2026-09-21T21:07:52Zhttps://dspace.mit.edu/server/oai/requestoai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/122602022-01-13T07:54:11Zcom_1721.1_7582com_1721.1_7581col_1721.1_131023
Rosemary Grimshaw.
Jeffery, Helen B. (Helen Barbara)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Architecture
2005-08-16T20:06:30Z
2005-08-16T20:06:30Z
1994
1994
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/12260
30758651
Thesis (M. Arch.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Architecture, 1994.
Includes bibliographical references (p. 49-51).
If all architectural form could be simplistically grouped into only two categories, these might be "object" and "partial enclosure," where objects are in dialogue with the space around them while partial enclosures articulate the space within them. In contemporary architectural discourse, "object" is in disfavor. Particularly in the sphere of urban planning, and in reaction to city-hating International-style buildings, architectural objects are to be avoided in favor of continuing the weave of existing urban fabric. Such objection is based on a figure-ground understanding of urbanism that values the figure of public space over th at of architectural element. This white-and-black construct has been used in architectural theory to sometimes prefer space and sometimes object, but this paper takes the position that hierarchy is not necessarily the appropriate relationship. This paper describes an object-space dialogue that is not based on figure-ground. It starts from the assumption that space is potential movement. By studying existing masterworks, the relationship between object and movement space that was discovered is interesting because it is paradoxic: objects articulate space to suggest movement often while simultaneously acting as obstructions. Architecture that takes advantage or such ambiguities, such as Michelangelo's reconstruction of the Capitoline Hill, " .. .force[s] the observer into a personal solution of [the] paradox [thus endowing] movement ... with aesthetic overtones." [Ackerman 1970, 156.] This paper called this object-space relationship the kinetic paradox, and used it as the basis for a design method to resolve a problematic innercity site.
by Helen B. Jeffery.
M.Arch.
51 p.
6764427 bytes
6764182 bytes
application/pdf
application/pdf
eng
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582
Architecture
The kinetic paradox of objects : a working theory for designing architectural fabric
Thesis
application/pdf
false
Publication
unknown
unknown
<Publication xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/1.1/" id="6d7851ac-8295-4b6b-9150-6430e1e80d37">
<Type xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/vocab/COAR_Publication_Types">http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_1843</Type>
<Language>eng</Language>
<Title>The kinetic paradox of objects : a working theory for designing architectural fabric</Title>
<PublishedIn>
<Publication>
</Publication>
</PublishedIn>
<PublicationDate>1994</PublicationDate>
<Authors>
<Author>
<DisplayName>Jeffery, Helen B. (Helen Barbara)</DisplayName>
<Affiliation>
<OrgUnit>
</OrgUnit>
</Affiliation>
</Author>
</Authors>
<Editors>
</Editors>
<Publishers>
<Publisher>
<DisplayName>Massachusetts Institute of Technology</DisplayName>
<OrgUnit />
</Publisher>
</Publishers>
<License>http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582</License>
<Keyword>Architecture</Keyword>
<Abstract>If all architectural form could be simplistically grouped into only two categories, these might be "object" and "partial enclosure," where objects are in dialogue with the space around them while partial enclosures articulate the space within them. In contemporary architectural discourse, "object" is in disfavor. Particularly in the sphere of urban planning, and in reaction to city-hating International-style buildings, architectural objects are to be avoided in favor of continuing the weave of existing urban fabric. Such objection is based on a figure-ground understanding of urbanism that values the figure of public space over th at of architectural element. This white-and-black construct has been used in architectural theory to sometimes prefer space and sometimes object, but this paper takes the position that hierarchy is not necessarily the appropriate relationship. This paper describes an object-space dialogue that is not based on figure-ground. It starts from the assumption that space is potential movement. By studying existing masterworks, the relationship between object and movement space that was discovered is interesting because it is paradoxic: objects articulate space to suggest movement often while simultaneously acting as obstructions. Architecture that takes advantage or such ambiguities, such as Michelangelo's reconstruction of the Capitoline Hill, " .. .force[s] the observer into a personal solution of [the] paradox [thus endowing] movement ... with aesthetic overtones." [Ackerman 1970, 156.] This paper called this object-space relationship the kinetic paradox, and used it as the basis for a design method to resolve a problematic innercity site.</Abstract>
<Access xmlns="http://purl.org/coar/access_right"
>
</Access>
</Publication>