A STRUCTURED APPROACH TO CULTURAL STUDIES OF ARCHITECTURAL SPACE
Mustafa Pultar
Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture, Bilkent University
Abstract
This paper examines the areas and nature of cultural studies of architectural
space and presents a conceptual structure for thinking about, delineating
and discussing such studies. Following a brief examination of the
concept of architectural space as used in the study, the main argument
of the paper is presented in four sections:
1. Discussion of the components of culture as they are related to space.
Essentially, these components may be identified as technology (interpreted
as a collective notion consisting of technics, techniques and an accumulated
body of problem solutions), knowledge and value systems. A spectrum is
proposed over which these cultural components may be spread.
2. Discussion of the life-cycle of architectural space as a process
of human problem solving. This process comprises the stages of problem
definition, design, construction and use, and is closely related with ecological
and cultural factors.
3. Presentation of a graphical schema for the identification of areas
of cultural study. This schema is structured as the Cartesian product of
the dimensions of life-cycle stages and cultural components. Several areas
are illustrated by examples.
4. Discussion of the nature of study in these areas as differentiated
by the subject matter, the type of space studied, the bases used in the
formation of cultural groups and the cultural process involved. Several
works are referred to as examples.
Keywords: Culture, cultural studies, architectural space, theory.
Introduction
Cultural studies of space are found in many disciplines, where they serve a central function in explanations. Despite this importance, Aiello and Thompson claim, for example, that "only a small proportion of ... research [on the description and comparison of differences in the structuring and use of space] has examined spatial behavior within a cultural context" (1980, 107-108). Furthermore, there appears to be no well-established, coherent and systematic structure for a discussing the areas, scope and nature of issues related to the cultural studies of space.
This paper attempts to address the problem in a limited context by proposing such a structure, utilizing two fundamental concepts: a spectrum of cultural sudies and the life-cycle of architectural space. Although the model proposed appears to be founded on the conception of a professional, industrialized building process, some reflection will reveal how it can, in reality, be applied to many different instances of the analysis of spatial problems.
Some of the concepts introduced in this paper are ones which have varied
uses and definitions. Accordingly, introductory sections of the paper are
devoted to discussions of these concepts, and seek to define specific contexts
in which these concepts will be used.
Architectural Space
Space is a concept that is central to many different areas of study and has varied meanings, ranging from totally abstract notions such as mathematical space, to physical ones such as astronomical space, to more earthly ones such as the expanse that surrounds us, to behavioral notions such as territorial space and personal space. "This great variety of possible 'types' of space ... makes any definition of space [in planning and design] difficult. Intuitively, however, space is the three-dimensional extension of the world around us, the intervals, distances and relationships between people and people, people and things, and things and things" (Rapoport 1980, 11). Although they are thought to have bearing on and are influenced by space to some extent (Rapoport 1980, 26-27), people to people relations have a scope that extends much beyond the interests of this paper. However, the relations between people and things shall be included insofar as they define and affect the use of space as outlined below.
Our main concern in this paper shall be with architectural space, as defined by Baykan and Pultar (forthcoming) in a set-theoretic fashion to mean subsets of the three-dimensional extension of the world around us such that it is entered by man, includes definite material elements, especially a base, that allow one to perceive its boundaries and is perceived as a whole, serves human functions of habitation, shelter or circulation, and is intentionally built or appropriated by man to serve such functions. According to this definition, not only well defined spaces such as halls and rooms, but also arrangements of furniture so as to define a spatial expanse, allowing it to be perceived as a whole, should be considered as an architectural space, too. The notion of architectural space should also be understood to include structures of space, i.e., sets of spaces so interrelated to each other that the functions they serve extend through these spaces (Baykan and Pultar, forthcoming). Thus, just as rooms and halls in buildings may be individually considered architectural spaces, so can buildings as structures of spaces.
An important characteristic of architectural space is man's involvement in its generation and his partaking of life in it. In this sense, architectural space is diachronic in addition to its spatially expansive nature. This diachronic aspect aspect will be indicated by our use of the term life-cycle of architectural space.
Hereafter in this paper, the term space will be used to mean architectural
space.
