Architectural Space

            I really enjoyed these two architecture readings.  I haven't had a lot of experience reading about art architecture theory, so it was very enlightening.  The first reading by August Schmarsow was, to me, the more fascinating of the two.  The passages where he wrote about internal and external space were intriguing.  On page 288, he says, "Architecture...is the creatress of space, in accordance with the ideal forms of the human intuition of space."  It is interesting to see that there is a concrete connection with creating space and the imaginative and intuitive ideas that humans have of space.  Schmarsow goes on to say on page 289 that, "We also satisfy a spiritual need by gaining enough "elbowroom."  This brings up a plethora of ideas of how having enough space, or achieving enough space because of success "satisfies" something "spiritual" in us, a "need" even.  It makes me think of being in mansion size square-footage vs. feelings safe in a smaller space.  Also, thinking of the way space gets taken over, or when you have to share your space, and how those variables effect your "spiritual need" for enough space.  On the bottom of page 291, August explains that, "Space must be filled with a life of its own if it is to satisfy us and make us happy."  Creating some sort of home environment that has evidence of being is what makes one happy.  “Architecture as the creatress of space is based on a systematic command of the material of spatial imagination and constitutes a creative elaboration of the three-dimensional visual image for human satisfaction and pleasure.” (292)  The correct space creates contentment and happiness in humans.

            The Paul Frankl reading was more factual and linear and I really liked how he articulated the changes in thinking/beliefs/reason and how that affected the architectural model of that time or phase.  Frankl says that, “the meaning of a space derives solely from its furnishings, and thus it is a grave error to attempt tot explain architecture aesthetically or historically without them.”  I thought immediately on my recent Winchester Mystery House tour.  The house has around 150 rooms and only a few of them are furnished with any furniture at all.  All of the original furniture was moved out of the house when Mrs. Winchester died and so there is no way of knowing what exactly was inside or how it was furnished.  They bought pieces of furnishings that were common at the time but there is no way of having a complete understanding of the life of Mrs. Winchester and now the house maintains a “lifeless effect”.

            Frankl writes, “When a generation ceases to have a vital interest in a certain content, the image becomes unintelligible to the multitude.” (159) We see this all the time now that everything is changing so quickly.  It was intriguing to learn that even though buildings can physically last longer that paintings, their “life span as living works of art is often much shorter.”  In the section where Frankl explains that when, “a building dies as soon as the life within it has vanished, even if we know the customs of the people who once belonged to it”, I wonder if that statement holds true in a place like Pompeii? (160) In Pompeii, there are still persevered bodies in several places and even though the people living in that time are no longer there, the spaces are still constantly filled with people being tourists.  Does Frankl’s statement hold true for every building that allows for tourism?