The Language of Images: Towards a Dialogue in Architecture

Summary

PDF Version

Audio

Table of Contents

Names

Timeline

Search this Text

The Language of Images: Towards a Dialogue in Architecture

Introduction

We define as a “language” the use of a code that can express and communicate needs and aspirations; each one is characterized by different means, rules, and levels of perception. The language of words may seem like the most direct one, but it is not. On the contrary, it is understandable only after studying its rules. Other kinds of languages work with visual signs, and these, as for music, do not need to be explained in order to work.The Italian writer Pier Paolo Pasolini said that “the education given to a boy by objects, by things—the material phenomena of his social status—makes him what he is going to be throughout his life.” [1] The language of objects ranges from our homes to the whole environment, a big part of what we generally call “architecture.” As a nonverbal language, it does not need translation; while the verbal languages carry, and underline, cultural differences, architecture, the basic gesture of human existence on earth, is a universal expression, with the potential to express hospitality, respect, and understanding.[2]

Architecture As a Psychological Stratification

The fundamental nature of human beings is to reshape the world around them, marking the landscape in a way that deeply reflects their own internal and spiritual being. During this process, the environment is not a backdrop, but a dialectical pole essential for the activity and the existence of mankind.In defining man as a propulsive and resulting entity at the same time, Fichte’s theory [3] helps us understand the chain of mutual influences which is the process of creating identity. The evolutionary principle of the chain can be seen in what Schelling described as the “principle of nature”: an unconscious movement towards consciousness. Because humans are part of a wider nature, this principle defines a kind of “prehistory” of the human spirit. The proper balance between this unconscious prehistory and the consciousness of human activities gives a measure of the quality of things. Our existence is characterized by polarity between rationality and feeling, instinct and intelligence, lucidity and impulse, Apollonian and Dionysian; the interaction between our history and our present refers precisely to the sphere of the emotional. Nietzsche’s famous speech on Attic tragedy says that beauty is that aesthetic form capable of expressing the emotional chaos of existence in a certain order. But when the Apollonian not only prevails, but also tends to overshadow the Dionysian, the balance of the generative process is lost, the beauty is ruined, and a rift is created between man and nature. The imaginative world is not incidental to human existence; it is a component that can be ignored only at a very high cost in terms of sanity. Precisely because of this close relationship, it is impossible to have the same generative man-made environment in different places (where climate and materials change) for different communities (whose needs and beliefs change).[4] Nature has never had the problem of looking beautiful; in the same way, as Rudofsky said, “vernacular architecture is not a style, but a code of good manners.” [5] Our psychological stratification is reflected in the external environment; our attachment to the testimonies of the past arises from this identification, not from a purely aesthetic satisfaction.

Architecture As a Mirror of the Times

Today languages show a general trend toward impoverishment; with the spread of certain codes, forms are flattened and meanings are eroded. Verbal languages are being adapted to the standards of international communication, incorporating more English expressions, while losing some of their own wealth of idioms. Similarly, we can consider as a great simplification the widespread adoption of the same architectural materials, colors, types, and formal solutions, with the creation of similar skylines in America or Japan, and the exact repetition of buildings in Bilbao and Los Angeles.

The globalization process has led to the economic need to create an appropriate worldwide market. Inducing false needs i n peoples across continents, the management of the territory has become a mere instrument of private interests. The prevailing economic point of view has simplified the way people make decisions, by making financial return the only basis for deciding. But this mode of thinking leaves little room for that which does not produce a profit—a prerequisite for any kind of enjoyment or dialogue with others and with nature. The total domination of rationality over emotion, humiliated and neglected, has led to a dramatic dissociation between people and places, causing a sense of loss, confusion, and alienation. The average building is oppressive, evidently ignorant of, if not opposed to, real human needs. The effects on social life are serious because of the lack of living space, and people vainly seek a substitute in the ever-expanding world of high technology. Web networks eventually replace neighborhood relationships, pushing for the construction of a parallel life. Far from being a sterile criticism of the wonderful opportunities of a global connection, it is stated here that face-to-face relations can by no means be supplanted by a purely telematic dimension. The material reality of relationships is the essence of society; this loss involves the transformation of its own constituent features.

The ability to mark spaces is replaced by the simple application of formulas, schemes, and pre-packed solutions. When science and technology become goals in themselves, they ignore the real purpose they were initially developed for: a better quality of life. Extreme specialization creates an automatic exclusion of all those common—but not specific—interests, that end up being nobody’s. Einstein himself warned against this threat, saying that students should learn first of all to feel and recognize values and beauty, to better address their work.“To insist on competition and immediate utility kills the emotions, which are the very sense of cultural life, including the highly specialized one.” [6]

Architecture and Quality of Life

Preliminary considerations

Quality of life is perceived as the characteristics of a place that make it attractive to live there. Sites characterized by beauty help to overcome civic fragmentation and extreme competition, leading to integration, social cohesion, cooperation, and coexistence.[7] The reintegration of values in individual and public choices is indispensable to displace the logic of personal gain, which cannot help to bring a general improvement in quality of life. Only a real sharing of responsibilities by citizens can move towards a truly sustainable and equitable development. Ruskin, almost two centuries ago, noted that the collective commitment to beauty and justice derives from the ability to perceive and appreciate what is lovable and just, and this faculty needs to be encouraged. We can therefore identify two key factors for this collective commitment: aesthetic education and morals.

