One of the concepts of semiotics explains how, due to arbitrary relation between signifier (word) and signified (object the word describes), we only understand the words' meanings through comparison, oppositions between them and context:
It is only when he [a language student] has grasped the relation between brown and other colours that he will begin to understand what brown is. And the reason for this is that brown is not an independent concept defined by some essential properties but one term in a system of colour terms, defined by its relations with the other terms which delimit it.
Culler, J., 1986, Saussure
This concept is seconded by Derrida, the creator of deconstruction:
Also, similar theory was applied to design teaching in Bauhaus by Itten and Kandinsky; they believed that:
Whether in written or spoken discourse, no element can function as a sign without relating to another element.
Culler, J., 1986, Saussure
Also, similar theory was applied to design teaching in Bauhaus by Itten and Kandinsky; they believed that:
All perception takes place in terms of contrasts: nothing can be seen on its own, independent from something else of different quality. (...) Form could not exist without colour and neither could exist independent of some context: some point of comparison was always necessary.
Whitford, F., 1984, Bauhaus
They both believed that form and colour are inseparable and one cannot be read and understood without the other.
What is interesting here is the focus on context which forms the basis for any understanding and analysis.
The context then defines everything we look at, is the ever present element of our knowledge of any subject. This also means that anything we learn is relative and may change its meaning in relation to it.
CONTEXT OF BARBICAN
Site history
Meaning of the name and its implications
Programme
Architecture
London
the list can go on...
I will continue exploring these avenues to get a better understanding of the subject in a broader sense, however, my first memory of that place was the amazement on seeing the terrace with its plants and water. Having passed through the tunnel leading from the underground station to the Centre, finding myself lost several times (at that time I didn't know it was unavoidable there), all the while being surrounded by heavy, grey concrete structures, I felt I had entered some sort of oasis of peace and wonder in the midst of a concrete jungle. Of course now, that I've spent some time there, the mere thought seems rather naive, but the memory of that feeling is still very much alive.
I am obviously aware of the controversy surrounding the whole complex, its architecture and planning and I can see the other, not so wonderful side of the open space it is using, however, there is a few points to look at before it is praised or judged:
- The successful side of Barbican: its good condition and cleanliness remains intact thanks by large to the wealthy residents living in the complex. However, they would not choose to live in these high rise buildings if it wasn't for the open spaces and seclusion from traffic noise.
- The other side of it is that the use of space there is not economical and it remains empty, unused. Because it's separated from the streets, it does not even attract traffic aside from residents and occasional lost visitors. However, as I mentioned before this necessitates the successful side of the complex and as such becomes an inherent part of it. The failure becomes then part of the success - this opposition is fairly apparent to people knowing the centre. It also creates a rather uncanny and unnerving ambience, the luxury of space is tinged with its spooky emptiness.
- The carefully designed space was built with the exact intention of creating a sort of oasis of peace in the midst of the capital, a place people can happily inhabit without leaving it: utopia.
- The downside of it is that one can easily get lost there, it is not very intuitive to get around it; it is also difficult to find the entry or exit. As in case of any utopia, there seems to be an underlying idea of someone (the architects) dictating people what is good for them and devising ways to execute it. Now, this is not to say that their intentions were bad, they have obviously put great effort and consideration into spatial planning of the complex, however, the mere idea of it reeks of Orwellian reality and as such reminds about the dark side of utopias.
These considerations alone give enough material to write pages about so I will leave them at that, and continue to further them through design as the project progresses...
