Mathew Girling

1
AR538 - Culture
Architectures psychic sensibility
Mathew Girling
2
Introduction
Ever since the modern movement got onto its feet, questions have been
asked about what it stands on (Ockman, 1993, p.227). The opening line of
John Summersons celebrated essay, The Case for a Theory of Modern Architecture
(1957) illustrates how architects have endeavoured to discover an ideal
language. Colin St John Wilsons Architectural Refections (1992) illustrates the
importance of what Alvar Aalto depicts as the invisible ultra violet feld...
where the rationally indefnable requirements are hidden (Wilson, 1992,
p.42). Summersons and Wilsons philosophical debates will be used as a
theoretical framework to elucidate my position that frstly there is no monistic
architectural language, rather I favour the pluralistic idea that there are many
which are interlinked. And secondly it must be said that the sensibilities
generated through experiencing architecture are recurring. Therefore any
architectural proposition - meaning any intention by the architect to stimulate
a particular psychological response - will have the same psychological
structure if they are to create the same sensibility, since the upholding
structure is isomorphic with the sensibility.
John Summerson
Before proposing my position in architecture, I will interpret both texts
mentioned above.
The 1957 article in the RIBA journal surmised of an architectural theory
that would be a statement of related ideas resting on a philosophical
conception of the nature of architecture (Ockman, 1993, p.228) - found in the
Mediterranean concepts of reason and antiquity. Summersons compacted
theory of reason takes us from the antique (a world of form) to the
programme (a local fragment of social patern) of the modernists in the early
20th century (Vidler, 2011, p.106).
Hitherto architecture had been occupied with formal imitation and it was
the fgures of antiquity which provided the authority which the architect
referenced. Subsequently we are presented with the question of what
the modern principia is: where, if not antique forms, or some equivalent
substitute, is the source of unity (Ockman, 1993, p.230)? In response
Summerson alludes to the program as the source of unity ... a description
of... spatial relationships... required for the convenient performance of
specifc functions (Ockman, 1993, p.230) as the one new principle in modern
architecture.
The dilemma Summerson identifed as nave functionalism was how
to translate such ideas in the programme into a suitable form. The crux
of the problem arose from the frst Congrs International dArchitecture
Moderne (CIAM) meeting in 1929. Le Corbusier proposed a mathematical
system of control, not of expression (Ockman, 1993, p.235), overlooking that
architecture is in fact realized through imitation, prudence and practice - as
Witgenstein postulates: when all possible scientifc questions have been
answered the problems of life remain completely untouched (Sluga, 2011,
p.17).
Summerson presents Lszl Moholy-Nagy, of the Bauhaus, to encapsulate
a new paradigm and advance the functionalist concept of the programme.
Moholy says: architecture will be brought to its fullest realization only
when the deepest knowledge of human life... is available (Ockman, 1993,
p.232). This presents a new theory which would ft the biological (let us say
psychophysical) needs of man like a glove (Ockman, 1993, p.232) and opened
functionalism into the broader spectrum of psychology to which Sandy
Wilson repeatedly alludes to in the Architectural Refections.
Colin St. John Wilson
Wilson analogises the nature of Summersons programme with Watson
and Cricks 1953 DNA model and with the recent discovery of a second code
hiding within DNA (Seiler, 2013) again it appears to be an apt analogy to
distinguish the pluralistic nature of architecture.
For Wilson the frst strand embodies the pragmatic concepts required for a
building to solely fulfl its function; which a conventional functionalist would
interpret as constraints to be solved independently. Isolating the functions in
this mathematical approach overlooks the overlapping resemblances of each
function. As Witgenstein points out, it goes without saying that... everything
we observe around us... interconnected in so many ways will play a part in
his(mans) thinking (Sluga, 2011, p.159) - he recognises a diversity of world-
views linked from the very beginning by a complex network of similarities.
