Building Castles in the Air : a Discussion of the Architectonic Language of Thought and the Limits of Postmodernism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Louisville ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository Electronic Theses and Dissertations 5-2015 Building castles in the air : a discussion of the architectonic language of thought and the limits of postmodernism. Monica Krupinski University of Louisville Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/etd Part of the Architecture Commons Recommended Citation Krupinski, Monica, "Building castles in the air : a discussion of the architectonic language of thought and the limits of postmodernism." (2015). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 2099. https://doi.org/10.18297/etd/2099 This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BUILDING CASTLES IN THE AIR: A DISCUSSION OF THE ARCHITECTONIC LANGUAGE OF THOUGHT AND THE LIMITS OF POSTMODERNISM By Monica Krupinski B.A., Marshall University, 1990 M.A., West Virginia University, 1993 M.A., West Virginia University, 2000 A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Louisville in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Humanities Department of Humanities University of Louisville Louisville, KY May 2015 BUILDING CASTLES IN THE AIR: A DISCUSSION OF THE ARCHITECTONIC LANGUAGE OF THOUGHT AND THE LIMITS OF POSTMODERNISM By Monica Krupinski B.A., Marshall University, 1990 M.A., West Virginia University, 1993 M.A., West Virginia University, 2000 A Dissertation Approved on April 17, 2015 By the Following Dissertation Committee: ______________________________________ Mark Blum Dissertation Director ______________________________________ Annette Allen ______________________________________ Nancy Potter ______________________________________ Steven Skaggs ii DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my Mother, who never doubted me for a second, and to my son, Devin “Bubi” Smith, who teaches me something new every day. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First I want to thank my committee for all of their valuable commentary and guidance: my Chair, Dr. Mark Blum, who is an inspiration to me both as a scholar and more importantly as a human being; Dr. Annette Allen, who always encouraged my creativity no matter what (quirky) form it took; Dr. Nancy Potter, who kept me on the straight and narrow with caring and tough love; and Dr. Steven Skaggs, who changed my perspective at just the right moment. Their support and patience meant everything to me. Also, many others at the University of Louisville provided me with inspiration and encouragement in so many ways, including Professor Elaine Wise and Dr. Shelley Salamensky, as well as my fellow graduate students Julie Marie Wade, Amy Tudor, and especially Carol Stewart, who was a real friend when I needed one most. In addition I want to thank Tina Wells, my sister, who survived hearing all about this dissertation (and everything else) on a daily basis and actually managed to sound interested the whole time. Finally, it goes without saying (though I’ll state his name anyway) that I owe the most to Elijah Pritchett, my favorite interlocutor (I hate that word) and my very good friend (ahem), who has always been just enough to drive me crazy. iv ABSTRACT BUILDING CASTLES IN THE AIR: A DISCUSSION OF THE ARCHITECTONIC LANGUAGE OF THOUGHT AND THE LIMITS OF POSTMODERNISM Monica Krupinski April 17, 2015 The purpose of this dissertation is to suggest a platform for the investigation and discussion of the process of structuring thought in the Western tradition through the use of architectonic language. This platform will incorporate elements of not only physical structures but also the roles of metaphor and particularly memory as evidence of the architecturally-based framing of our thinking about thinking in addition to the ways in which that thinking has changed as a result of pluralist influences. The discussion will include a tracing of the largely uninvestigated but always present architectonic language of thought, a discussion of the problematic nature of memory upon that structuring, and an analysis of the role of inscription and metaphor in that same scope. It will v culminate in an application of the process in a comparison of two works of memorial architecture to make evident the ways in which architecture and thought are bound together and exhibit the elements discussed throughout the dissertation in an attempt to situate the contemporary moment in our thinking through a comparison of historical Modernism and Postmodernism. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE DEDICATION___________________________________________________ iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS__________________________________________ iv ABSTRACT_____________________________________________________ v INTRODUCTION________________________________________________ 1 CHAPTER 1: THE LANGUAGE OF PHILOSOPHY IS GROUNDED ON ARCHITECTURE________________________________________________ 12 CHAPTER 2: MAKING MEMORIES: ARTIFACTS, FALSEHOODS AND “KNOWLEDGE” ____________________________________________ ____ 56 CHAPTER 3: METAPHOR AND INSCRIPTION ____ 91 CHAPTER 4: THEORY AND PRACTICE: A DISCUSSION IN FOUR PARTS _________________________________________________________ 135 REFERENCES__________________________________________________ 213 CURRICULUM VITAE___________________________________________ 224 vii INTRODUCTION Architecture is the reaching out for the truth. – Louis Kahn1 What people want, above all, is order. – Stephen Gardiner In Raymond Carver’s 1983 short story The Cathedral, the main character struggles to describe the appearance of a cathedral to a blind man. After fumbling around with words for a time, relying only on vague descriptors like “big” and “massive” before switching to the non-descriptive explanation that people built them to be closer to God, at the suggestion of the blind man, he draws a cathedral on paper. The drawing begins with a simple shape not unlike a house, but soon windows, spires, buttresses and arches are added until the drawing approximates the traditional structure in all its excess. Though the main character reveals himself to be no artist, the blind man traces the completed drawing carefully with his fingers and pronounces, “I think you got it”. What words failed to express, form made understood. 1 Both Louis Kahn (American) and Stephen Gardiner (British) were 20th Century architects. 1 Though this short story is not exactly about architecture, but more about communicating and achieving perspective, it certainly illuminates the difficulty we have in choosing adequate language without a visual or concrete reference to reflect architectural form and, more importantly, the extent to which we rely on a visually-recognizable structure as the foundation from which we explain our thoughts. Explaining the form rather than already knowing the form and using it to explain other concepts is, as the character demonstrates, not a familiar or comfortable situation and suggests a fissure or a gap in what language is able to express on its own. Without the use of an already-recognized structural form at its core, expression of thought becomes unnatural, ineffective, and imprecise. The ordering of our thoughts and the patterns of our thinking are not structures we arrive at blindly, they are bound by analogy to a familiar form, a visual metaphor, a symbolic taking of shape or finding of ground. Without these methods of structure or form, without a concretely architectonic shaping of thought, expression becomes too stunted or too loose, hardly the positions from which significant ideas, metaphysical inquiries, and theoretical musings might be undertaken. Just as the explanation of a cathedral in the story could only be understood when it took the physical form of lines pressed into paper, explanations of our own thought can best be understood when they achieve a similar “physical” form—that of the architectural. 2 Truth and order may be the most fundamental and universal desires within human experience, yet often only reluctantly do we acknowledge the discipline of architecture as a base for an extension of those desires into the realm of the metaphysical. Culturally and popularly, architecture is often considered to be restricted by its very own purpose—the necessity of a concrete place and grounding somehow is seen to preclude its usefulness as a foundation for theoretical constructs—when arguably architectural language and metaphor can be viewed as the underlying framework for the Western philosophical tradition. Though philosophy depends heavily upon this architectonic infrastructure and language, the positioning of architecture has historically been relegated to a heuristic device, often acknowledged but not deeply interrogated. It is often a means of structuring thought that is almost too obvious or universal to warrant interrogation in its own right. Certainly architects and philosophers have individually recognized the intersections of their disciplines, but culturally we have little space for the extension of those acknowledgements into our overarching mechanisms of thinking about our own thinking. We should have a platform for the discussion