 |
| Photo of Turkish built fort on Tarut Island by Barie Fez-Barringten |
By Barie Fez-Barringten
Edited by:Edward Hart
bariefb@comcast.net
Later “The sovereign built metaphor”: monograph
converted to Power Point for presentation to Southwest Florida Chapter of the
American Institute of Architects. 2011. http://globaluniversity.academia.edu/BarieFezBarringten/Books/1449761/Architecture_The_Making_Of_Metaphors
Email: bariefezbarringten@gmail.com
Preface:
Based on “Architecture: the making of metaphors”
(Fez-Barringten, B.), the sovereign built
metaphor takes as its
focus the process, result and analysis of the metaphor in architecture. The key
to understanding its existence comes from the knowledge that it is distinct
from its creator, programs, process and stands as something which has an
independent existence of its own. Just as a corporation is a sovereign entity -
so is a metaphor. The essence of the creative process and its product is that
they encapsulate not only their own inherent qualities by those which have
origins elsewhere (other lives, contexts, metaphors, symbolism plus distant and
near-source contexts). Indeed, while each constructed element has a metaphor
between it and its referent, this metaphor ignores this relationship and is
only concerned with how selected elements work with others where such orphans (isolates)
are in the mix of the extant metaphor. It is self-potentiating and independent.
However in its external context it is but one referent of a contextual metaphor
composing a rural, sub-urban or urban context which with its companions
operates analogously as a metaphor.
Introduction:
“Metaphor” (Ortony, A) (transfer in
{metapherein} Latin), the noun and “transfer”, the verb, are products of a
process of synthesizing a physical intervention in any given context or
non-context (as a model in the studio) (Bernhart,
C. L). Such interventions become society’s metaphors each involved in a
narcissistic introverted conversation; much like those described by Ayn Rand in
“The Fountainhead” (Brandon, B). They are narcissistic and introverted because
they centre on an internal unspoken but seemingly telepathic dialogue - in the
process of which - its parts undergo a sort of physical and biological osmosis.
These relationships, which are read in physics, mathematics and science, underpin
the properties and strength of materials plus the engineering and aesthetics of
any given project. These relationships inform the manner in which the parts support,
attach, migrate, bond, flex and bend to accommodate one another. So in essence
they form a synthesis which begins with the practicalities and the aesthetics of
proportion, scale, color, texture and culminate in the end product – the
building.
After assembly, creation and
manufacture, the whole or parts of a building may never be perceived, seen, or
understood, by a third party. Often the metaphor of the sovereign metaphor
deals with commonplaces pertinent to its social, historical and cultural context
(Fez-Barringten, B). Both art and architecture metaphor-building clarify our
place, status and value. As metaphor is the main mechanism through which we
comprehend abstract concepts and perform abstract reasoning, so works of
architecture inform our social, psychological and political condition (Lakoff, G). What is built is first thought and
conceived separately from building,
as thinking and conceiving are separate from outward expression. Architectural metaphor
- like its linguistic/cognitive associate - is a process and what we see is the
issue of that process and not the manifest metaphor. For example, when we hear
a symphony, poem; watch a dance or see a painting we [perceive the whole – the
synthesis of the creative process with all that entails. What we don’t see quite
so readily is the component parts, the structure, the context, the aesthetics
and the story etc.
Content:
A train ticket takes you on a journey.
The process of travel is not merely a physical thing it involves the act
itself, the idea of the act and the process of the act. It also involves
leaving one mode for another both in a physical and metaphorical sense. The
process is one of being transferred but not transformed. In a similar way, one
can say that the architectural metaphor does not transform its elements but
places them in a system of relationships where they carry over their own unique
qualities, properties, characteristics and functions. Whilst they are often in
direct connection and sequence – at other times they are remote and apart – but
nevertheless remain part of the same construction. Just like travel –
architectural relationships and metaphors can be contiguous or not as the case
may be. Consequently, referents’ characteristics can be transferred, sometimes
by direct contact and on other occasions, circuitously. They can also be
functions, uses, areas, goals, ideals and site conditions. Buildings are a
diverse conglomeration of orchestrated programmatic, material and system
elements that transfer, carry-over and make the strange familiar. By being one
of a class of building types, they talk about that type in terms of its present
permutation. Direct transfer is also the way weight is conveyed from one object
to another by gravity, force and juxtaposition.