Together they represent a shared human form of life, we might continue to
say that we also share similar psychological states and sensibilities, perhaps
a shared catalogue of innate behaviours. This opens the doors to the second
intertwining strand concerned with the ambiguous psychological and
cultural demands and those symbols for what Aalto called lifes ungraspable
difcult unity (Wilson, 1992 p.89). This is moving beyond the surveyable
parameters based on operational and environmental function towards the
psychophysical aspect of architecture, and begins to make the transcendental
psyche explicable to the architect.
Having compared Summerson and Wilsons views on architecture, I shall
now, with the support of Ludwig Witgenstein and Carl Jung portray my
position, building on the correlating points made by Summerson and Wilson.
Mathew Girling
3
1. Monism vs Pluralism
Monism
Hannes Meyer, an early champion of functionalism (Wilson, 1992,
p.25) claimed that the plan determines itself from the following factors...
(Wilson, 1992, p.28), epitomising the analytic approach to design which
Wilson describes as determinist nonsense. With this view the apparent
diversity of architecture is only a facade which covers the unifying principle.
Witgensteins understanding of philosophy and science can be used to
elucidate my pluralistic position: I do not regard the apparent multiplicity
of the world as consisting merely in phases and unreal divisions of a single
indivisible reality (Sluga, 2011, p.31). Witgenstein is teaching the hopeless
and meaningless search for a unifying principle, pertinent perhaps to CERNs
announcement of discovering the Higgs Boson or God Particle, in March
2013, then only to comprehend that it doesnt really tell us anything about
ourselves (fg 1). We overlook the multiplicity of the world due to our
craving for generality... We tend to look for something in common to all
entities which we commonly subsume under a general term (Sluga, 2011,
p.89). The hitch of any monistic theory is its inability to tell a coherent story
of how plurality can spring from an unconditioned unity (Sluga, 2011, p.86).
In light of monisms inevitable reduction of architecture I will investigate the
benefts and limitations of a pluralistic approach.
Pluralism
Standing in contrast of our tradition in architecture to sustain a universal
notion of harmony is what both Summerson and Wilson were alluding
towards. Instead of producing something common to all... these phenomena
have no one thing in common... but that they are related to one another in
many diferent ways (Sluga, 2011, p.87). This is borrowed from Witgensteins
later understanding of language in the Philosophical Investigations (1953)
whereby he saw to characterize these similarities in no beter way than
through the word family resemblances (Sluga, 2011, p.88). And it is the
human form of life to recognize clusters of overlapping and crisscrossing
resemblances (Sluga, 2011, p.98). Our capacity to do so allows a multitude of
architectural languages to be used as we can formulate diferent concepts and
stress a variety of similarities. This is similar to ideas by Nietsche, suggested
in his essay On Truth and Lies in a Non-Moral Sense, which can be represented
by Max Ernst, Leaf Landscape (1920) (fg 2): it is certain that the concept
leaf is formed by arbitrarily discarding these individual diferences and
by forgeting the distinguishing aspects (Sluga, 2011, p.93). Two questions
arise from this postulation; frstly, what are the limits of our connection of
similarities and concepts? And what we should exclude to invoke the concept
or sensibility intended by the architectural proposition?
Fig 1. Cartonn dipicting our high expectations of fnding a unifying principle.
1
2
Fig 2. Max Ernst, Leaf Landscape (1920). Showing how we naturally use similarities in ataining a concept.
Mathew Girling
4
The frst can be explored through the origin of Witgensteins theory on
family resemblances. It was based on his understanding of language and the
underlying principle can be summed up by the phrase, the meaning of a word
is its use in the language (Sluga, 2011, p.40). This exemplifes the functionalist
ideas of the early twentieth century; however it is not the mechanical outlook
of Le Corbusier or Meyer who used predetermined concepts and imposed
them onto architecture.
