Comments on: And/Or & Both – when more is more.

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:23:06 +0000

The illustration serves its purpose well – do you have a note of who the artist was?

By: Christine

Christine — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 05:45:46 +0000

Yes. My intention in selecting the illustration was not literal, but rather symbolic.

It is possible to identify nature and culture in the illustration and to imagine the differing relationships of dwelling/habitation/shelter/nature and city/nature without foreclosing on either option. The nature illustrated could potentially be wild nature and/or cultivated nature.

The non-specificity was important. Hopefully it is not so ‘Byzantine’ as to make this potential not operate!

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 05:36:42 +0000

Historically a ‘caravan’ was a group of people travelling in convoy but a ‘caravansarai’ was a ‘caravan palace’ and functionally akin to a modern hotel or a city apartment block – though they were normally designed around courtyards and may be the origin of the madrassah and cloister building types.
In medieval Europe the ‘basic form’ of a dwelling combined a house+land, as in the ‘manor’ and, for the poor, the ‘croft and toft’, ‘messuage and curtilage’ or ‘cottage and close’. It is this intimate combination of indoor and outdoor space which I think is missing from the ‘Byzantine’ illustration above.

By: Christine

Christine — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 03:38:04 +0000

You are right the caravan is definitely not a house, but a ‘caravan’. See [ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/caravan ]. The essence of a caravan is its ‘mobility’.

The container city is not a house, and is actually not a city either. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City ] But it is a relatively large and permanent settlement of containers. So it is ‘city- like’. Potentially it has more in common with the yurt and tipi, because of its inherent ‘portability’.

The Huf House is a house. In understanding what is meant by style the various definitions in wikipedia go someway towards this. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style ] The use as a dwelling its permanence are important characteristics. An important question to ask would be how ‘demountable’ is it?

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 05:20:56 +0000

Excellent examples, but would it be possible to add a contemporary or futurist example to the list? The Airstream caravan is in this category but it is not very 'modern' and it is not a house. Container City in London Docklands (built out of shipping containers) also has an elemental quality. The Huf Haus has a high ('factory conditions') quality, and is very much at the luxury end of the market. What could one say about its style: glazed Swiss chalet?

By: Christine

Christine — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 04:50:03 +0000

If we were to look for an essence of ‘house’ similar to the Stanley Steamer what would it be? An igloo, is considered a house by the inuit. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igloo ] However, the Yurt is considered to be ‘home-like’, but a dwelling rather than a house. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yurt ]. A Tipi is considered a tent, a dwelling although the name in Lakota also means house. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tepee ]

So, supposedly there are many instances of dwellings (to ‘dwell’) which are not houses.

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 04:47:34 +0000

All agreed, but the analogy with the 1903 Stanley Steamer still interests me. The car was remarkably modern because it was designed for only one purpose (‘speed’) and I wonder what a house would look like if it too were designed only for a single purpose (‘existing’ – I remember working with a man who could not go for half an hour without remarking ‘this isn’t a life – it’s a mere existence’).
Can you tell us about the above illustration? – it makes me think of a late-Byzantine town and, despite the grass and flowering trees, there is a notable lack of gardens. The Byzantine court was ritualistic and deeply Christian.

By: Christine

Christine — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:47:59 +0000

As you point out decoration is different to both form and function. When we ask about the essence of something we are asking something about what form it will take, rather than how it will be decorated. ie [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_(dishware)%5D

I am perhaps not so pessimistic about the house as you. Why? I don’t think the essence of the house has to do with how many people live there, how long it lasts etc.

This is a secpndary level of an analysis that asks ‘what type of house will it be?’

Childrens drawings are probably more informative in understanding this distinction.[ http://artfulparent.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/house-drawing.jpg ]

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 05:33:15 +0000

A dinner plate can be decorated in many styles without changing its form or its functional ability to contain food. The difficulty in conceiving a house which is ‘purely functional’ would be in defining what the functions of a house really are. I fear this is indefinable, but the specification could be that a house for a family would accommodate 2 adults and 2.4 children, last for 70 years (three score and ten), require no maintenance, heating or cooling, collect and store its own energy, water etc. If it were to have a garden then it should be able to produce sufficient food for the family. I am looking for a parallel to the 1903 Stanley Steamer but I do not think it can be found! So if, instead, we think about ‘purely functional’ accommodation for city dwellers then I guess we are talking about a 4-storey walk-up apartment block, sadly.

By: Christine

Christine — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 03:24:01 +0000

Is style just style? Or rather is it related to form? What is form? [ http://www.thefreedictionary.com/form ]