The Meanings Attributed to Representation in Architecture

Abstract

Architectural representation has been an essential aspect of architecture throughout history. All the tools involved in design, project planning, and narration contribute to the creation of these representations. Architectural products are no longer defined solely as constructed buildings; instead, all drawings and narratives, whether realised or not, gain meaning through architectural representation. With modernisation, the perception of a chaotic world led to the emergence of structured systems of order and representation-conceptual and visual frameworks rooted in Enlightenment rationalism and later formalised in architectural modernism. These systems aimed to universalise perception by standardising meaning, form, and spatial organisation, often based on the assumption of a shared human experience. This pursuit of coherence produced a trans-temporal design logic that claimed objective validity while also embedding ideological constraints within architectural thinking. Beyond merely serving as tools for architects to materialise their ideas, architectural representation has evolved into a means of creating envisioned worlds-sometimes utopian, sometimes dystopian, and occasionally feared. Thus, the production of perception and representation in architecture has become a mechanism for establishing universal reality and asserting power. However, power structures cannot fully suppress the diversity of meaning within perceptions and representations. This study critically examines the classical conception of representation in architecture, particularly how new meanings were added to representation during the 1960s. By exploring these shifts, this study seeks to understand the evolution of architectural representation and how contemporary practices have diverged from traditional models, embracing more diverse and individualised forms of expression.

Keywords

• Architectural Representation
• Perception and Power
• Universalism in Architecture
• Interpretive Frame works
• Individual Expression

References

1. Barthes, R. (1977). Image, music, and text. (S. Heath, Trans.). Fontana Press. google scholar
2. Berger, J. (1972). Ways of Seeing. Penguin Books. google scholar
3. Cook, P. (1999). Archigram: Architecture Without Architecture. Princeton Architectural Press. google scholar
4. Deleuze, G. (1994). Difference and Repetition. Columbia University Press. google scholar
5. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). Introduction: rhizome. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and SchizophrenİA, 2, 3-25. google scholar
6. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). Part V: The art and practices of interpretation, evaluation, and representation (pp. 1307-1319). google scholar
7. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. google scholar
8. Evans, R. (1995). The Projective Cast: Architecture and Its Three Geometries. MIT Press. google scholar

9. Foucault, M. (1970). The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. Pantheon Books. google scholar
10. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected lnterviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977, edited by C. Gordon. & Trans.). Vintage. google scholar
11. Foucault, M. (1983). This Is Not a Pipe. (J. Harkness, Trans.). University of California Press. google scholar
12. Frampton, K. (2007). Modern Architecture: A Critical History (4th ed.). Thames and Hudson. google scholar
13. Geertz, C. (1973). Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. Basic Books. google scholar
14. Gropius, W. (2002). The New Architecture and the Bauhaus. MIT Press. google scholar
15. Kester, G., & Rattenbury, K. (Eds.). (2002). This is Not Architecture: Media Constructions. Routledge. google scholar
16. Le Corbusier. (2013a). The Modulor. (Originally published 1961). Dover Publications. google scholar
17. Le Corbusier. (2013b). Towards a New Architecture. (Originally published 1923). Dover Publications. google scholar
18. Libeskind, D. (1991). End Space. Architectural Association. google scholar
19. Libeskind, D., & Crichton, S. (2004). Breaking Ground. Riverhead Books. google scholar
20. Oxford English Dictionary. (2023). Representation. Oxford University Press. google scholar
21. Panofsky, E. (1991). Perspective as a Symbolic Form (C. S. Wood, Trans.). New York, NY: Zone Books. (Original work published 1927) google scholar
22. Pawley, M. (1998). Archigram: The Book. Architectural Press. google scholar
23. Pink, S. (2007). Visual Ethnography (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857025029 google scholar
24. Perez-Gomez, A. (1983). Architecture and the Crisis of Modern Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2007. google scholar
25. Ranciere, J. (2009). The Emancipated Spectator. Verso Books. google scholar
26. Robbins, E. (1994). Why Architects Draw. MIT Press; 2007. google scholar
27. Sadler, S. (2005). Archigram: Architecture Without Architecture. MIT Press. google scholar
28. Tanyeli, U. (1994). Mimarlık düşüncesi üzerine denemeler [Essays on architectural thought]. YEM Yayın. (In Turkish) google scholar
29. Tanyeli, U. (2001). Mimarisiz temsiliyetten temsiliyetin mimosine [From representation without architecture to the architecture of repre-sentation]. In M. Ekincioğlu (Ed.), Daniel Libeskind (pp. 7-16). İstanbul: Boyut Yayın. google scholar
30. Tanyeli, U. (2017). Yıkarak yapmak: Anarşist bir mimarlık kuramı için altlık [Building by destroying: A basis for an anarchist architectural theory].” Metis Yayınları. google scholar
31. Tanyeli, U., & Köksal, A. (Eds.). (2002). Walter Gropius ve Bauhaus [Walter Gropius and the Bauhaus]. Boyut Yayın Grubu. google scholar