Viewer Toward Specific Reactions

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI DATE: May 16, 2003 I, Aaron Michael Bodart , hereby submit this as part of the requirements for the degree of: Master in: Architecture It is entitled: Eclectic Architecture Approved by: David Niland Barry Stedman Eclectic Architecture A thesis submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture in the School of Architecture of the College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning 2003 by Aaron Michael Bodart B.S. Arch, University of Cincinnati, 2001 Committee Chair: David Niland Barry Stedman PhD Thesis abstract Architecture subscribes to ideas of style, consistency and order to give it “legitimacy and legibility”. Dramatic and enriched space is the goal. Adherence to these principles is not always the most appropriate response. Any number of solutions, utilizing different shapes, sizes and configurations are possible. However, clear, contiguous relationships must be drawn between components. By utilizing the perception of shape, color, pattern and light an understandable, geometrically eclectic composition of forms can be created. The design adds to the existing Shedd aquarium in Chicago, Illinois, creating spatial elements under, in and over the lake. New display and information methodologies are explored. The addition incorporates aquatic life from Lake Victoria and East Central Africa. It surrounds visitors with new, immersive forms of display and information. The auditorium is specifically designed for interactions with Lake Michigan storms. The full force of Mother Nature is on display. Thesis Table of Contents I. Table of Contents …………………………………......1 II. List of Illustrations…..………………………………2-4 III. Introduction …………………………………………5-6 IV. Thesis ………………………………………………7-20 A. fragmented architecture B. theories on perception C. psychological interpretations D. phenomenology V. Thesis Precedents ……………………………….21-23 VI. Site Evaluation ……………………………..........24-26 A. history B. description VII. Programmatic Precedents A. monterey bay aquarium …………………27-28 B. shedd aquarium ………………………….29-31 C. newport aquarium ……………………….32-34 VIII. Program ………………………………………….….35 A. space planning B. sq. footage IX. Project A. how spaces feel ………………………....36-38 B. relation to thesis .....................................39-46 C. building drawings………………………...47-49 X. Annotated Bibliography ……………….......……50-54 1 List of Illustrations thesis and design Figure 0.1 Villa Saboya. Culturegenderal.net. Arquitectura. April 24, 2003. Available at www.culturageneral. net/arquitectura/arquitec/jpg/saboya.jpg. Figure 0.2 Photograph by author Figure 0.3 Illustration by David Heald, Frank O. Gehry, Kurt W. Forster (Germany, 1999) p. 104. Figure 0.4 Illustration by Kurt W. Forster, Frank O. Gehry, Kurt W. Forster (Germany, 1999) p. 107. Figure 0.5 Illustration by Peter Eisenman, Diagram Diaries (New York, 1999) p. 54. Figure 0.6 Illustration by Heinz Muller, Le Corbusier (London, 1987) p. 64. Figure 0.7 Ronchamp. Fondation Le Corbusier. Projects. April 24, 2003. Available at www.fondationlecorbusier. asso.fr/ronchamp.htm. Figure 0.8 Illustration by Jussi Tiainen, Heikkinen + Komonen (New York, 2000) p. 76. Figure 0.9 Illustration by Jussi Tiainen, Heikkinen + Komonen (New York, 2000) p. 78. Figure 0.10 Illustration by Jussi Tiainen, Architectural Record (New York, 2003) p. 116. Figure 0.11 Illustration by author Figure 0.12 Illustration by author Figure 0.13 Psychology of Perception (Cambridge, 1979) p. 342. Figure 0.14 Psychology of Perception (Cambridge, 1979) p. 341. Figure 0.15 Psychology of Perception (Cambridge, 1979) p. 341. Figure 0.16 Illustration by author Figure 0.17 Bottle_04_color. Parfums de Wakaba. Helmut Lang. April 24, 2003. www.wakaba.co.jp/product. html. Figure 0.18 Angel Cologne. Hampshires of Dorking. Hampshires Collectables. April 24, 2003. Available at www.hampshires.co.uk/acatalog/Hampshires_Collectables_4.htm. Figure 0.19 Perfume. Cardiff University. Memorabilia. April 24, 2003. Available at www.e-shop.cf.ac.uk /alumni/acatalog/Cardiff_University_.... Figure 0.20 Illustration by author Figure 0.21 Illustration by author Figure 0.22 Illustration by author Figure 0.23 Illustration by author 2 Figure 0.24 Illustration by author Figure 0.25 Illustration by author Figure 0.26 Illustration by author Figure 0.27 Illustration by author Figure 0.28 Illustration by author Figure 0.29 Illustration by author Figure 0.30 Img1. American Society of Cinematographers. Black and White in Color. April 24, 2003. Available at www.theasc.com/protect/nov98/ pleasantville/main.htm. Figure 0.31 Filmo_pleasantville. La presse au cinema. Film. April 24, 2003. Available at www.presse.ac- versailles.fr/Filmo/ filmo_pleasantville.htm. Figure 