Components of Culture
"Culture" is used in a variety of meanings which are often related, albeit loosely. Disregarding uses of the word for such notions as cultivation (of crops), development of intellectual faculties (as in a cultured man) or acquaintance with and taste in the arts (as in centers or ministers of culture), there remain those understandings which may be considered relevant within the context of this study. These refer to all things created by man as distinct from natural things, as well as the shared ideals and the common way of life of a group of people. Rapoport, stressing the plurality of definitions and uses of the concept of culture, suggests that "... all definitions fall into one of three views ... [the first] as a way of life typical of a group, the second as a system of symbols, meanings, and cognitive schemata transmitted through symbolic codes, the third as a set of adaptive strategies for survival related to ecology and resources. Increasingly, these three views are seen not as being in conflict but rather as complementary" (1980, 9). Thus, it is the totality of "ways of life, symbols, meanings, cognitive schemata, and adaptive strategies" that forms culture. With this approach, culture should be understood as a human essence by which human groups may be differentiated, be they tribes, religious communities, companies, professions or others.
In order to establish an operational basis for dealing with the nature of cultural studies of space, it is necessary to attempt to separate culture into its constituent components. One way of doing this may be to view cultural components as comprising technology, knowledge and value systems.
Ways of life and adaptive strategies are composed of solutions that have been found to be effective in dealing with various problems of life. These solutions may appear, among others, in the form of processes of production, rules of conduct, techniques of doing, and various tools and implements. Together, these constitute what we conveniently refer to as technology. Technology consists of two different components: know-how knowledge and technics. This integration of two essentially different elements is its peculiar characteristic.Know-how knowledge comprises, on the one hand, an accumulated body of solutions to problems, ranging from rules of social conduct to effective use of resources, and on the other, techniques for doing things in an effective manner. Technics, the latter component, comprises all artifacts created by man for the purpose of solving problems. Typically, it contains tools, implements, machines, apparati, containers, etc.; it is also referred to as material culture.
Symbols and cognitive schemata form the essence of man's knowledge. Knowledge is formed through the use of cognitive schemata and is transmitted among people and generations through the use of symbols. Part of this knowledge (know-how knowledge) has been introduced above as falling under the scope of technology. Two other types of knowledge used in solving problems are instances of know-that knowledge: information (factual and historic knowledge and hypothetico-theoretical knowledge. Obviously, these are components of culture.
What drive man into action regarding problems are conceptions of desirable situations as described by value judgements. Value judgements are central in the conception, formulation and solution of man's problems. Value systems, which are formed by value judgements in interaction, are discussed by the author elsewhere (Pultar, forthcoming).
In conclusion to this brief discussion, we may assert that culture can be broken down into three fundamental components: technology, knowledge and value systems. A graphical representation of a spectrum describing this breakdown is shown in Figure 1.
We note that although an attempt has been made to separate the components into distinct categories, this has not been possible; there are obvious overlaps in knowledge and beliefs. Thus, one should consider this spread not as a categorization but rather an alignment of cultural components along a spectrum. At the upper end are material elements such as technics and as one proceeds down this spectrum, these change into techniques, which vary from acquaintance with the bodily use of technics, through familiarity with conventions to technical knowledge, which is an accumulated body of effective solutions. With this component, the spectrum begins to cover to beliefs, which can be classified into two general types: knowledge and value judgements. The former is belief in the truth of various statements. If these statements concern the effectiveness of modes of action, the knowledge is technical. If the statements are descriptions of facts, the knowledge is information. If they are related to hypotheses and, by extension, to theories, the knowledge is hypothetico-theoretical.
The latter type of belief concerns the inherent goodness and worth that lies in certain choices. These may vary from belief in goodness by habit, to goodness dictated by authority or goodness justified by empirical evidence. Such beliefs in interaction with each other form value systems.
The spectrum of cultural components seen in Figure
1 constitutes one dimension of a schema of cultural studies of space,
as described later.
Life-cycle of Space
In a manner similar to that of a majority of human activities, the life-cycle of space consists a four stage process: problem formulation, problem solution, implementation and use. This process is cyclic; most spaces reach the end of their useful life due to some reason or other and, thereby, lead to a repetition of the cycle in the form of renovation, remodeling, re-adaptation of use or the generation of new spaces. The duration of this repetition is variable and often indeterminate.