Transfer works in the metaphor by
acting on other referents passing a property such as power or quality from one
to the other. The quality is conveyed without necessarily losing the
originators or composure. An attribute is conveyed from one to another. Yet the
attribute conveyed still remains in the original although it is shared. It’s a
matter of positioning. Side by side the weight of one will not exert on the
other until it is attached or placed on top. As in a literary metaphor, the
positioning of words and phrases matters in that its transferability and
importance are dependent on one or another referent. Now both weigh,
illuminate, radiate, etc. The element may not be structural but an operation or
goal aspect, where the commonplace will draw the referents into affecting one
another.
In the literary metaphor “Richard
the Lionheart”, Richard and the lion still remain “Lionhearted” although by
sharing the same context they interact. They are presumed to have a commonplace
and this presumption is the very inertia that defines their commonality. One
attribute radiates, exudes and transfers to the other. In the case of the
literary metaphor, human perception is needed to discern the commonality that
it expresses. Yet without such discernment the habitable metaphor actually has
this same potential. A unique potential which transfers based on this one
commonality, a commonality which works even when a body stays at rest until
acted upon by an outside force. As in nature, the reification of such actions,
stress and repetition in architecture couples unlikely and apparently unrelated
elements.
Manufacturing, design and
construction all rely on the ability of unlike, disparate and different elements
to transfer and work together. In a habitable metaphor transfers are
encouraged, discouraged and prevented; prevented as in the case of moisture
protection and the application of paint, stucco, masonry, etc. Metaphors may,
of course, be positive or negative. Transfers may be desirable or harmful but they
are always present in the elements of a work.
“Metaphor, we know is a literary
term which means carrying-over”, it associates meanings and emotions which otherwise
would not be related. Words (essences) known to have a preferential or primary
use in one context are explicitly employed in another. Such terms as ‘screaming
headlines’, ‘brute architecture’, foxy grandpa and Richard the Lion-Hearted’
take terms normally used in one context and bring them into another with the
object of illumination making more evident something in the second domain which
would otherwise remain
obscure. But this definition makes it sound as though
metaphor were a one way process, whereas the best of metaphors allow us to
explain two truths at the same time. The metaphor points beyond each of its
members to the reality they diversely express, articulating a power common to
both, telling us they both have an intrinsic nature.” (Weiss, P.) The key to
the metaphor is that it transfers. It is a transfer mechanism. Simply by
juxtaposition of two seemly unrelated elements each seeks a characteristic
common to both, whether in literature, science or design.
“Richard
the lion-hearted” is a model of a literary metaphor where one referent is
stated in terms of the other. Were Richard an animal he would be a lion and
were the lion a human he would be Richard. Both parts of the metaphor point to
something beyond their physical nature: they are both brave. Richard and the
lion have the bravery of the lion and head-of-state in common. By juxtaposing
the two, the lion and Richard’s commonality is made manifest. Similarly, two
apparently unrelated structural components have a commonality beyond the
obvious as well. This commonality is not always on the same level or hierarchy
of values. The lion is known to be brave and Richard was known to be the king. Both are noble, strong and lead. The horizontal flange of the WF (wide
flange) beam and the horizontal surface of the slab, transfer their loads so
that the slab bears on the flange while the beam supports the slab. Richard is the first referent and the
lion the second. In the structure, the slab is the first and the beam is
second.