0.32 Psychology of Perception (Cambridge, 1979) p. 205. Figure 0.33 Discobolos_large. Sculpture Gallery. Roman. April 30, 2003. Available at www.sculpturegallery. com/thirteen/discobolos_large.jpg. Figure 0.34 Illustration by Katcuhisa Kida, Architectural Record (New York, 2002) p. 80. Figure 0.35 Illustration by Benny Chan/ Fotoworks, Architectural Record (New York, 2002) p. 131. Figure 0.36 Illustration by Roland Halbe, Architectural Record (New York, 2002) p. 103. Figure 0.37 Illustration by Peter Aaron/Esto, Architectural Record (New York, 2002) p. 135. Figure 0.38 Illustration by author Figure 0.39 Illustration by Peter Aaron/Esto, Architectural Record (New York, 2002) p. 134. Figure 0.40 Illustration by Sharon Risedorph, Architectural Record (New York, 2002) p. 103. Figure 0.41 Illustration by author Figure 0.42 Illustration by Sharon Risedorph, Architectural Record (New York, 2002) p. 106. Figure 0.43 Illustration by Eugeni Pons, Architectural Record (New York, 2002) p. 94. Figure 0.44 Illustration by author Figure 0.45 Illustration by Eugeni Pons, Architectural Record (New York, 2002) p. 96. Figure 0.46 Illustration by Randy Wilder, Monterey Bay Aquarium (Monterey Bay, 1999). Figure 0.47 Illustration by author Figure 0.48 Newport Aquarium. GBBN Architects. Portfolio. April 24, 2003. Available at www.gbbn.com/ index2.htm. Figure 0.49 Illustration by author 3 Figure 0.50 Illustration by author Figure 0.51 Illustration by author Figure 0.52 Illustration by author Figure 0.53 Illustration by author Figure 0.54 Illustration by author Figure 0.55 Illustration by author Figure 0.56 Illustration by Tomohiro Sakashita/GA Phtographers, Architectural Record (New York, 2002) p. 94. Figure 0.57 Illustration by author Figure 0.58 Illustration by author Figure 0.59 Illustration by author Figure 0.60 Illustration by author Figure 0.61 Illustration by author Figure 0.62 Illustration by author Figure 0.63 Illustration by author 4 Thesis Introduction Means and methodologies for architectural practice exist in many forms, none any less compelling or interesting, merely different. Every Architect develops his or her own ideas on the practice of design and continually refines those ideas throughout the course of his or her career. Architecture is not a stagnant practice where everything is eventually learned only to be rehashed and repackaged as the same interpretation of an age old question. As time changes, new solutions manifest themselves. No one way is the perfect way for approaching every project. The adaptive abilities of the architect: his or her understanding of the world and what it needs and desires determines his or her continued success. The idea that one design methodology can be the ruling or guiding force for the profession died long ago. An exchange of eclectic ideas and orders is possible. Architecture is very often based on architectural history; precedent. In this respect, all past architectural work is applicable material, moldable information for the creation of an eclectic design. Here, the perception of shape, color, pattern and light is used to compose a series of geometrically eclectic forms. An understanding of perception can be crucial in creating recognizable relationships between eclectic geometries. One shape is perceived as different from another because of prototypical cues embedded in the subconscious. This labeling carries certain prototypical information which governs cognitive perception. A square, circle and triangle each have different criteria which produce predictable reactions, different from one another. This learned criteria deals with how we process information through a comparison to our remembered experiences. It is difficult to overcome because of the psychological baggage often attached to each shape. However, it should be understood that not every scenario produces the same effect. I believe a better understanding of the mind’s perceptive qualities can help architects design more powerful spaces. The perception of shape, color, pattern and light often defines the character and feel of a space. A manipulation of these characteristics can produce predictable and controllable reactions. Juxtaposing “different” geometric shapes can create tension and drama. For example, a square and triangle each have very different implications related to form. The square feels dull and straightforward, while the triangle implies action, agitation and conflict.1 The interest arises from the architect’s ability to create an understandable relationship between the two geometries. A connection can be established, unifying the two seemingly disparate objects. For example, two completely different shapes can be related, in that one seems to envelop the other through its

Load more