Admettons une (un?) room crée par accident, c'est à dire qu'aucun acte conscient n'a assisté à sa création. La room en question est pure, en ceci qu'elle possède une étendue mais n'a pas de dessein prédéfini. Elle se distingue de la room considérée par un esprit conscient: un terrier de lapin, un trou de ver de terre, un nid de rouge-gorge, une pièce d'un bâtiment, une ville, une planète, l'univers. La room pure qui n'est qu'étendue est physiquement inconcevable par définition.
L'architecte pense à la room. Il la conçoit, mais qu'il lui donne une utilité ou non, elle ne peut être pure. En effet, tout animal est sensible. L'expérience du monde extérieur est enregistrée et utilisée comme outil de comparaison. Cet outil intervient juste après les sens et filtre toutes les informations. L'humain apprend qu'il existe une room où dormir, une autre où manger, une autre pour apprendre, etc. Il ne peut se défaire complètement de ces idées. Il fera alors semblant, jouera de subterfuges, jusqu'à rendre l'utilité de la room trop floue pour que l'autre humain soit capable de la deviner en un temps raisonnable. Ce dernier pensera alors que la room est pure, mais elle ne l'est pas. Comme faire tomber une goûte de colorant bio dans l'océan ne le colorera pas de manière notable, mais il est indéniable que la goûte ne s'est pas volatilisée au contacte de l'eau: elle s'est diluée, après une période très longue, dans tout le volume d'eau.
La room conçue est donc toujours accompagnée d'une raison, aussi faible soit-elle. Le rôle de l'architecte, dans l'exercice de la disparition de la fonction de la room, est de l'effacer au mieux possible, jusqu'à déjouer les sens du critique le plus à l’affût.
L'apport inconscient d'un filtre à la conception d'une room n'est pas une mauvaise chose. Mieux, cela aide lors de la conception naturelle par le grand public. L'humain est toujours enclin à apprécier ce qu'il connait déjà, car l'acception d'une chose nouvelle requiert un effort parfois insurmontable.
There is a movie that can serve as a bridge to the two possible interpretations of the expression "A cinematographic experience" that was quoted in the previous post. Lars von Triers' Dogville is a very peculiar experience. The movie was filmed in a single location, where the buildings were only represented by white lines on an asphalt floor, in the manner of a blueprint. This world is only a fantasy for the viewer and the actor, but not for the character. For them, this world is their world. They are used to it and see nothing wrong with it. The rooms pictured in this movie are designed for the characters.
A conflict appears as the actors and the viewers have to obey to the same program as the characters. The world itself and its inhabitants seem out of place. But only to us, as the program was not designed to us. A similar phenomenon can be observed, to a different scale, in the world of each individual. Every human being has constructed its own world, and sees every other world as they see the world of the characters of Dogville. The experience of space is a direct phenomenon witch can only be supposed within the medium "cinema".
"A cinematographic experience" refers to the displacement of a virtual body through a room, a place, an environment. Like a camera through a set, placed at the level of the eyes, the body behaves in an environment. The architect is the director responsible for some rules the camera has to obey. It is not as precise as a movie (the camera in the movie follows one scenario, while the camera in the architectural project can follow an infinite possibilities of scenarios, more or less conditioned by the architect), but it is similar nonetheless.
The experience of a room is direct and make use of all senses, some that cannot be displayed on a screen.
A cinematographic experience can mean two thing. The obvious, related to the medium, the cinema, will be explored with the help of a clip from Stanley Kubrik's Clockwork Orange. The second is in direct relation with the site, and will be explored in another post, where the camera is the observer, the set is the site itself. These two experiences share a few things: they present through a sensible mean a conditionned space commonly called a room. The movie lack the experience of some of the senses, but the real, sensible experience of the same site lack the more literal message of the director, the human feeling filtering through the medium.
In Clockwork Orange (1971), Stanley Kubrick utilise the different rooms to picture the mindset of the caracter the place is in relation with. For instance, Alex's room is furnished with an extreme attention to detail. It is very modern for the time, and in strong contrast with the caracter outside of the room.