In the literary model the ideal they
both share is bravery: Lion-hearted conditions Richard and Richard conditions
the lion. In a structure this is mirrored by the compressive and tensile
strength of both the slab and the beam. The literary metaphor is limited to the
transfer of the referents and ideals but neither is inherent or apparent in
either referent. In this literary metaphor we are unaware of all the
conditions, operations and goals that pertain to it. Not all literary metaphors
are one-liners, many are found in stories, scenarios, poems, songs, etc. They have
the full range of conditions, operations, ideals and goals.
The other characteristic of the
metaphor was well defined as talking about one thing in terms of another.
(Gordon, W. J. J.). There are three such permutations of this, the first of
which is the “direct analogy”, which is a comparison of one thing with another.
This exemplified when we make the strange familiar by imparting to the new
thing characteristics of the old. Designers do this by borrowing materials from
one context and bringing them into another, for example, thermae and Palladian
windows used as an architectural device/motif rather than as windows. The
second permutation is “personal analogy”, which refers to role-playing and
identification with either living or non-living objects as when a designer
adapts the spider’s web to tensile and tent and cable structures. The third is
‘symbolic analogy’, literally expressed as ‘tears of joy’ or ‘exquisite pain’.
These are two word phrases whose components contradict or oppose one another.
(Gordon, W. J. J.).
Rugby, Tennessee: English Mountain,
Tennessee, the Chattanooga Choo-Choo Hilton and Belmopan village in Belize are
all borrowed from another familiar context to make their current context
familiar. Adaptive use, restoration of landmarks to contemporary uses and
restoring neighborhoods, are all good examples of using materials, buildings
and places used in one way to be used in another. In these cases the transfer
is by association and once completed there is a conscious perception for the two
uses, times and applications.
Rugby as a town was developed around
the idea of establishing a home for English settlers in Tennessee. The houses
were to be familiar “English” vernacular homes but built with Tennessee
materials. Today, the remnants of the town stand with many inhabited houses
looking like typical English pre-Victorian weatherboard cottages with decorated
gable-ends and lace curtains. This and the many Tennessee barns, which had been
designed, constructed and shipped from northern states, were examples I later
used to “make the strange familiar” in the 20th century developments
on English Mountain and Sugar Tree, Tennessee. Especially significant was the
adaptive use of an existing pole barn into a sophisticated restaurant on
English Mountain called the ‘Black Bear Inn.
Rugby,
Tennessee, the restored Victorian village founded in 1880 by British author and
social reformer, Thomas Hughes, was envisaged as a cooperative, class-free,
agricultural community for the younger sons of English gentry and others
wishing to start life anew in America. At its peak in the mid-1880s, some 300
people lived in the colony. More than 65 buildings of Victorian design graced
the townscape on East Tennessee's beautiful Cumberland Plateau.
Each building has a variety of
vertical and horizontal wood siding painted in various colors including orange,
green, brown, etc. I used these colors in the design of the mountain houses on
English Mountain (Sevier and Walker Counties, Tennessee). Also, I clad my
houses with shutters and other trim used on these buildings. The English
mountain models were clad with US Plywood’s texture 1-11 and set on platforms
which engaged the severe gradients of the mountain slopes. The shapes, simple
square boxes and rectangles, were also borrowed from the original 18th
century development.
 |
| Precinct police station design by Barie Fez-Barringten |
These relationships oppose one
another in tension and compression and can be at any scale. They may be
symmetrical, or asymmetrical, they may unify or separate. Scale is the
proportion of the planes, space and volume of one sub-space to the whole
construction. The planes, spaces, sub-space(s), volume and scale have commonalities
and differences between them. They all point to a reality beyond their
individual and common nature to their external context and potential
occupant(s); occupants whose culture and behavior may vary. The relationship
between occupants and context is explored in the properties afforded by scale,
volume and plane. The scale and elements of Rome’s St. Peters drafts is
structure and decorative elements to a scale beyond any single inhabitant and
always suggests accommodating much larger sized inhabitants or crowds. Scale,
volume and size are the commonplace demanding references to something beyond
any single space or detail. Like its illustrations and characterizations, it is
about the universe and the vastness of creation. Scale is the commonality
between the proportion of elements within a construction as well as the
construction and occupants, particularly an area, room, corridor entry and an
occupant. The proportion of one to another structure in an urban setting or a
construction to its surroundings (trees, plains, desert etc.), involves a
transfer and carry-over from one side of proportion to the other (people vs.
columns, spaces, vistas, scale etc.). When the two achieve equipoise they seem
to be right; when one is too large or too small the scale is off-kilter. In
either case it is a metaphor whether aesthetic or not.