In formalized, professional generation of space, the stage of problem formulation comprises the planning and programming stage. Here, a misfit is recognized between the present state of a space and some ideal conditions that are deemed to be desirable for that space. The former factor can be described in terms of state descriptors which range from simple quantitative variables such as size or qualitative behavioral descriptors such as spaciousness to complex composite descriptors such as quality. The latter factor expresses what kind or level of the state variables are acceptable or ideal. Whereas the description of the state variables requires the use of knowledge in some form or other, the ideal conditions are obviously bound to value judgements.
The next stage, that of problem solution, corresponds to the stage of the design of the space. In this stage decisions are made as to how the projected state of the space should be so that the misfit between the state descriptors and the desirable conditions shall no longer exist. Here, the design's outcome will reflect the designer's interpretation (re-formulation) of the problem, as well as his own understanding of the desirable conditions that he deems are fit to the situation.
The period of the actual construction of the space is where a major transformation of materials, energy, finance and manpower takes place, based on the decisions made in design. This is the stage of solution implementation. Being a stage which is characterized by an intense concentration of economic resources, construction will necessarily reflect the interests of the parties concerned with it. What are now considered to be desirable are likely to be quite different than those of the problem initiators (clients, owners) or the designer.
The stage of use is the longest stage of the life-cyle of a space. However, very often the user, who shall be involved longest in the life-cycle has very little to say about its formation until he occupies the space. It may even be the case that he remains unknown until much later.
These four stages of the life-cycle of space take place in a medium that is directly influenced by ecological and cultural factors. Rapoport argues that "... sociocultural variables are primary, with ecological ones, such as climate, materials and ways of making a livelihood [being] secondary, constraining or modifying ... " (1980, 21). These primary cultural factors are the beliefs that owners, users or professionals of space hold as to what is desirable and acceptable. Thus, the life-cycle of space is intimatey bound to the cultural components.
The life-cycle of space is shown diagrammatically in Figure 2. Even though the process is an open-ended one, it is cyclic and only one representation of that cycle has been shown in the figure as representative.
This cycle forms the second dimension of the schema of cultural studies
of space.
Areas of Cultural Studies of Space
Cultural studies of space spread both over the spectrum shown in Figure 1 and over the different phases of the life-cycle shown in Figure 2. A convenient manner for describing the extent over which such studies spread is to consider the Cartesian product of the two dimensions. This product can be represented by a graphical image as shown in Figure 3.
The schema in Figure 3 allows one to delimit
areas of cultural studies by identifying
a. the cultural component that forms the basic aspect of the study,
and
b. the phase along the life-cycle of space that the study is concerned
with.
Some randomly chosen examples are also shown shaded in Figure 3. Area A, for example, concerns the value systems used in the design of space; these might involve the formation, acceptance and application of technical value judgements as codified in building regulations, or the perceptual value judgements (e.g. style-related judgements) that are in fashion at a particular time and place (Pultar, forthcoming). In area B, cultural studies might be related to the technics utilized in the daily use of the space, such as furniture, maintenance or heating equipment, draperies, etc. An area such as C might concern the gathering of social and economic data for the programming of space, and might involve the use of such techniques as surveys and interviews, reliance on previously collected statistical data.
It is possible, of course, to extend studies over larger areas to include,
in area D for example, the technology of construction which would comprise
the technics, techniques and the technical solutions used in construction.
Such extension, however, would bring along with it a loss of focus and
depth in the study.
Nature of Cultural Studies of Space
A cultural study, the area of which is delineated on the schema in Figure
3, may be differentiated further when its nature or its approach is
taken into account. Here, we may bring distinctions based on
a. the subject matter of the study,
b. the nature of the space studied,
c. the nature of the group studied, and
d. the nature of the cultural process studied.
An area such as E in Figure 3 related to information used in construction empasizes the fact that one needs caution when dealing with cultural studies. Such information might be related to the cost of materials in a particular site at a particular time. Although very important for effective implementation, that information, in itself, would hardly be considered a cultural study. However, how that information is collected, stored and processed by firms is one. Thus, in most cultural studies of space it is not the subject matter of the particular area but rather how it relates to the life-cycle that is important. This distinction is readily apparent in studies of knowledge but might not be so in other areas. A study of value judgements is not so readily separable from a study of how they are used in or influence the life-cycle of space. Alternatively, an historical study of the development of a particular technique (e.g. Bras and Crawford, 1995) or a material (e.g. Simpson, 1995) may be considered cultural studies whereas studies of these techniques as subject matter may not.