Artistic and aesthetic education is not limited to the contemplation of great monuments and works of art, but refers to the spaces of everyday life, as the Arts and Crafts movement tried to promote. Understood rather as an aesthetic training, it is to appreciate common values of the whole environment as expressions of culture. In this widespread heritage is reflected the psychological stratification—the meaning of places inhabited by many generations before us—that ensures the continuity of memory, history, and culture. Unlike contemplation, which is an abstraction from reality, training involves a moral code, which encourages a shared active commitment by citizens.[8]

The role of planning

Human settlements are built from a network of activity that eventually creates the space of the city; the organization of each of these activities affects how it is conducted. The Greek polis is still today one of the highest examples of the generative city. It represents a real fusion of a political, economic, social, formal, and symbolic space. Structured around public discussion and debate, its central places—the agora  and the acropolis—not only coincide with the major political and religious meeting places, but they represent the very soul of the society that created them, so that they become a broader symbol. By naming these places we refer directly to an entire way of life: politics, society, economics, and religious beliefs. A shared social evolution had finally created a new concept of space.

The city today is characterized by high tensions: global economic competition, growing inequalities and disparities, pollution and all sorts of waste. Current research should be directed, then, not to the elaboration of formal solutions for containers, but to the restructuring of less oppressive social spaces, imagining activity, and influencing people’s behavior. The disciplines most directly committed to the future of human beings, such as the social and environmental sciences, should be involved in the definition of urban programs aimed at the real common good. Abstract planning, which made the location irrelevant, needs to be abandoned, while on the contrary the local identity should be enhanced, as the first and most immediate heritage that the community feels and shares. The very concept of planning needs to be changed, becoming an inclusive and participatory process, where the technician is no longer the deus ex machina that deals with the rational arrangement of production and administrative activities, but becomes a mediator of needs and requirements.

As for public spaces, they are not intended simply as boxes to hold people. Stores, bars, and all sorts of glittering complexes are places where people go to consume in groups, under the disguise of enjoying leisure time. The places we need are those where we can really relate to each other and exchange views, ideas, and knowledge; where young people can develop their own common identity, hopes, visions of the future, and creativity. Furthermore, because the city is a mirror of society, these places will be open and ready for a new challenge, that of dialogue. The new globalized world has led to an enormous movement of people that has found us generally unprepared. Misknowledge and misunderstanding bring dangerous tensions between groups with different incomes or different origins—the paradox of a time that sells its image precisely on the advantages and charm of an open and globalized world. Hence knowledge and dialogue are urgently needed, as the only way to mutual understanding and peaceful coexistence. The generalized flattening creates a sense of loss of identity and roots, and consequently the fear of others, while cultural growth has always been a dynamic process, in which each specific identity is enriched by layering different inputs. The mere design of containers for meeting is not sufficient to help this process, especially in an urban system that multiplies the enclaves of exclusion, confinement, and control.

The language of architecture

Architecture can induce a new attitude toward dialogue through the meanings it evokes. The cultural landscape of the Mediterranean region is a wonderful example of the close correspondence between configuration of spaces, use of local materials, climate adaptation, and adherence to social and cultural traditions. Perceiving the natural-generative principle in the world around us gives us a general sense of harmony on a deep psychological level. But how does this language work? What does architecture communicate, and how? Figures 1–20 illustrate how architecture can evoke a wide range of feelings and emotional states.

The main lesson we can learn is the cross-cultural nature of this heritage, in the deep sense of respect we feel for all human beings—including other cultures. Places have their own facial expressions, through which they can help remove tensions and open minds. Recovering the original meaning of architecture implies the rejection of the narcissistic, star-system approach, focusing not on spectacular results but on the feelings evoked. To live, to protect, to exist, to talk, to coexist; enhancing these aspects can deter extreme competitiveness, greed, ostentation, and exclusivity. Two conditions may be set: the respect for nature (not indifference nor arrogance) and the importance of shared spaces. The first condition requires a new approach and a more conscious use of materials and types. The Arab peoples are one clear example, having transformed the desert from a hostile environment to a reliable life companion. Similarly, we should try to use the modern means at our disposal not to subdue nature, but to experience it more wisely, pursuing the coherence of form, function, and technique. The second condition requires a new vitality for public spaces, in a new balance capable of transmitting certain sensations and predispositions. Eventually, the language of images will contribute to creating conditions for dialogue, coexistence, and peace.

Bibliography

Abbagnano, N., and G. Fornero. 1996. Protagonisti e Testi della Filosofia III. Turin.

Di Stefano, R. 1979. Il Recupero dei Valori. Naples.

Fusco, G. L., and P. Nijkamp, eds. 2004. Energia, Bellezza, Partecipazione: La Sfida della Sostenibilità. Milan.

Hekim, B. 2007. “Generative Processes for Revitalizing Historic Towns or Heritage Districts.” International Network for Traditional Building, Architecture and Urbanism Essays (INTBAU) 1(19). http://www.intbau.org/essay19.htm.

Loris Rossi, A., and D. Mazzoleni, eds. 1974. Spazio e Comportamento. Naples.

Mazzoleni, D., et al., eds. 2005. L’architettura come linguaggio di pace. Naples.

Pane, R. 1980. Il Canto dei Tamburi di Pietra. Naples.

———. 2004. L’intitolazione della biblioteca e due lezioni. Naples.

Pasolini, P. P. 2003. Lettere Luterane. Il Progresso come Falso Progresso (1976). Turin.

Rudofsky, B. 1979. Le Meraviglie dell’Architettura Spontanea. Rome-Bari.

Footnotes

Note 1
Pasolini 2003.

Note 2
Mazzoleni et al. 2005.

Note 3
On the philosophical theories of Fichte and Schelling, see Abbagnano and Fornero 1996.

Note 4
For the concept of generative city processes see Hekim 2007.

Note 5
Rudofsky 1979.

Note 6
Quoted in Pane 2004.

Note 7
Fusco and Nijkamp 2004.

Note 8
Pane 1980:185.