The context of any construction, likewise,
is the commonality between the volume and their common scale. The proportion and
characteristics of volume and context are always interlinked. They can be
infinite, limitless and without bounds or limited. Transformation of the volume
of the construction and its sub-volumes to the context is a scale of the
metaphor to inhabitants of both contexts. As Richard the lion hearted - the
construction and the context each point to a nature beyond their respective
metaphors - and is a bridge by which their respective value is defined. Were
the context a construction it would be this volume and were the construction
the context, it would be the same volume. Like Richard and the lion’s bravery,
the magnitude of the volume is beyond context and construction and reaches to
values intrinsic to both. These values operate independently of anyone who
perceives or recites the metaphor but nevertheless these properties are
implicit in the distinct nature and sovereignty of what is constructed.
The planes that define the
construction may differ from one another as each must be the commonality or
difference between its adjacent space, sub-space and context. It may also be
affected by the inhabitant’s uses and volumes of the space and itself be the
characteristic common to both. As such, its faces may be differently colored,
constructed or supported thus forming a bridge for its referents (inhabitants
and volumes). As this element becomes a sub-metaphor so it is with each other
plane, volume, space and sub-space. Each links to adjacent or related element and
in so doing makes a metaphor. It’s like the do-se-do
movement in square dancing in which two dancers approach each other and circle
back to back, then return to their original positions where one exchanges one
partner for another. There is a continuous domino effect among the circle of
dancers and in the construction, where each element bridges and affects the
other. Each plane, volume and space bridges the other. One and the other take
on common properties.
The commonplace of planes in space
is their tensional asymmetrical or symmetrical relationships which give them
equipoise, equipoise that could fix them in space were it not for gravity or
the laws of physics. Hence they need some structure in the form of tensional
wires, or skeletal gravity supports such as columns, beams and slabs. Yet
equipoise is the commonplace beyond their own sizes, weights and composition,
which composes their form and allows them to transfer their properties. They
form positive and negative spaces; positive being within and negative being
without any given relationship, where there would not be a negative without a
positive. The two, positive and negative, transfer there commonality of space
and volume between one another. For a literary metaphor it is grammar, syntax
and language that are its commonplace. It is the same for a sovereign metaphor
– it transfers its original properties from one level to the next to achieve
equipoise.
Just as there are agglomerations of
words, phrases and sentences, so there are compositions comprised of planes,
lines, volumes and spaces which are not metaphors. However chaos, dissonance
and vacuity are also ‘qualities’ associated with language. Line and volumes
transfer their opposition to one another in tension and through this tension
balance not by symmetry but instead by asymmetrical yin opposition to one another. The commonplace of the lines is
their opposition and tension in space.
For example, the two rooms of the log
cabin are joined by the fireplace; the common fireplace which removes the smoke
and fumes of the fire common from both rooms. The rooms which are formed by logs are common
to both the interior construction and the external context – a context filled
with trees and nature. The planes of logs forming the wall divide the interior
warmth from the attack of wind, temperature, snow and rain. The upper diagonal
planes form the roof and keep out the elements as well as retain the heat
generated by the fireplace. Metaphorically it is easy to see how the single
double flue model could be adapted to accommodate a second floor using the
common fireplace. This model gave way to the lower floor kitchen/living rooms
and upper bedrooms. In the US example, a "log cabin" was usually
constructed with round rather than hewn or hand-worked logs and often it was a first generation
structure which could be erected quickly as frontier settlement required.
