Transparency in Architecture

These comparative literature style essays made it extremely clear how both literal and phenomenal transparency exist in painting and architecture. Danilo mentioned that he was of the opinion that the painting portions of the essays better presented their case for transparency. This may be true of the writing, I think I disagree with the idea. Paintings have the advantage of being two dimensional which allows them to more abstractly depict transparency in the third dimension. Literal transparency can easily be achieved by composition and painting technique, color, etc. Likewise can phenomenal transparency as the viewer of any of the discussed paintings reconsiders the depicted space and the relationship of subject, material, point of view, depth, and meaning. Transparency in painting is understood. Architecture, on the other hand, is more complicated. As the article stated, it cannot escape its third dimension. Therefore, transparency in architecture is more complicated. It is experiential in depth, movement through space, time, illumination, tangibility, and perspective. It is difficult to create the same kind of phenomenal transparency as in painting because we can only experience one perspective at a time. (This reminds me of El Lissitzky’s insistence on representing architecture in axonometric.) Yet, I think architecture has a much greater potential for rich, experiential phenomenal transparency as it engages all of the senses. Transparency must apply to more than vision. Acoustics, temperature, wind, other inhabitants, and actual three-dimensional space, in addition to color, texture, light and material, can all be used to develop truly transparent architecture. I don’t know if I have ever experienced a built space of this kind, but I believe in the potential for it.