An obvious distinction in the nature of cultural studies is related to the type of the space studied. Many cultural studies of space are limited to particular types of space or make comparative studies of different spaces (e.g. Erman, 1997).
Culture is often associated with particular groups, so much so that
groups which share a common culture are sometimes referred to as cultures
themselves. This association of culture with various groups allows us to
distinguish several types of studies on the basis of the group with which
they are concerned. It is possible to identify these groups in two ways:
a. On the basis of the clustering in the schema of cultural studies.
A study of the culture of designers, architects (e.g. Symes,
1990) or construction workers, for example, would concern such groups.
b. On other bases such as geographic location, race, nationality (e.g.
Nalbantoğlu,
1993).
As is the case in differention with respect to types of space, identification of groups on either of the bases above allows one to make comparative studies of the cultural areas of these groups; this cross-cultural approach is a very common one in cultural studies (e.g. Stea and Turan, 1993).
A further distinction regarding the nature of cultural studies might
be based on the cultural process involved in the study. We might distinguish
studies concerned with the following processes:
a. Enculturation, especially education (e.g. Brady,
1996).
b. Acculturation, specifically culture transfer such as technology
transfer.
c. Cultural persistence or change (e.g. Meeson and
Welch, 1993)
d. Accumulation and documentation of culture in written form or in
material culture. (e.g. Glassie, 1975 or Lawrence,
1987)
Conclusion
The analysis presented in this paper has the purpose of providing
a structure for identifying the area and nature of cultural studies of
space by suggesting dimensions that may be used in the analysis. Some aspects
of these dimensions have been examined in connection with space-related
issues. The use of the structure proposed may lead one to identifying
a. areas of study which have reamined untouched, and
b. the scope within which such studies should be examined and criticised.
References
Aiello, John R. and Donna E. Thompson, 1980. "Personal Space, Crowding and Spatial Behavior in a Cultural Context" in Altman, Rapoport and Wohlwill, 1980. 107-178.
Altman, Irwin, Amos Rapoport and Joachim F. Wohlwill (eds.), 1980. Human Behavior and Environment. New York: Plenum.
Baykan, Can and Mustafa Pultar, forthcoming. "Structure of Space-activity Relations in Houses" Proceedings. International Conference on Spatial Analysis in Environment-Behaviour Studies, Eindhoven, November 29 - December 3, 1995.
Brady, Darlene A., 1996. "The Education of an Architect: Continuity and Change" Journal of Architectural Education 50: 32-49.
Bras, Robert G. and Bert E. Crawford, 1995. "Resonant Cavities in the History of Architectural Acoustics" Technology and Culture 35: 571-574.
Erman, Tahire, 1997. "Squatter (gecekondu) Housing versus Apartment Housing: Turkish Rural to Urban Migrant Residents' Perspectives" Habitat International 21: 91-106.
Glassie, Henry, 1975. Folk Housing in Middle Virginia. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
Lawrence, Roderick J., 1987. Housing, Dwellings and Homes: Design Theory, Research and Practice. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Meeson, R.A. and C.M. Welch, 1993. "Earthfast Posts: The Persistence of Alternative Building Techniques." Vernacular Architecture 24: 1-17.
Nalbantoğlu, Gülsüm B., 1993. "Between Civilization and Culture: Appropriation of Traditional Dwelling Forms in Early Republican Turkey" Journal of Architectural Education 47: 66-74.
Pultar, Mustafa, forthcoming. "A Conceptual framework for Values in the Built Environment" IAPS 14 Book of Proceedings. Proceedings of the IAPS 14 Conference, Stockholm, July 31 - August 3, 1996.
Rapoport, Amos, 1980. "Cross-Cultural Aspects of Environmental Design" in Altman, Rapoport and Wohlwill, 1980. 7-46.
Simpson, Pamela H., 1994. "Ornamental Sheet Metal in the United States, 1870-1930" Journal of Architectural Planning and Research 11: 294-310.
Symes, Martin S., 1990. "The Culture of British Architects: 1968-1988" Culture, Space, History. Proceedings of IAPS 11. Eds. H. Pamir, V. İmamoğlu and N. Teymur. Ankara: METU Faculty of Architecture and Şevki Vanlı Foundation for Architecture, 5: 77-84.
Stea, David and Mete Turan, 1993. Placemaking: Production
of Built Environment in Two Cultures. Aldershot, Hants.: Avebury.
Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
[Papers] [HOME]