Defining Space through Architecture

A definition of architecture as only that which encloses space is not entirely accurate. The author seems to take the position that if there is not a definite interiority to the space, or definite thresholds, then this is not an actual space. Thus, an arch is not a space. He attempts to clarify by pointing out urban spaces and courtyards as architectural. An arch may not enclose space, but it creates relationships to space that cannot be ignored. These relationships alter experience, define inhabitation, and create circulation patterns. A façade defines the space that it faces. It would appear that an architectural backdrop should define space based on its presence. This is not to say that anything is architecture; architecture still needs to define space, but it should not need to enclose space. Any object used in a spatial means could be perceived as architecture if it does more than function as an obstacle or sculpture. An object that fundamentally alters a space, even if that space is exterior or defined only on one side by the object, should be considered architecture. This is why a façade is truly important to architecture; it does not contribute to the interior but it does often create space on the exterior.

With that said, it does seem reasonable to admit that too little time is spent analyzing the spaces created by architectural moves. These spaces should not be the end all and be all of architecture, nor does the author want them to be. He does, however, want it to be the prime factor for determining if a building should be considered in architectural history. Any failure to create space should be considered non-architecture, and any building that succeeds spatially should have its other flaws overlooked. It is a bit ridiculous to weigh a building so heavily on one fact, even if it is the point of architecture, that if the building fails in every other aspect it will still be considered worthy of discussion as architecture. He chooses to leave all other forms of discussion to the artists, but these are important for architects to consider. Architects should think about what he refers to as decoration to determine if and where the building requires such detailing. Architecture can focus on interior space without relegating all of its other responsibilities to other areas. It just seems like this viewpoint oversimplifies architecture for the sake of making the case for interior space. Perhaps it would be a stronger case to acknowledge the importance of such other factors on the interior space. Decoration might improve or detract from the spatial qualities, but it will definitely have an impact. It is impossible to include something in a design and expect it not to affect the final outcome. Therefore, space is important, but its relationships to other aspects of design should not be minimized or overlooked.

Henri Lefebvre agrees with the holistic interpretation of space, and his understanding of the variables that create a space is much closer to defining the actual entity. Since every element does in fact impact a space, it is only logical that the elements should be discussed with as much intensity as the space they form. His point that the interpretation of a space is more of an afterthought is especially powerful. To think that all discussion of spaces in the realm of architecture amounts to so little would probably upset many professors. Given the wide range of interpretations for any given space, it is just as easy for a space to have no intended interpretation. If the space included the proper architectural elements, it could evoke such strong emotion that each person would create his own interpretation, conscious or otherwise. The obvious antithesis to this idea is the monument, but with the great discouragement against monuments in contemporary architecture, the examples of interpretations key to understanding a space are becoming rarer. The methods of creating space, while discussed in detail, are almost less important than the result. If a location results in meaningful, inhabitable space, then the designer may have succeeded. It becomes more important to establish the methods and criteria to determine how successful a space is. If space is really a language, then it will enjoy the same treatment of the critics that all great novels receive: scrutiny to the point of picking through superfluous information. If space is something unique, perhaps it can develop a sense of critique that evaluates its ability to create an impression as a whole.