The first log structures were
probably built in Northern Europe
in the Bronze Age
(about 3500 BC). By
stacking tree trunks one on top of another and overlapping the logs at the
corners, people made the "log cabin". Men developed interlocking
corners using notches at the ends, resulting in strong structures that were easier
to make weather-tight by inserting moss or other soft material into the joints. (Bomberger, D.)
A corridor enclosed by walls implies
adjacent rooms, a beginning and end to the corridor - and in the case of a
multi story building - connecting stairs and elevators that serve as
ambulatories (transfers and connections). The space limited by horizontal and
vertical planes in the context of a school carries over into adjacent spaces.
Bound and limited spaces characterized by a matrix of connected spaces of
varying or equal volumes collectively form a beehive-like metaphor or
interrelated and connected “cells”. Multiple horizontal planes forming building
floors when stacked become a “high-rise” whereas adjacent vertical planes
separated by volumes can become a shopping center. The program for buildings with
multiple areas such as hotels, schools, shopping centers, offices, apartments
and prisons, is a basically conditioned by a core of vertical and horizontal
transportation, utility links and service areas supporting apartments, guest
rooms, class rooms, shops, cells etc. Owner -occupied, specialty buildings
differ uniquely in their uses, functions, occupants, adjacencies, pedestrian
and vehicular access and each begets a singular and paired transfer as regards
the condition of structure, utility and support systems. The ideals of such a
structure will influence the scale of the operation and the segregation of
differing types and classes of operations from administration, executive,
staff, patients, guests, workers, etc.
As’ live’ (people and furniture) and
‘dead’ (structure and fixed building materials) loads are transferred from the
top of a structure to be resisted by the ground and its foundation, so are all
the other components of design. That is, they invisibly, subtly and inherently
exude their meanings and implications. They do so by their own physical
properties and designers’ perceptions of those properties. In fact, it is the
reckoning of those elements and properties that control of the metaphor
manifests. While they do inform one another’s conditions and operations, ideals
and goals transfer (the synonym for metaphor) from one to another while the ideal
is the repository for the commonality between the other three (housing the
ideals of “efficiency”, “grandeur”, “plain vanilla”, “values” etc.). The ideal
is the characteristic of bravery in the Richard the lionhearted metaphor and is
the value people bring to the creation of the structure which determines its
scale, selection of materials, structural, mechanical and electrical systems,
etc., It is easy to see how operations would transfer to structure influencing
its volume shape and form permuted by an ideal toward some overall goal; goal
being typified by the ultimate function of the structure (residence, hospital,
office, factory, school, etc.).
 |
| Glazing detail by Barie Fez-Barringten |
Just as the hanging of furs on cut branches transferred to
the log cabin, so the European models of the country house, the hacienda and
the vernacular transferred to the frontier shack, workshop, cabin or colonial
mansion. Similarly, the same process applies in the case of the factory and the
office. This development saw the visual extrapolation from a one-storey
structure to a multi-storey version complete with elevators, plumbing and
air-conditioning shafts and stacks. The replication of floors is not a metaphor
but it is analogous of the lift-inspired move to develop higher and higher
structures. The lift became the medium for the skyscraper because without it
few buildings if any would have risen above 100’ and our cities wouldn’t have
developed in the way that they have. This development might be considered as a
classic case of the tail (the utilities) wagging the dog (the building). These
structures – may differ in volume, space and scale but they reflect a broad array
of goals which transfer from one to the other. Conditioned by zoning, city
ordinances and statutes, they form a complex matrix of metaphors able to make
their commonalities and differences in the context of areas, sub-area, nodes (known
as cities), neighborhoods and blocks.
The process of making metaphors is
affected by the maker’s perceptions and craft. Both art and architecture share
(Schon, D. A) generative metaphor which “carries –over”
perspectives from one domain of experience to another where the artist builds
one thing in terms of another where the other is the model – and - what is
built is the application, the model being the “ideal” of the proposed design.
