UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Date:___________________ I, _________________________________________________________, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in: It is entitled: This work and its defense approved by: Chair: _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ Fixations in Sentiment: A Comparative Study of Techniques and Attitudes of Making in Apparel Construction and Architecture A thesis sumittted to: The Division of Research and Advanced Studies of The University of Cincinnati In partial fulfi llment of the degree requirements of: Master of Architecture In: The School of Architecture and Interior Design Of: The College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning 2006 By: Emily Wray B.S. Arch., University of Cincinnati, 2004 Committee Chairs: Aarati Kanekar Gordon Simmons Terry Boling Abstract The comparison between architecture and textiles has been undertaken for centuries. In addition, architects have often i explored the metaphor of building as dressing and architecture as clothing. Clothing can be compared to building as an assemblage of materials with certain properties and inherent limitations that lend themselves to being constructed in a certain way -- it is an object of everyday use and wear that through dressing and undressing, one is aware of the function, methods, and workmanship of its construction. Apparel construction has a strong existing tectonic language/set of norms for the treatment of materials and an attitude about the making of a garment that become apparent in these details -- exploitative of workmanship, function, response to the body and memory of the body contained within. This thesis pro- poses that these techniques and attitudes can provide an approach to the treatment of materials and details of building construction. By cataloguing basic materials and methods of apparel construction and investigating how these techniques are used and exploited -- becoming important to the garment and the wearer -- this thesis will establish a background for an approach to the making of a building. ii Acknowledgements Many thanks to my committee: Aarati Kanekar, Gordon Simmons and Terry Boling for their valuable time and much es- iii teemed criticism. Also, thanks to Doug Houser for his time and enthusiastic generosity. Much of my understanding of the existing building and site addressed herein would be lacking were it not for him sharing images and historical knowledge of the city of Maplewood. Finally, I would like to recognize my parents for their support and help with editing and idea clarifi cation, site measurements and building documentation. Table of Contents List of Illustrations 2 Introduction 5 The Blue Jean and Corset 8 Introduction to Catalog 13 Catalog: The Making of a Garment, Garment Components 14 Catalog Index 14 Raw Material: Wovens, Knits 15 Fit: Pattern, Darts, and their Equivalents 22 Stitches, Seams and their Equivalents 28 Surface Manipulation 35 Finishing 41 Repair/Mending 43 Conclusion 47 Site and Building History 48 Existing Building Conditions 51 Program Description 53 Design Process Diagrams 57 Bibliography 60 List of Illustrations Fig. 1-3 pg. 12 - Hart, Avril. Historical Fashion in Detail: The 17th and 18th Centuries. (London. V&A Publications, 1998.), 2 p. 33. Fig. 4 pg. 12 - Victoria’ Secret online catalog. November 5, 2005. <http://victoriassecret.com> Fig. 5-6 pg. 17 - by author Fig. 7 pg. 17 - Solinger, Jacob. Apparel Manufacturing Handbook: Analysis, Principles and Practice. (Bobbin Media Corp. Columbia, SC. 1988.), p.33. Fig 8 pg. 17 - October 28, 2005. <http://www.marariley.net/knitting/images/>. Fig. 9-10 pg. 18 - El-Khoury, Rodolphe and Oscar Riera Ojeda, ed. Offi ce dA / Works by Mónica Ponce de León and Nader Tehrani. (Rockport Publishers. Gloucester, MA. 2000.), p. 66. Fig. 11 pg. 18 - El-Khoury, Rodolphe and Oscar Riera Ojeda, ed. Offi ce dA / Works by Mónica Ponce de León and Nader Tehrani. (Rockport Publishers. Gloucester, MA. 2000.), p. 62. Fig. 12-15 pg. 19 - Offi ce dA, Inc. November 13, 2005. <http://www.offi ceda.com/>. Fig. 16-17 pg. 20 - KieranTimberlake Associates LLP. October 19, 2005. <http://www.kierantimberlake.com/featured_ projects/little_hall_10.html> Fig. 18-21 pg. 21 - by author Fig. 22 pg. 24 - New Complete Guide to Sewing: Step-by-Step Techniques for Making Clothes and Home Accessories. (Reader’s Digest. Pleasantville, NY. 2002.), p. 37. Fig. 23-24 pg. 25 - Mori, Toshiko, ed. Immaterial/Ultramaterial: Architecture, Design, and Materials. (Harvard Design School. Cambridge, MA. 2002.), p. 5. Fig. 25 pg. 25 - Mori, Toshiko, ed. Immaterial/Ultramaterial: Architecture, Design, and Materials. (Harvard Design School. Cambridge, MA. 2002.), p. 4. Fig. 26-28 pg. 26 - Hoffman, Dan. Architecture Studio: Cranbrook Academy of Art, 1986-1993. (New York, Rizzoli, 3 1994.), p. 33 Fig. 29-30 pg. 27 - by author Fig. 31-36 pg. 30 - by author Fig. 37-45 pg. 31 - by author Fig. 46 pg. 32 - El-Khoury, Rodolphe and Oscar Riera