appendix to his book The New
Heidegger by asking, “Does architecture free a space for existence, or does it force
it to become a thing, in a world where there is space (and time) for things only?”54
This question is one that Heidegger’s thought challenges us to answer. The
tendency to view the objects with which we deal every day as primarily theoretical
objects and only secondarily objects of use is seen as a mistake in thinking that
Heidegger’s thought aims to correct.
Praxis, according to Heidegger, derives from theory and not vice versa. This
suggestion is not innocent. It carries with it a sense that knowledge is an
abstraction from dwelling. Further, “dwelling on” theoretical propositions is in a
sense an abstraction from having a home. To be incorrigibly theoretical is to be
homeless; to be ontically fixated is to be homeless. These, though, are just some of
the non-‐metaphorical senses in which Heidegger’s thought can challenge
architectural thinking to seek new foundations.
With Christian Norberg-‐Schulz, I agree that Heidegger's architectural
thought is “of great immediate interest,”55 but one should neither overlook his
potentially dangerous and alienating provincialism nor be too quick to take his
53 Adam Sharr, Heidegger for Architects, 1. 54 Beistegui, The New Heidegger, 197. 55 Christian Norberg-‐Schulz, “Heidegger’s Thinking on Architecture,” 67.
20
language literally in appropriating it to architectural projects. This paper should
lay some foundations for exploring Heidegger’s thought in this way.
21
Works Cited:
Adam Sharr. Heidegger for Architects. Thinkers for Architects 02. New York: Routledge, 2007.
Alberti, Leon Battista. Momus. Edited by Virginia Brown and Sarah Knight. Translated by Sarah Knight. The I Tatti Renaissance Library ITRL 8. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.
Anderson, Travis T. “Complicating Heidegger and the Truth of Architecture.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 69, no. 1 (February 02, 2011): 69–79. doi:10.1111/j.1540-‐6245.2010.01448.x.
Beistegui, Miguel de. The New Heidegger. New York: Continuum, 2005.
Christian Norberg-‐Schulz. “Heidegger’s Thinking on Architecture.” Perspecta 20 (1983): 61–68.
———. “Kahn, Heidegger and the Language of Architecture.” Oppositions no. 18 (1979): 28–47.
Clark, Timothy. “Can a Place Think? On Adam Sharr’s Heidegger's Hut.” Cultural Politics 4, no. 1 (2008): 100–122.
Heidegger, Martin. “Building Dwelling Thinking.” In Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, edited by David Farrell Krell, translated by Albert Hofstadter, 343–364. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1993.
Hill, Glen. “REVIEW: Heidegger for Architects.” Architectural Theory Review 13, no. 1 (April 2008): 115–118. doi:10.1080/13264820801918330.
Malpas, Jeff. “Rethinking Dwelling: Heidegger and the Question of Place.” Environmental & Architectural Phenomenology Newsletter, 2014. http://www.arch.ksu.edu/seamon/Malpas_Heidegger_Place.htm.
Mitrovic, Branko. Philosophy for Architects. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2011.
VonderBrink, David Thomas. “Architectural Phenomenology: Towards a Design Methodology of Person and Place.” Miami University, 2007.