While designers may initially state an ideal, it most likely evolves and even
radically changes by the time the design process yields the finished building. Once
achieved the “parte”
(concept/gestalt) manifests and can be articulated.
No construction is devoid of the human
decision-making process. (Reddy M. J) Both art
and architecture peculiarize, personalize
and authenticate for their metaphor to live. This way the user metaphorizes
the using process and the user and work empathize. In this is the art of making
metaphors for the architect of public works. His metaphor must “read” the
cultural, social and rightness of the metaphor’s proposed context. An excellent
example of this the Paul Rudolph’s Art & Architecture building at Yale
University, though initially an architectonic of planes and shapes, it soon
becomes conditioned by building codes, operations, ideals and complex goals.
The asymmetric tensional relationships of planes and solids are shifted from
their primary positions to allow for clearances and access.
Basic
parameters
But what are the COIG (condition,
operations, ideals and goals) of a habitable sovereign metaphor? How does it
work (modus operandi)? Of what is it composed? What conditions the habitable
metaphor? What are its models (ideals)? What are its goals? What does it
achieve? Does it have scope and size limitations? The basic parts to the
architectural metaphor are its conditions, operations, ideals and goals (COIG).
In fact these four are the basic aspects of any one metaphor of architecture.
(Millard, P.) Likewise a literary metaphor has the same four aspects. However,
any two metaphor referents may not find a commonality on the same level. The
circulation of operations on one level may have nothing in common with the
structures on another. It is only when the “ambulatory” becomes the corridor do
they transfer. Richard and lion may not transfer until one finds the
commonality of bravery and king.
For each possible pairing it is
necessary to sort through the commonalities and differences to find their shared
characteristics. The process also works in reverse with elements sharing a
common characteristic without having the other referent. Given a flow diagram,
volume and goal, what is the structure? Having selected the structure, what is
the column spacing, beam locations, flooring and cladding? Not only pairs but
whole scenarios, storeys, paths and flows potentiate by the decision to use any
one or other element. The dominant goal of one building type will immediately
call to mind a history of the ones in its class, quality and context. A school
type will be sought for its similar size, capacity, features, costs, materials,
etc. A 600 student capacity middle school will be paired with a similar size
and budget to determine budget, plan, features, etc. Public and corporate
buildings are not programmed nor designed in a vacuum.
Planes, spaces, volumes and scale
carry-over, transfer and refer to their antecedent dominant, sub-dominant, tertiary
condition, operation, ideal and goals. Habitable metaphor is conditioned by
building codes, zoning ordinances, site and local statutes, FEMA (Federal
Emergency Management Agency) regulations, structural systems, utilities,
heating ventilation and cooling systems, site and site conditions, contexts,
and building materials. Metaphor is conditioned also by operations such as
identified functions, areas, sizes, human and vehicular access, traffic,
circulation, and adjacencies. Metaphor is also symbolized by standards, class,
quality level, relationship to context and like uses and final metaphor is
established by its goal to accommodate what purpose, for how many people in
what context and what period of time. Disregarding conditions of regulation,
structure, circulation, numbers of people and quality class will transfer and
seek a commonality; usually of building –type in or outside of its context.
Metaphor is a very practical and pragmatic matter. Habitable transfer mechanisms
are in our midst, everywhere and demanding our attention. Look at them knowing
they too have a life of their own - it is incumbent on us to find a way to
relate, understand and enjoy their presence.
 |
| Gibe by Barie Fez-Barringten |
References cited
ASHRAE
Handbook -2009 Fundamentals (I-P
Edition). (pp: 38.1); American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
Bernhart, Clarence L., American College Dictionary; Harper
& Brothers Publishers; New York; Random House; 1953
Bomberger
D., "The Preservation and Repair of
Historic Log Buildings",
National Park Service, 1991, accessed 6 Dec 2008
Fez-Barringten, Barie; ‘Schools and Metaphors’; Main Currents in Modern Thought; Sept-October 1971 Vol. 28,
Number 1; Notes from a symposium: Architecture, the Making of metaphors.