Wilson convincingly elaborates on an organic concept of use, referencing
the architects belonging to what he calls the other tradition of modern
architecture (Wilson, 1992, p.v). One of which is Hugo Hring who claimed
that we want to examine things and allow them to discover their own images
(Wilson, 1992, p.168). We can compare this to Peter Collins publication,
Changing ideas in modern architecture (1967), which introduces the biological
analogy within the sphere of functionalism. Collins postulates that whereas
in the functional analogy, the relationship between form and function is
considered as necessary beauty, in the biological analogy, it is considered
as necessary to life (Collins, 1967, p.155). This suggests the limitations
between our connection of similarities and concepts - by introducing a level of
purposefulness through our common needs, interests and form of life.
To direct us towards the second question, Witgenstein suggests these do
not difer so readily from one experience to the next. This is demonstrated
in his Remarks on Frazers Golden Bough (1967) where he questions our ability
to understand the world of ancient mythology, apparently unrelated to our
modern thinking: There are dangers connecting with eating and drinking,
not only for savages, but also for us; nothing is more natural than the desire
to protect ourselves from these (Sluga, 2011, p.98). The innate mechanisms
Witgenstein is suggesting can be explored by the architect to invoke a
particular sensibility.
Wilson gives an account of how diferent architectural languages can still
stimulate the same sensibility using Hans Scharouns Philarmonie (fg 3)
and Karl Friedrich Schinkels Atles museum (fg 4) as examples. He suggests
that although completely diferent in their architecture there are common
variations upon the theme of envelopment and release... in various sequences
and degrees of spatial pressure (Wilson, 1992, p.xiii). The language of these
spatial forms is based on our archetypal feelings of being enveloped or
exposed or on the threshold in-between (Wilson, 1992, p.xiii).
This points towards my second position; that two architectural propositions
will have the same psychological structure if they are to create the same
sensibility.
3
4
Fig 3. Interior of Hans Scharouns Berlin Philharmonie showing the feeling of envelopment
Fig 4. Portico to Karl Friedrich Schinkels Atles museum also showing the feeling of envelopment but with a totally
diferent architectural language
Mathew Girling
5
2. Recurring sensibilities
Rules
The over arching suggestion from my frst position is there are a multitude
of relations between architectural propositions. They may expand, overlap,
or be totally reliant on surrounding propositions, but instead of an absolute
unity I am promoting the modulated control of relationships which unite
architecture.
This is not simply a combination of similarities but is articulate, as
Witgenstein states: only in the nexus of a proposition does a name have
meaning (Sluga, 2011, p.56). This ofers a series of rules guiding the links
between multiple propositions. Two antinomies to Witgensteins explanation
of rules can be classifed by the individualist and collectivist perspective,
whereby the frst proposes that rules are standing intentions that can be
entertained, in principle, by a single individual (Sluga, 2011, p.133). Naturally
I support the collectivist view that rules are based on a shared consensus
of social principles. David Bloor in his publication Witgenstein, Rules and
Institutions (1997) builds a convincing case for the collectivist viewpoint,
suggesting the real source of constraint preventing our going anywhere... are
the local circumstances impinging upon us: our instincts, our biological nature
(Bloor, 1997, p.20). Rules rely on our natural form of behaviour and I maintain
that this is how we communicate in architecture, through a nexus of spatial
forms carrying the archetypal sensibility capable of infuencing how we feel
and behave.
Archetypes
Returning to Wilsons examples we can propose that spatial forms generate
a cluster of resemblances that are similar enough to create a typical response
in the psyche. Carl Jung postulated that we all have a common inborn psychic
structure, enabling typical experiences to be witnessed in all people. This he
called an archetype, an inherited mode of functioning (Jung, 1953-78, XVIII,
para.1228), and it is when a psychological phenomenon is typical to all people
that it is described as an archetype of the collective unconscious. Actualisation
of an archetype is when the stimulus, in our case an architectural proposition,
is presented; releasing the innate behaviour which through evolution is suited
to the situation.