Ojeda, ed. Offi ce dA / Works by Mónica Ponce de León and Nader Tehrani. (Rockport Publishers. Gloucester, MA. 2000. ), p. 33. Fig. 47 pg. 32 - El-Khoury, Rodolphe and Oscar Riera Ojeda, ed. Offi ce dA / Works by Mónica Ponce de León and Nader Tehrani. (Rockport Publishers. Gloucester, MA. 2000. ), p. 35. Fig. 48 pg. 32 - El-Khoury, Rodolphe and Oscar Riera Ojeda, ed. Offi ce dA / Works by Mónica Ponce de León and Nader Tehrani. (Rockport Publishers. Gloucester, MA. 2000. ), p. 28. Fig. 49 pg. 32 - El-Khoury, Rodolphe and Oscar Riera Ojeda, ed. Offi ce dA / Works by Mónica Ponce de León and Nader Tehrani. (Rockport Publishers. Gloucester, MA. 2000. ), p. 23. Fig. 50 pg. 33 - by author Fig. 51 pg. 33 - Massie Architecture. January 23, 2006. <http://www.massiearchitecture.com/main.html>. Fig. 52-53 pg. 33 - by author Fig. 54-55 pg. 34 - by author Fig. 56-59 pg. 38 - by author Fig. 60-64 pg. 39 - by author Fig. 65 pg. 40 - by author Fig. 66-68 pg. 42 - by author 4 Fig. 69 pg. 44 - by author Fig. 70 pg. 44 - Solinger, Jacob. Apparel Manufacturing Handbook: Analysis, Principles and Practice. (Bobbin Media Corp. Columbia, SC. 1988.), p.33. Fig. 71 pg. 45 - by author Fig. 72 pg. 46 - by author Fig. 73 pg. 50 - by author Fig. 74 pg. 50 - Barry Greenberg - Architect, NCARB, personal image collection Fig. 75 pg. 50 - Missouri Historical Society photo collection Fig. 76-80 pg. 51 - by author Fig. 81-87 pg. 52 - by author Fig. 88-92 pg. 53 - STL Style t-shirt company. January 30, 2005. <http://stl-style.com/slides15.html>. Fig. 93-95 pg. 57 - by author Fig. 96-102 pg. 58 - by author Fig. 103-107 pg. 59 - by author Introduction Western architecture historically has compared architecture to clothing. Since Vitruvius and possibly earlier, the metaphor 5 of architecture as clothing has been explored. Adolf Loos identifi ed architecture with clothing, describing dress as a basic shelter. He proposed that in the beginning was dressing and that the means and aesthetics of dwelling could be under- stood through the textiles of dressing and then applied to architecture to “sustain these principles in built form.”1 Other scholars such as Semper have also written extensively on textiles and architecture. For example, Semper proposed that clothing extends itself across time into forms of large-scale enclosure (building) and that the origin of all built form was textile production, with the knot was the primordial joint. This became the basis by whixh he justifi ed ornamental terra- cotta facing and brickwork as the “tectonic transpositions of woven fabric.”2 Frank Lloyd Wright also addressed this idea of textiles and used a “textile” concrete block system as an “all-enveloping woven membrane”3 for the exterior of some of his projects. While modern architecture engaged in the discourse of clothing and dressing, it made a defi nite distinction between men’s and women’s clothing, and the discussion used the word “fashion” (which was given a derogatory connotation) in reference to clothing. Women’s fashion was considered to be excessive, frivolous, and fl eeting, and Le Corbusier, Hermann Muthesius and Peter Behrens likened building ornamentations to the “excess” of women’s fashions, calling for architecture that “could be clothed in the spare functionality of menswear.”4 These architects believed that men’s “fashion” epitomized timeless- ness and function and was therefore a better model for modern architecture. Loos was preoccupied with male clothing as a model for modern architecture, and Otto Wagner was also in search of a modern that was “timeless” like men’s dress, ignoring women’s dress altogether in this search. In fact, he, like the other modern architects, used the word “fashion” to describe women’s dress as being cheap, false and expendable. In his opinion, that which was both “timely” and “timeless” was truly modern.5 6 Some architects were involved in women’s clothing design, but their intent was not to fi nd this “timely and timeless” quality of men’s fashion for women’s dress. Peter Behrens, Henry Van de Velde, Josef Hoffmann, Richard Riemerschmid, Paul Schul- tze-Naumberg and Frank Lloyd Wright all designed women’s clothes at some point, but their intent was to make “beautiful clothes that allowed women to fi t into their designed architectural surroundings.”6 This could be also understood by what Loos considered well-dressed to be: “[standing] out the least.”7 Semper’s approach to clothing and dress is perhaps more pertinent to this thesis, as it is not preoccupied with fashion and gender. In his seminal work, Style in the Technical and Tectonic Arts, he claims that, “architecture [is] not merely analogous to clothing but an art of clothing from its beginnings, or more precisely, the very origin of clothing itself.”8 He proposed that the beginning of building coincided with the beginning of textiles – that the fi rst means by which people enclosed and divided space were with interwoven sticks and branches, followed by woven plant fi bers, then woven threads.