Gordon, J.J. William: The metaphorical way of knowing; Main Currents in Modern Thought; Sept-October 1971 Vol. 28,
Number 1; Notes from a symposium: Architecture, the Making of metaphors
Fez-Barringten, B.; “An
architectural history of metaphors”: AI & Society:
Journal of Knowledge: Culture and Communication: (Journal of
human-centered and machine intelligence) Pub: Springer; London; AI &
Society located in University of Brighton, UK; On-line and hard copy; 2010
Lakoff, George; the contemporary theory of metaphor: Metaphor and Thought: Second Edition; 1993; Published by
Cambridge University Press: School of Education and social Sciences and
Institute for the learning Sciences: North Western University
Millard, Peter: Architect: Lectures and private meetings at Yale
University: Born New York: May, 1924-died at 84 on March 30 2009.
Perspecta; various issues and influenced by Paul Weiss and Louis Kahn.
Branden, Barbara
(1986). The Passion of Ayn Rand. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company. ISBN 0-385-19171-5. OCLC 12614728.Rand, Ayn;
Fountainhead (Second-Hand Lives); Bobbs-Merrill Company; 1943
Reddy Michael J.; the
conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language:
Metaphor and Thought: Second Edition; 1993; Published by Cambridge University
Press: School of Education and social Sciences and
Institute for the learning Sciences: North Western
University
Ortony, Andrew; 1.0 Metaphor and
Thought: Second Edition; 1993; Published by
Cambridge University Press: School of Education and social Sciences and
Institute for the learning Sciences: North Western
University
Rugby: http://www.historicrugby.org/contact.php; Historic
Rugby: 5517 Rugby Hwy
Rugby, TN 37733
Rugby, TN 37733
Schon, Donald A.; Generative
metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy: Metaphor and Thought: Second Edition; 1993; Published by
Cambridge University Press: School of Education and social Sciences and
Institute for the learning Sciences: North Western
University
Weiss, Paul; Private
meetings at Yale University and “The
metaphorical process. Pgs 10, 11, 12 and Main Currents in Modern Thought;
Sept-October 1971 Vol. 28, Number 1; Notes from a symposium: Architecture, the
Making of metaphors.
Researched Publications:
Refereed and Peer-reviewed Journals: "monographs":
Barie Fez-Barringten; Associate professor
Global University
1. "Architecture
the making of metaphors" ©
Main Currents in Modern
Thought/Center for Integrative Education; Sep.-Oct. 1971, Vol. 28 No.1, New
Rochelle, New York.
2."Schools
and metaphors"
Main Currents in Modern
Thought/Center for Integrative Education Sep.-Oct. 1971, Vol. 28 No.1, New
Rochelle, New York.
3."User's
metametaphoric phenomena of architecture and Music":
“METU” (Middle East Technical
University: Ankara, Turkey): May 1995"
Journal of the Faculty of Architecture
4."Metametaphors
and Mondrian:
Neo-plasticism and its'
influences in architecture" 1993 Available on Academia.edu since
2008
5. "The
Metametaphor© of architectural
education",
North Cypress,
Turkish University. December, 1997
6."Mosques and metaphors" Unpublished,1993
7."The
basis of the metaphor of Arabia" Unpublished,
1994
8."The
conditions of Arabia in metaphor" Unpublished,
1994
9. "The
metametaphor theorem"
Architectural
Scientific Journal, Vol. No. 8; 1994 Beirut Arab University.
10. "Arabia’s metaphoric images" Unpublished, 1995
11."The
context of Arabia in metaphor" Unpublished,
1995
12. "A
partial metaphoric vocabulary of Arabia"
“Architecture: University of Technology in Datutop;
February 1995 Finland
13."The
Aesthetics of the Arab architectural metaphor"
“International Journal for Housing Science and its
applications” Coral Gables, Florida.1993
14."Multi-dimensional
metaphoric thinking"
Open House, September
1997: Vol. 22; No. 3, United Kingdom: Newcastle uponTyne
15."Teaching the techniques of
making architectural metaphors in the twenty-first century.” Journal of King Abdul Aziz
University Engg...Sciences;
Jeddah: Code: BAR/223/0615:OCT.2.1421 H. 12TH
EDITION; VOL. I and
“Transactions” of
Cardiff University, UK. April 2010
16.
