If we look closely, we all have a sort of "disability", if you will. For me, I am very strongly right sided, meaning that attempting to do anything with my left side appendages (or eye) is incredibly hard. I am not dissabled in the general sense, as I have use of all of my body, but I am severely limited in what I can do well. With this in mind, it is hard to accept the vetruvian man as the standard, as everyone has their own quirks. The idea of using "disability" to adjust this understanding of general embodiment is exciting, knowing that potentially no one will be left out. The hard part is that this is a very objective subject, and there is potential for two people to have very differing opinions on one topic. However, this is the nature of experience, and embodiment is how we do this (as long as I am understanding it correctly).

This is an architecture of "meaning", as I have been finding in my research on this topic. It is my opinion that this kind of architecture is much richer in experience, and leaves more to the imagination and interpretation by means of intent. Architecture you truly connect with has lasting impacts on you, and as architects I believe this should be our mission. We have gotten away from buildings with meaning, and lean more toward function. The meaning and interaction should be the primary driver of design, and the function slips in where needed. Peter Zumthor's ideas on design align with my own; he thinks about how the space will feel and designs based on that condition, then worries about the form at the end. If we don't connect to architecture, what good is it? We could just as easily live in tents and under trees if it's only shelter we use it for. There are endless possibilities with our ability to connect with architecture.

What if we thought about our architecture this way? I am intrigued by this idea of thinking of architecture (a body) as a system of fluids that can only be balanced by either more or less of such. It just made me think of people/users of buildings as the fluid that is spoken of. In a litteral sense, there are people with good intentions with architecture and then there are those with ill intentions. For example, there are those that improve the building by decorating or giving a space their own personal touch. On the opposite side, there are those that seek to destroy or "upset" space. If we go back to the analogy, when architecture (the body) is not in equilibrium, people are introduced in a specific way. If the architecture is depressed, you introduce perhaps a florist to bring in bright colored flowers. If a building is being attacked by someone, security is called and they escort the delinquent out. This is a rough analogy, but it gives an interesting perspective on the relation between architecture and the body.

Does this mean that we should reflect our human natures onto the buildings we design? Should we make buildings that breathe and see? Or does this cross the line into territory that is uncomfortable for us?

To an extent, I can agree with this statement. I agree that sometimes understanding through writing is the way to best understand our world. However, I would counter that with the knowledge of the different types of learning there are. I am a visual learner, so pictures work much better for me than reading. There are also audio learners who need to hear information to better process it. This goes back to my thoughts on the senses. The senses are our way of testing the world and knowing first-hand experiences for ourselves. I believe it is this personal aspect of experience that really gets us to understand information, specifically about our world.

We touched on this idea of perception in Thesis 1's reading last week on emotions and perception. A point that I had pulled out of that reading is that you can influence, or train, your brain to react and perceive things in a specific way which then effect how you interact with things in space.

Small aside: "Minute Physics" (a podcast) did a segment on teleportation and really gets at the science of translating your body to another space and what happens to your "original you". They explain it much better than I can... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAaHHGHuy1c

This is at the core of our class and many of our theses. The part I question is this: Do you change the environment or the person? In other words, is it simpler to understand what in the environments we live in make us change and then address the environment, or is it simpler to understand this new kind of human and then address the individual? I am led to believe that it is easier to change the environment than the people.

"Architects are connected to wider cost and material imperatives which inhibit or restrict the scope for design beyond prescribed limits." It is not completely the architect's fault, though they hopefully will be able to vault over these hurdles.

"asking who architecture is for, in what ways, and with what effects..." These are core questions to how I approach design.

"architects need to confront the ideology of art over function and seek to privilege use over aesthetics or pretensions to poetics." This shift allows architecture to connect with people.

"Davies and Lifchez...conceive of buildings as much more than a physical, bodily, experience, or a matter of logistics, but as a quality of socio-psychological experiences." We experience architecture externally as well as internally.

"man's sensabilities intervene even in the midst of the most rigorous calculation" Even though a spaces was designed for people, it changes once the people occupy it, as everyone is different.

"sun in the house, sky through their windowpanes, trees to loot at as soon as they step outside" Concept of the quality of life.

"The planned disposition of space was a form of poetics, while the eradication of the messiness of the street and restoration of clean air and open spaces were conceived of as pre-requisites for 'the rebirth of the human body'." The human body could only be born if our spaces we experience were improved.

"man has been made out of the same mould" We may have all been created "the same" but we are not without our differences.

"architectural schools teach trainee architects about he problems and limitations of decontextual conceptions of the body and architecture." Students are not taught the limits of the body.

"the body...is the condition and context through which is embodied person is able to have a relation to objects" The body gives us a physical connection to experience physical things.

"'architecture is there, concerned with our home, our comfort, and our heart." Architecture serves people so shouldn't it be more sensitive to our differences?

"erases differences, standardises experiences, drains the world of colour and texture, and precludes the richness and quality of life." This sounds like many young adult novels about a apocalyptic world in which everyone is the same but the story is about someone breaking that barrier.

"Their desire for rigid precision makes them neglect the beauty of all these forms...their architecture is without soul." Diversity makes humans and life interesting

"a 'true normal type' and for universal laws of human habitation and behavior." Is this even possible to do with so many different qualities?

"architectural conceptions of the body are premised upon abstract theories of the self...'a largely disembodied self which is held to be outside of time, space, outside of culture and gender'." We design for imaginary people instead of real people

This document was published in 2005. Has design gotten better for the disabled or has it held at a constant level of bad?