Atmosphere is an ambiguous word subject to many interpretations within the realm of architecture. From a scientific perspective, atmosphere starts where construction stops, wrapping around or within a building, independent from the building itself. One could argue that control on such atmosphere is impossible to attain. On the other hand, one could debate that architecture does produce an atmosphere with its physical form, details and use of materials, through an array of intangible generated effects such as light, sound, smell and heat. When walking around or into a building, one is experiencing it’s atmosphere not the object as such. Within his text named “Architecture of Atmosphere”, Wigley debates the notions raised above, highlighting differences between architects who put atmosphere as the centre of their thinking, whilst others who marginalise it. Finally, I question if architects should be obsessed with such control over atmosphere.
manifesto
Frank Lloyd Wright saw himself as an architect of atmosphere and within his writings and beliefs he maintained that atmosphere is not something that can be directly perceived. In line with Expressionist and Art Nouveau architects, Wright repeatedly argued that a good atmosphere is generated by the sum of all individual parts, harmonised in a singular vision. He felt that architects deal with the less tangible effects of architecture, in order to create an atmosphere. This is depicted in Wright’s drawings, portraying Falling Waters as if it is part of the atmosphere, where there is not clear distinction of where the building stops, where “the air becomes an architectural element.”
Such techniques are also utilised by many contemporary architects nowadays that produce computer representations displaying architecture as if effecting or having a force on the atmosphere, “as if surfaces are crafted in a way that produce an ideal atmosphere.” The Situationists, a revolutionary group of architects amongst other politicians and intellectuals, advocated such concepts even further, redefining “architecture as pure atmospherics.” Guy Debord, insisted that architecture needs to be redesigned, by exploiting the radical potential of atmosphere. Particular emphasis was given to decoration. The ‘Situationist architect’ had to exploit existing decors by developing new systems of décor, which relate to past systems, “Changing the decoration constructs a new dreamworld”
Constant Nieuwenhuys, proposed an “indepth study of the means of creating ambiences, and the latter’s psychological influence” and he produced the New Babylon proposal, a project for a fictitious large city, which he worked on from 1956 to 1974. Within this project, Constant tried to produce a dynamic city machine, which is constantly producing ever changing atmospheres. He was imagining a world constructed by users rather by the architect. Constant eventually came to the realisation, that this uncontrolled atmosphere would eventually supersede the architect, and eventually rejected his own project, and perceived that users can’t create architecture.
Le Corbusier, condemned earlier architects for focusing too much on atmosphere. His Villa Savoye, a décor-less building, and his book Esprit Nouveau, called for a new architecture based on function, reason and necessity. Le Corbusier, in “How to teach architecture” insisted for stenographic drawings, with no extra lines, colours or illustrations confusing the observer with the reality he is dealing with. Post modern architect took a similar approach, saying that “architecture is supposed to be more than a special effects department.” This reasoning is also represented in many of their drawings that were minimal, with precise building lines, devoid of any atmospheric lines as depicted in Wright’s drawings. Ironically, Wigley argues that this approach, still produced an atmosphere in its own right, and “the apparent absence of décor quickly become the décor of choice.”
Wigley finally debates that even till today there is no direct training in atmospherics in schools of architecture. There is this apparent paradox that even though atmosphere is perceived as so important by students and jury alike, it still can’t be thought nor clearly defined. Students till today, create drawings and illustrations that constantly aspire to make the observer experience something around the building’s atmosphere. It’s like atmospheric effects can’t be avoided, and that architecture is indeed “defined by atmosphere” Wigley ends his writing by stating that “In the end, the main effect of their discourse is the fragile illusion that architecture is more than an effect, the illusion that atmosphere can be controlled”
interpretation
Wigley seems to be suggesting that architects seem addicted to control, seemingly obsessed with effecting atmosphere, obsessed in leaving a mark or a statement and having control over environment. I argue there is a huge contrast between the random and dynamic beauty of vernacular architecture built by the lay man without any control or advise of architects. Modernist architecture has many times resulted to unattractive and obvious architecture built from standardised building components for standardised living. Obsession with control many times resulted to inhuman architecture.
relationship to other texts
Toyo Ito, in his text “Learning from a tree” written in 2009, states that modernist architecture is based on “independence from nature, a pursuit functionalism based on pure, lucid geometry- dominate the world even now.” He argues about architects obsessed with control, rather than an architecture that is based on relationships open with the environment. Similarly, Fujimoto, in his text Primitive Future, hints for architecture for the future that is composed of “artificial caves” possibly made by people. He aims of making “an architecture that even a child can draw.” Philippe Rahm and Gilles Clement in their text environ(ne)ment , call for an “architecture free of formal and functional predeterminations, a de-programmed architecture that is open to variations of season and weather conditions, day/night transitions, the passage of time, and the appearance of novel functions and unexpected forms” They insist for an architecture, which is not based on functional and symbolic constraints, but one which is based on freedom of use and interpretation, a dynamic architecture. Their writings seem to be echoing Constant’s lost dream of having an architecture which is adapting to its users and inhabitants.
future research
Having analysed the above texts, an area of research which I deem would be important, is the role of the architect for future architecture and understanding better where does the architect’s control over design end. The importance of the architect creating an architecture that is not obsessed with trying to control and dominate its user or surroundings but an architecture that is dynamic, that can adapt and form complex relationships with the environment.