Beyond the Superficial: Meanings of Surface

In The Fabric of Fabrication, Gevork Hartoonian examines  notions on the topic of surface in light of architectural images produced with digital technology.  In order to do so, he uses the ideas of German architect, Gottfried Semper, and the theory of dressing.  Explaining the historical function of textiles to provide shelter, he considers surfaces in terms of covering or wrapping. Professor Susan Yalevich also walked us through the history of textiles, emphasizing their impact in the development of architecture.

Historically, textiles were hung to divide space (think of a tent or a yurt). Later they were used to cover floors, which preceded the transference of their motifs to the exterior, as if to dress or ornament surface.  Semper sees a distinction between the “core form” of the building and its “art form.”  Semper attributes the use of motifs in designing tectonic forms to textiles.  Fabric and walls are both “coverings” dividing what is inside against what is outside.  In dressing, the form of the body always dictates the appearance of the surface because of the inherent contours necessitating cuts and folds.  It is what one does with such forms that marks the distinction between what is “dressed,” or what is “dressed up.”

Today we see Semper’s ideas about excess in relation to new computer generated forms, animated surfaces, and a mass culture at times described as a culture of spectacle.  I appreciate Semper’s belief that architecture should be considered within a broader cultural experience.  Notions of excess and ornament are similarly inherent in other art forms, like music and dance.  Architecture is as other cultural products, from textiles, to ceramics and music.  There is inherent theatricality in architecture, and as long as it does not transfer into the realm of pure spectacle, wastefulness, or tackiness (the last being subjective, I realize), then I enjoy this placement of architecture within other art forms, even if it is situated within our culture of excess.  We are surrounded by so many eye-soars and cookie-cutter enclaves, that even if a building is an “ugly” blob or a baffling stack of cubes, they reflect some element of culture.

Hartoonian’s essay The Fabric of Fabrication makes us consider what our choices of coverings represent and mean to us within our current culture.  It is a worthy exercise to consider for ourselves what our personal preferences of surface fabrication or decoration say about us on an individual level and as a society.

Similarly, in her recent talk at Parsons, Professor Yalevich described fabric and dressing at the heart of architecture.

And, for your consideration, here are some architecture blogs brought to my attention by Ansley during a discussion about blob architecture and notions of “covering”.

http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com/

http://www.designboom.com/contemporary.html

-Deborah Engel