I now am moving beyond ones individual feelings and pursuing the
common archetypal nature of typical experiences. There is a domain of
experience a domain that is indeed the primary source of the one language
that is truly universal and to which we have given the name of body
language (Wilson, 1992, p.16). Wilson here brings atention to our capacity
for empathy which permits an emotional sensibility, originating from
architectures body language i.e. Spatial forms. The importance of spatial
considerations has been made clear by Rob Kriers publication Urban Space
(1979). He presents a copious array of spatial variations (fg 5), however it is
beyond the scope of this work to describe the nature of this infuence (Krier,
1979, p.25) and does not mention the common psychological consequence of
the diferent forms.
5
Fig 5. Rob Kriers examination of urban spatial forms in Urban Space (1979)
Mathew Girling
6
Jungs atitude to archetypes difers from Kriers and other typologies in
their dynamic nature, always pursuing their actualisation and appears to
develop through concepts of association, determined by the rules of similarity
and contiguity. The contiguity - that is to say the sensation of spatial forms due
to continued proximity - causes us to subconsciously assimilate the experience
with a number of in-built archetypes (fg. 6). I will return once again to
Wilsons examples of Scharoun and Schinkle, where he determined the feelings
of envelopment and exposure as said experiences caused by the organisation
of spatial forms. These feelings immediately [becoming] associated with the
sense of being safe or in danger, reassured or threatened: feelings furthermore
whose simultaneous conjunction of opposite modes are as inexplicable as
they are exciting (Wilson, 1992, p.xiii). The apparent innocuous experience
of entering the portico of the Atles museum provoked a momentous latent
psychic phenomenon of actualising the opposing psychological positions
of envelopment and exposure. The frst of these which can be assimilated
with Jungs mother archetype becomes active due to the contiguity of a
protective and benevolent environment. Experienced through the spatial and
tactile forms similar enough to the structure of the innate mother archetype.
This is then succeeded by the transition to the opposed position of exposure
represented by the infant archetype - whereby the infant has an awareness of
their uniqueness and own identity.
On entering the grounds of Carlos Scarpas museum at Castelvecchio, via
the timber drawbridge, shifting between the bright exposure of the street
into the enclosed and shadowed courtyard I too felt the energy caused by the
friction of two opposed forces, exposure and envelopment (fg. 7).
6
Fig 6. Diagram of Jungs model of archetypes and their infuence on the self. Whereby A = the Archetype and C= a
Complex. Whereby the protective and tangible entrance portico has actualised the mother archetype. The confrontation
of the exterior creates a feeling of exposure stimulating the infant archetypal feelings of uniqueness.
7
Fig 7. Photograph of the entrance courtyard of Castelvecchio. The feelings of exposure and independence felt by being
confronted by the tall fortifed walls actualises the latent infant archetype. Whilst the shadowed courtyard makes the
mother archetype active due to feelings of envelopment and security.
Mathew Girling
7
We have a natural tendency to orientate around a dyad of positions -
Nietsche compared Apollonian and Dionysian in The Birth of Tragedy (1872)
to categorise two opposing values in Greek culture (fg. 9), the Swiss poet
Carl Spiteler dealt with the antipathy between imagination and objectivity
epitomised in the characters of Prometheus and Epimetheus (fg. 8). Both
illustrate a distinction between extraversion and introversion, something
Jung picked up on and built-into his psychological types. Although never
acknowledged in Jungs text this appears to have derived from the French
psychologist Alfred Binets division of the intellectual atitude in Ltude
experimentale de lintelligence (1903). Binet characterizes introspection as the
knowledge we have of our inner world, our thoughts, our feelings and
externospection as the orientation of our knowledge toward the exterior
world as opposed to the knowledge of ourselves (Ellenberger, 1970, p.703).
These atitudes can be directly transposed to the two feelings of envelopment
and exposure respectively, however it is important to recognise that the latent
psychic phenomenon is only one path into the exploration of sensibility the
other will be explored in the following paragraph.
Fig 8. Prometheus, Heinrich Fueger, (1817) Showing Promethesus ability for forethought, inventivmness and imagination
Fig 9. Apollo and Marsyas, Hans Thoma (1888). Depicting Apollo holding the Kithara a string instrument symbolising
reason. And Dionysus holding the Aulos, a reed instrument, based on emotions and instincts.
