Drawing on the three previous posts, it is possible to revise the original hypothesis – Architectural meaning is the experience of an experience in and of architectural space – so that many of the ambiguities are resolved and its open-endedness given some limits. The new version is as follows:
Architectural meaning is an extraordinary (third) experience constructed in and of a human projection of place within or against an architectural setting.
One further modification is immediately possible. The phrase “constructed in and of” was necessitated, in part, by the vagueness of “architectural space” and, in particular, the inability of this phrase to convey the reciprocal nature of person and environment. The replacement phrase for architectural space – “a human projection of place within or against an architectural setting” – mitigates that concern sufficiently to allow a slightly streamlined version:
Architectural meaning is an extraordinary (third) experience constructed from a human projection of place within or against an architectural setting.
The original hypothesis spawned four questions. This new formulation provides nascent answers to two. First, is every memorable experience in or of a work of architecture an instantiation of architectural meaning? No. Only those experiences in which the inhabitant both projects qualities of place and that projection is mixed with experiences of the setting in a third synthetic experience is it possible for architectural meaning to occur. Second, is there a qualitative threshold between notable experiences and meaningful ones? Yes. Any engagement that spurs us to project or imagine conditions of place into existence is notable. Only those that foster synthetic experience, however, have meaning. These two answers are elaborated in the following meditations.
The new hypothesis resolves one question definitively – does the suggestion of a qualitative threshold necessarily throw us back into Truth language? The answer is no, though this is not immediately apparent from a casual reading because this answer is applicable to notions of objective Truth only. Note the central passage in particular: an extraordinary (third) experience constructed from a human projection of place. This passage suggests meaning is composed of a series of subjective impressions. First, there is a projection of place derived from one’s background and education as well as the activities and temperament of the day. Second, there is the experience of this projection combined with (third) the experience of the architectural setting to create yet another (fourth) synthetic experience that is the core of meaning. Admittedly, if subjective truth is not an oxymoron or complete gibberish, the new hypothesis is replete with truths. But, from the perspective of objective or empirical or scientific Truth (the kinds of Truth detrimental to meaning-oriented practice), the hypothesis is Truth-free.
As stated, this new version of the hypothesis is developed in the coming posts. To the extent that it resolves some questions and, as will be shown, has some predictive power, it arguably serves as an axiom from this point forward. This new axiom, however, leaves one question of the original hypothesis unaddressed: is there a qualitative threshold between architecture and mere buildings?
Architecture is Fiction 