“Word Gram #9” Permafrost: Vol.31 Summer 2009
University of Alaska Fairbanks; ISSN: 0740-7890; page 197
17.
"Metaphors and Architecture."© ArchNet.org. October, 2009.at MIT
18. “Metaphor as
an inference from sign”;©
University of Syracuse
Journal of Enterprise Architecture;
November 2009: and nomnated architect of the year in speical issue of Journal
of Enterprise Architecture.Explainging the unique relationship between
enterprise and classic building architecture.
19. “Framing the
art vs. architecture argument”; Brunel University (West London); BST: Vol. 9
no. 1: Body, Space & Technology
Journal: Perspectives Section
20. “Urban Passion”: October 2010; Reconstruction & “Creation”; June
2010; by C. Fez-Barringten; http://reconstruction.eserver.org/;
21. “An
architectural history of metaphors”: ©AI & Society: (Journal of human-centered and
machine intelligence) Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Communication: Pub:
Springer; London; AI & Society located in University of Brighton, UK;
AI & Society. ISSN (Print) 1435-5655 - ISSN (Online) 0951-5666
: Published by Springer-Verlag;; 6 May 2010
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j2632623064r5ljk/
Paper
copy: AIS Vol. 26.1. Feb. 2011; Online
ISSN 1435-5655; Print ISSN 0951-5666;
DOI
10.1007/s00146-010-0280-8; :
Volume 26, Issue 1 (2011), Page
103.
22. “Does
Architecture Create Metaphors?; G.Malek;
Cambridge; August 8,2009
Pgs 3-12 (4/24/2010)
23. “Imagery or Imagination”:the role of metaphor in architecture:Ami Ran
(based on Architecture:the making of metaphors); :and Illustration:”A Metaphor of Passion”:Architecture oif Israel
82.AI;August2010pgs.83-87.
24. “The soverign
built metaphor”
© monograph converted to Power Point for
presentation to Southwest Florida Chapter of the American Institute of
Architects. 2011
25.“Architecture:the
making of metaphors”©The Book;
Cambridge Scholars Publishing
Published: Feb 2012
12 Back Chapman Street
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE6 2XX
United Kingdom
12 Back Chapman Street
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE6 2XX
United Kingdom
Edited by
Edward
Richard Hart,
0/2 249
Bearsden Road
Glasgow
G13 1DH
UK
Lecture:
Note: The symposium: Architecture, the Making of metaphors was
founded and presented in 1967 at Yale University by Barie Fez-Barringten with
invited speakers such as Paul Weiss. Peter Millard, Kent Bloomer, Vincent
Scully, Christopher Tunnard, William J.J.Gordon, Forrest Wilson, Turan Onat and
Charles Moore.
 |
| Life pen and ink by Barie Fez-Barringten |
Barie Fez-Barringten Is the originator (founder) of “Architecture: the making of metaphors(architecture as the making of metaphors)" First lecture at Yale University in 1967 In 1970, founded New York City not-for-profit called Laboratories for Metaphoric Environments (LME) and has been widely published in many international learned journals. First published 1971 in the peer reviewed learned journal:"Main Currents in Modern Thought"; The book “Architecture: the making of metaphors" has been published in February 2012 by Cambridge Scholars Publishing in New Castle on Tyne,UK<
Architecture is a metaphor, independent existence, metaphor, orphans (isolates), sovereign entity, transferred but not transformed
Architecture: the making of metaphors, independent existence, metaphor, orphans, sovereign entity, transferred,transformed, metaphors,architecture,design
No comments:
Post a Comment