8
9
Mathew Girling
8
Mind and body
Bodily traits are not merely physical, nor mental traits merely psychic
(Jung, 1959, p.76). Jung suggests that there is no separation within the
dichotomy, there is in fact a unity between body and mind. I say this to show
atentiveness to the tactile quality of architecture, something the conventional
phenomenologist will make explicit. They have raised the possibility that a
buildings meaning might be more accurately ascertained through the
direct physical experience of the building itself (Crysler, 2012, p.139). However
I have asserted myself apart from the emblematic use of Martin Heidegger
and Peter Zumthor in an atempt to elucidate the archetypal spatial and inner
psychic possibility of the philosophy. Saying this I fnd the ideas of Heidegger
motivating, what is there in the room... is the table... at which one sits in order
to write The side is not the east side but rather the one at which my wife
sits in the evening when she wants to stay up and read (Heidegger, 1999,
p.69). His work has illuminated the perception of an objects purpose through
paradigmatic memories and physical relation to its surroundings. Everything
that I would assert as being true, however I postulate that although past
experience is essential to architectures sensibility we can draw upon a deeper
structure, the collective unconscious through spatial forms.
Opposites
We have removed the apparent duality of mind and body in the previous
paragraph and Wilson brings atention to Adrian Stokes to explain how the
positions of envelopment and exposure are also not necessarily separate. He
perceives the secret to lie in their fusion In refecting such combined yet
antithetical drives a work of art symbolises the broader integrate processes
(Wilson, 1992, p.8). This could be compared to the visual wonder of
Gestalt psychology which discusses the phenomenon and impossibility of
simultaneously registering opposing positions (fg. 10). Normally one or the
other will dominate but the counterpoint claims that masterpieces manage to
actualise both.
The conversation of Sverre Fehns work is usually dominated by discussions
of the physical context, materiality and construction. However close analysis
of the spatial forms shows the simultaneous psychic sensibility this essay has
elucidated towards. His Norwegian Glacier Museum (1991) makes possible the
paradox of simultaneously experiencing both envelopment and exposure. In
The Paterns of Thoughts (2009) Per Olaf Fjeld tells of how the project developed
from the image of a hollow stone rather than a concept or idea. This object
symbolises both wholeness and independence, the architectural analogue of
the later position of exposure. As well as the qualities of protectiveness and
intimacy associated with the position of envelopment. Fjeld speaks of how
one leaves something of oneself on the viewing platforms, something of a
soul (Fjeld, 2009, p.241) (fg. 10). This feeling of independence actualises the
latent feelings of exposure, however the hollowness in the image of the stone
is important since its limitations recognize natures spatial enormity (Fjeld,
2009, p.240) - expressed through the surrounding glaciers and mountains
which remove any sense of a horizon.
The opposed position of envelopment has been actualised through
the intimacy of the continuous interior articulations (fg 12). Similar to the
rhythmic forms of fowing and merging continuity (Wilson, 1992, p.6)
Wilson perceives in Scharouns Berlin Philharmonie. Moving through
the building the full height slanted glazed walls (fg. 13) blends into high
clerestory windows (fg 14), reinforcing the diference between the exterior
and interior.
Fig 10. Optical phenomenon claiming the impossibility of observing both the vase and the people kissing at the same time
- Gestalt Psychology
10
Mathew Girling
9
11
12
Fig 11. On-top of the Norwegian Glacier Museum, showing the feelings of exposure which are actualised through the
sense of independence in relation to the open exposed environment.
Fig 12. Interior of the Norwegian Glacier Museum, showing the intimacy of the continuous interior
articulations.
Mathew Girling
10
13 14
Fig 13. Interior of the Norwegian Glacier Museum, showing the tall sloped glazed wall Fig 14. Interior of the Norwegian Glacier Museum, showing the high celestory windows.
