Does research have any use for architecture? Why bother? Research jargonizes the obvious.
Typical findings and interpretative comments from Architectural Psychology and the Unavoidable Art:
but
“everyone of the statements is the direct opposite of, or significantly different from what was actually found”
So maybe there’s more to the seemingly obvious after all. After all, the sun doesn’t actually revolve around the earth does it? Assuming valid research methods came up with these non-intuitive conclusions, we have to acknowledge that maybe our architecture needs to be driven by an understanding of the physical and psychological inclinations of individuals and societies, in addition to the other pragmatic issues. Research has certain limitations:
Having said that, maybe the best way to do this would be (for example) to take each slide shown in the class, note the issue or idea, read about it and look for examples of it in practice in past experiences and present observations. Maybe come to some conclusions, maybe not… depending on whether or not I think it’s fair to make a generalization. To test this out, I want to take four photographs from my album, and then make broad generalizations about the relationship between man and nature at a macro-scale based on those photographs.
So what tales do these photographs tell? Each is different, and therein lies the generalization – there is no generalization when it comes to man, built form, and nature. Man has no coherent or universal understanding of his relationship with nature. He is the dispassionate observer outside nature who isn’t responsible for what happens to his subject, but he is also inextricably linked to nature – the revenge of Heisenberg? Do our physical constructs
and whatever they do, what alternatives do we have as architects? Maybe pretty forms and surfaces do not define “good architecture”, but the opportunities it provides for people to play out their parts. By observing how people behave in different environments, and how comfortable they are (physically and socially), we might not end up with a set of rules for architecture, but with a better understanding of the possibilities for architecture.
“What with the difficulties about obviousness, the relevance of such diversity of information to design, the large number of variables involved, the degree of confidence when looking at the results, the ‘data paradox’, the first and second order problems… he (the Architect) may be convinced that the best and easiest way out is to forget the whole thing and design completely by feel… What is wrong is that he does not test his ideas against what we do know about people both from psychology and from those architects who have succeeded in designing pleasing and humane environments.” (Mikellides, 1980)
“Architectural psychology seeks to find out why people react to buildings differently. Why are some buildings and environments liked more or hated less….” (Mikellides, 1980)
The bare necessities: shelter from the desert sun, and family. But would an American conditioned to live in AC glass boxes be as comfortable? Different social backgrounds count as much as different environmental backgrounds. By researching and comparing, we could understand these backgrounds better.
References
Crichton, M., 1993. Jurassic Park. Ballantine Books
Mikellides, B., 1980, Architecture for people: explorations in a new humane environment. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1980.