Reframing Architecture

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

I would like to thank Prof. Stephen Read (2011) and Prof. Andrew Benjamin (2011) for both giving inspiring and elaborate comments on my article “Dwelling in-between walls: the architectural surround”. As I will try to demonstrate below, their two different responses not only supplement my article very nicely, but also augment each other’s. In the beginning of Read’s comment, as he sets the stage for his observations, he unknowingly also points in the direction of Benjamin’s remarks: “I propose not to de-construct therefore, or add a point of view from an orthogonal position, but to try in the spirit of multidisciplinarity to talk in languages not well practiced—to begin to build what Bowker and Star call ‘boundary objects’ between different starting positions; points we can gather around to think further together” (Read 2011). Whereas Read facilitates a multidisciplinary dialogue, Benjamin focuses on how the absence of an initial distinction might threaten the endeavour of my paper. In my reply to Read and Benjamin, I will discuss their suggestions and arguments, while at the same time hopefully clarifying the postphenomenological approach to architecture.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftFoundations of Science
Vol/bind18
Udgave nummer1
Sider (fra-til)205-211
ISSN1233-1821
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2013

Emneord

  • Postphenomenology
  • Technology
  • Experience
  • Materiality
  • Intentionality
  • Scale

Citer dette

Riis, Søren. / Reframing Architecture. I: Foundations of Science. 2013 ; Bind 18, Nr. 1. s. 205-211.
@article{4f39e588b8a54c37b624bb2a4676c7ee,
title = "Reframing Architecture",
abstract = "I would like to thank Prof. Stephen Read (2011) and Prof. Andrew Benjamin (2011) for both giving inspiring and elaborate comments on my article “Dwelling in-between walls: the architectural surround”. As I will try to demonstrate below, their two different responses not only supplement my article very nicely, but also augment each other’s. In the beginning of Read’s comment, as he sets the stage for his observations, he unknowingly also points in the direction of Benjamin’s remarks: “I propose not to de-construct therefore, or add a point of view from an orthogonal position, but to try in the spirit of multidisciplinarity to talk in languages not well practiced—to begin to build what Bowker and Star call ‘boundary objects’ between different starting positions; points we can gather around to think further together” (Read 2011). Whereas Read facilitates a multidisciplinary dialogue, Benjamin focuses on how the absence of an initial distinction might threaten the endeavour of my paper. In my reply to Read and Benjamin, I will discuss their suggestions and arguments, while at the same time hopefully clarifying the postphenomenological approach to architecture.",
keywords = "Postphenomenology, Technology, Experience, Materiality, Intentionality, Scale, Postphenomenology, Technology, Experience, Materiality, Intentionality, Scale",
author = "S{\o}ren Riis",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1007/s10699-011-9258-3",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
pages = "205--211",
journal = "Foundations of Science",
issn = "1233-1821",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "1",

}

Reframing Architecture. / Riis, Søren.

I: Foundations of Science, Bind 18, Nr. 1, 2013, s. 205-211.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reframing Architecture

AU - Riis, Søren

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - I would like to thank Prof. Stephen Read (2011) and Prof. Andrew Benjamin (2011) for both giving inspiring and elaborate comments on my article “Dwelling in-between walls: the architectural surround”. As I will try to demonstrate below, their two different responses not only supplement my article very nicely, but also augment each other’s. In the beginning of Read’s comment, as he sets the stage for his observations, he unknowingly also points in the direction of Benjamin’s remarks: “I propose not to de-construct therefore, or add a point of view from an orthogonal position, but to try in the spirit of multidisciplinarity to talk in languages not well practiced—to begin to build what Bowker and Star call ‘boundary objects’ between different starting positions; points we can gather around to think further together” (Read 2011). Whereas Read facilitates a multidisciplinary dialogue, Benjamin focuses on how the absence of an initial distinction might threaten the endeavour of my paper. In my reply to Read and Benjamin, I will discuss their suggestions and arguments, while at the same time hopefully clarifying the postphenomenological approach to architecture.

AB - I would like to thank Prof. Stephen Read (2011) and Prof. Andrew Benjamin (2011) for both giving inspiring and elaborate comments on my article “Dwelling in-between walls: the architectural surround”. As I will try to demonstrate below, their two different responses not only supplement my article very nicely, but also augment each other’s. In the beginning of Read’s comment, as he sets the stage for his observations, he unknowingly also points in the direction of Benjamin’s remarks: “I propose not to de-construct therefore, or add a point of view from an orthogonal position, but to try in the spirit of multidisciplinarity to talk in languages not well practiced—to begin to build what Bowker and Star call ‘boundary objects’ between different starting positions; points we can gather around to think further together” (Read 2011). Whereas Read facilitates a multidisciplinary dialogue, Benjamin focuses on how the absence of an initial distinction might threaten the endeavour of my paper. In my reply to Read and Benjamin, I will discuss their suggestions and arguments, while at the same time hopefully clarifying the postphenomenological approach to architecture.

KW - Postphenomenology

KW - Technology

KW - Experience

KW - Materiality

KW - Intentionality

KW - Scale

KW - Postphenomenology

KW - Technology

KW - Experience

KW - Materiality

KW - Intentionality

KW - Scale

U2 - 10.1007/s10699-011-9258-3

DO - 10.1007/s10699-011-9258-3

M3 - Journal article

VL - 18

SP - 205

EP - 211

JO - Foundations of Science

JF - Foundations of Science

SN - 1233-1821

IS - 1

ER -