The house in this clip is the Jaffe House, built by Team 4, the first team in witch Norman Foster participated. The house is divided in three half levels. The people living in this house, Mr. and Mrs. Alexander, are described as very compliant to the norm, slave to the hierarchy. They idealise a vertical system from witch they stand, as they view themselves, at the top. This idea strongly correlate to the architecture of the room, built with a system of three half levels, cascading from the most to the least public rooms. At the highest slab, there is the entrance, the room in witch one decide if the outside world can enter the privacy of the home or not. Then, in the middle, the kitchen and the dining room, a living room as well. In this slab, one can invite people of trust. Then, on the lower slab, the most intimate area, a study and some bedrooms. There, only the most trusted can enter, it is the most precious area of the house, a safe zone of confort. This is the room where the rape scene take place, the gang has managed to invade the most private part of the house, the most private part of the Alexanders' life.
Alex' gang, who is by nature against this construction, disrupt greatly their world. The camera, witch had its angle locked in the axis of the house, accentuated by the lateral traveling motion, is facing the two inhabitants. When the gang arrives, the disruption is expressed by a rotation of the camera, it is now perpendicular to the first, witch was associated to the couple. This is a period of transition, the situation is evolving, but has not yet reached its climax. When the gang enter the house, the camera is phisically rotating, makes a close up of Mr. Alexanders face, and then is locked in the axis of the house again, but opposite to the first. The disruption is total, the climax is reached. By the gang's actions, the vertical hierarchy in the couple's mind is completely reversed by their inability to defend themselves. The violence took over the intellect (a scientistic view of society, if strength lack inteligence, it can take over power).
As determined previously, the protostructure doesn't have to be percieved through any of our five senses. It is an absolute, a tool that manifests itself only where needed. In this work, the protostructure appears to the senses of men as an elongated shape that has been cut in the middle. This accident, conjugated with the creative brain always connecting shapes and ideas, incentivise the idea of a single shape, whose continuity has been disturbed. But to the eyes of many, this disruption only occurs in this area, while it actually happens everywere the protostructure is not.
We tend to forget to question the most obvious things. The plane is a postulate and as such, needs to be reconsidered. So what is a plane? A plane is a set of every possible locations in a two dimensional space. When we have a representation of a plane on a piece of paper, we tend to loose ourself to the convenience of the paper. On this paper, we can see everything the plane has to show, given that our paper is of infinite size. The problem here is that we forget that a camera in a two dimensional space would only see lines, while a camera in the three dimensional world would get a top-down view of the dwo dimensional world. It is as difficult to imagine a two dimensional plane as it is to imagine a four dimensional shape. The plane on the piece of paper is but a shadow of the real plane, whitch is inaccessible to the senses. A more accurate representation of this plane shouldn't be on a piece of paper, but on a sheet of glass, as it would be seen from every side with for only obstacle the materiality of the glass itself.
The shape I proposed is a plane, represented on a sheet of paper. I folded the paper to give it a shape and to remind that this paper is in fact in the three dimensional world. To make clear that the represented plane in two dimensions is a totaly different concept than the sheet of paper, I made it so that when your mind try to unfold the sheet to recreate the "paper plane", you are forced to be confronted to an impass: the paper cannot be unfold, it would lie on top of itself, an abberation in two dimensions. We are a three dimensional species evolving in a three dimensional world, an yet we are talking about planes like we know everything about it. We associate the plane to the piece of paper way too easily.
The plane, like a barriere, accentuate the idea of a division of the protostructure. This is a lie: a subject of discord for two worlds: what is sensible and what is not: the plane and the plane, the protostructure and the void, the shape and the universal.
The non-existant is what makes a comic: the story only happens in the white bands between the still images. There is always another movie behind the camera. The frame is not a condition for the story of the painting. Courtyard side and garden side are behind the curtains.
Architecture exists only thanks to its environment. The protostructure is a frame in whitch the structure evolves. There is so much more to architecture than what is seen. It is the invisible that is the most beautiful.