Mathew Girling
11
Conclusion
I have discussed the feelings of envelopment and exposure and the
simultaneous experience of these polar modes (Wilson, 1992, p.8). This is only
one archetypal relationship which I have chosen to focus on - the pluralistic
nature of architecture allows for an exuberant number of relationships which
can be manifested in many ways peculiar to the architect. It is important
however to follow a teleological approach; ataining a level of completeness in
the psyche of the inhabitant which can be encapsulated by the ancient Greek
word Kalon - notions of the beautiful and of that which is worthwhile of its
own nature (Wilson, 1992, p.30). This is achieved through specifc atention
to the buildings purpose and use, predicated by the pluralistic organisation
of archetypal relationships which are isomorphic with the desirable psychic
sensibility.
Word Count: 3290 (Excluding footnotes, Illustration sources, Reference list and
Bibliography)
Mathew Girling
12
Illustration sources
1. Artist unknown. God exists, and he is American. (-) Drawing. At: www.bainclan.co.uk/
FUTURE/Higgs-Boson.php
2. Ernst, M, Leaf Landscape. (1920). Painting. At: www.emergingmodernisms.wordpress.
com/2013/01/20/artistic-construction-and-the-original-leaf/
3. Liebscher, M. Philharmonie, Foyer. (2005). Photograph. At: www.m-liebscher.defami-
liebilderphilharmonie1.jpg
4. Schinkel, K. F. Staircase. (1829). Drawing. At: www.commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
File:Altes_Museum_Treppe_Schinkel.jpg
5. Krier, R. Geometrical Variations. (1979). Drawing. At: Krier, R. 1979. Urban space. New
York: Rizzoli International Publications.
6. Stevens, A. Mmodel of the psyche. (1994). Drawing. At: www.jung.org/jungs%20
model%20of%20the%20psyche_gad.html
7. Girling, M. Entrance to Castelvecchio. (2013). Photograph.
8. Fueger, H. Prometheus. (1817). Painting. At: www.citiesofight.wordpress.
com/2013/10/30/prometheus-epimetheus-rethought/
9. Thoma, H. Apollo and Marsyas. (1888). Painting. At: www.yestercenturypop.com/tag/
apollo-and-dionysus/
10. Artist Unknown. The Rubin goblet. (-). Drawing. At: www.intropsych.com/ch04_sens-
es/gestalt_psychology.html
11. Magnus, B. DSC_13345. (2009). Photograph. At: www.fickr.com/photos/
crashbone/3798034200/in/photolist-5b7hu-arRzac-2comEr-arRzon-arUc7j-arUbPL-
2comzt-6MxJyx-6MBVmh-6MxJL6-6MBVf-arh5Dd-mhBaJ-mhBaG-arUbqU-ar-
RxCT-arh6eu-arUb2u-arUbeo-arRxjM-mhBaL-dZVcet-dZVcgp-e11TCw-dZVcwz-
e11TBG-2comBZ-e11TWw-e11TFC-e11UsY-5DdbqL-5D8VfB-5aK5jK-iHiFfn-iHnDNY-
iHkA6j-5DdbHd-5D8Vvc-arRyuH-8gRAN2-agx2aG-agugQ6-e12Qkh-e12Qsd-agudGP-
e12QDE-agueDK-6aiwzE-maBBT-6zqVVW
12. Helgersen, S. E/Fehn, S. Interior Views. (-). Photograph. At: Fjeld, P. O. 2009. Sverre
Fehn: the patern of thoughts. New York: Monacelli Press.
13. Craven, J. Cafe of Norwegian Glacier Museum. (-). Photograph. At: www.architecture.
about.com/od/greatbuildings/ss/glacier_8.htm
14. Sommarset, J. A. Sverre Fehn - Norsk Bremuseum i Fjrland. (2011). Photograph. At:
www.fickr.com/photos/sanjoy87/6199790223/in/photolist-5b7kr-5b7nf-5b7qT-5b7dh-
5b7eo-5b7aJ-5b7hu-5b7s9-4AGHwt-ad3EJc-acMias-acMj57-acJuwF-cYF9qy-ad6urd-
acJum6-ad6u65-ad6LRE-arh5VS-areqsg-arh6Bf-arh5Dd-arRzac-arUbqU-arRzon-2com-
Er-arRxCT-arh6eu-arUc7j-arRxjM-arUbPL-arUbeo-arUb2u-2comzt-6MxJyx-6MBVmh-
6MxJL6-6MBVf-e11TBG-5aK5jK-2comBZ-5DdbqL-5D8VfB-iHiFfn-iHnDNY-iHkA6j-
5DdbHd-5D8Vvc-arRyuH-8gRAN2
Reference List
Websites
Seiler, S. (2013). Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW Today. [online]
Available at: htp://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-dis
cover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/ [Accessed: 10 Apr 2014].
Books
Bloor, D. (1997). Witgenstein, rules and institutions. London: Routledge.
Collins, P. (1967). Changing ideals in modern architecture. [S.l.]: Faber.
Crysler, G. (2012). SAGE Handbook of Architectural Theory. SAGE Publications, Lim
ited.
Ellenberger, H. F. (1970). The discovery of the unconscious. New York: Basic Books.
Fjeld, P. O. (2009). Sverre Fehn: the patern of thoughts. New York: Monacelli Press.
Heidegger, M. (1999). Ontology - The Hermeneutics of Facticity. Trans. J. V. Buren.
Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press.
Jung, C. G. (1959). Modern man in search of a soul. New York,: Harcourt.
Jung, C. G., Read, H. and Hull, R. F. C. (1953-78). The collected works of C. G. Jung.
Vol. XVIII. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Krier, R. (1979). Urban space. New York: Rizzoli International Publications.
Ockman, J. and Eigen, E. (1993). Architecture culture, 1943-1968. [New York]: Colum
bia University Graduate School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation.
Sluga, H. D. (2011). Witgenstein. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Vidler, A. (2011). TROUBLES IN THEORY PART I: THE STATE OF THE ART
1945-2000. The Architectural Review, CCXXX (1376), pp. 102-107.
Wilson, C. S. J. (1992). Architectural refections. Oxford: Buterworth Architecture.
Mathew Girling
13
Bibliography
Websites
Seiler, S. (2013). Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW Today. [online]
Available at: htp://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-dis
cover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/ [Accessed: 10 Apr 2014].
Books
Bloor, D. (1997). Witgenstein, rules and institutions. London: Routledge.
Collins, P. (1967). Changing ideals in modern architecture. [S.l.]: Faber.
Crysler, G. (2012). SAGE Handbook of Architectural Theory. SAGE Publications, Limited.
Ellenberger, H. F. (1970). The discovery of the unconscious. New York: Basic Books.
Fjeld, P. O. (2009). Sverre Fehn: the patern of thoughts. New York: Monacelli Press.
Heidegger, M. (1999). Ontology - The Hermeneutics of Facticity. Trans. J. V. Buren. Bloom
ington, Ind.: Indiana University Press.
Jung, C. G. (1959). Modern man in search of a soul. New York,: Harcourt.
Jung, C. G., Read, H. and Hull, R. F. C. (1953-78). The collected works of C. G. Jung. Vol.
XVIII. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Krier, R. (1979). Urban space. New York: Rizzoli International Publications.
Ockman, J. and Eigen, E. (1993). Architecture culture, 1943-1968. [New York]: Columbia
University Graduate School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation.
Sluga, H. D. (2011). Witgenstein. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Vidler, A. (2011). TROUBLES IN THEORY PART I: THE STATE OF THE ART 1945-2000.
The Architectural Review, CCXXX (1376), pp. 102-107.
Wilson, C. S. J. (1992). Architectural refections. Oxford: Buterworth Architecture.
Witgenstein, L. and Anscombe, G. E. M. (1963). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.