Showing posts with label Affluence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Affluence. Show all posts

Monday, July 9, 2012

Framing the art vs. architecture argument


All photos of beached dows on Tarut Island by Barie Fez-Barringten 
Framing the art vs. architecture argument Framing the art vs. architecture argument 
By Barie Fez-Barringten
www.bariefez-barringten.com
Published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing in the book  “ Architecture: the making of metaphors” by Barie Fez-Barringten.
Framing the art vs. architecture argument”; Originally written for University (West London); BST: Vol. 9 no. 1:  Body, Space & Technology Journal: Perspectives Section
 Emails welcome: bariefezbarringten@gmail.com
What’s the argument; who’s arguing; and, how does resolving that architecture is the making of metaphors settle the argument?
8,935  words on 25  pages
Abstract:
What’s the argument; who’s arguing? ; and, how does resolving that architecture is the making of metaphors settle the argument? Through analogies, similes and evidence I  present arguments supporting the resolutions surrounding the way architects and urban designers make metaphors. This is done by presenting the thinking on making both natural and synthetic cities as well the design of buildings and neighborhoods. Cited throughout are linguistic, cognitive, psychological and philosophical mechanisms of the metaphor and their applicability. All of this to reify the stasis of architecture as an art by the inference that, as art [A] , it too, makes metaphors.
This argument is relevant to communicate between unlike peoples, disciplines and roles [C]  in the creative process. The relevance of this monograph provides the authoritative evidence defining the architects, planners, and designers scope of services and owners  conceptual basis for considering projects. For cognitive, linguists and other scientist this monograph provides the evidence for application and of theory.
Key words:
Metaphors, Analogies, Dubbing, Stasis, Arguments, Architecture, Art, Society, Public, Social, Contextual, Cultural  Perspectives, Paradigms, Affluence, Information Technology, Communications, Bee, Structure, Imagination, Reality, Roman, Greek, Mies Van Der Rohe, Wright, Strange, Familiar, New Urbanism, Cell, Procreation, Sustenance, Unified Language, Conceptual Base, Concerns, Considering One Thing In Terms Of Another, Transferring, Bridging, Carrying-Over, Sharing, Macro Values,  Mini Issues, Banality, Apathy, Built Environment, Inductive Uncertainty, Deductive Certainty, New Towns, New Cities, Kingdoms, Created, Dynasty, Iconic Buildings, New Towns, Planned Unit Developments, Commercial, Industrial Developments, Identity, Signs, and Signals,Art [A], Argue
Biographical note: (88 words)
Columbia University coursework in behavioral psychology under Ralph Hefferline and voice in Linguistics, Bachelor’s of Fine Arts from Pratt Institute and Master of Architecture from Yale University where I was mentored in metaphors and metaphysics by Dr. Paul Weiss. For research I founded the New York City not-for–profit corporation called Laboratories for Metaphoric Environments. . In addition to authoring over fifteen published monographs by learned journals I have spent 20 years in Saudi Arabia and have written a book with pen and ink drawings on perceptions of 72 European cities.
Affiliations:
Global University, Gulf Coast Writers Association, American Institute of Architects, National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, Florida licensed architect, Lee County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board and trustee of Yale Alumni Association of South west Florida 
What’s the argument [2] and who’s arguing?
Empirically, the title of the essay posing the tensional relationship between art and architecture depends on who and where you are and are you apathetic or a connoisseur when it comes to your surroundings. On the other hand the title may express an ideal irrespective of time and place to a transcendental definition about the inherent qualities of all creation, use and perception of the material world (and man’s longing to covet that world) . At the end of the day the title and the inner working of the creation have pragmatic results from science.   Whether architecture is an art [A] or not is argued amongst practicing professionals, owners architects, engineers and artist,, scholars and contractors and to a much greater degree between members of society as manifest in literature, mass media and academia. It is the general public, users, real-estate markets, real estate agents, appraisers, and possibly financiers who dicker about such unpractical mater. After all, what you call something and how you may define it does not really limit practice, use and market.  Government officials, practitioners, owners would never want their desc enters to be what it is that art has come to signify: irresponsible, ambiguous, and unreliable.
Rather design, engineering and science should be predictable, manageable and efficient, all virtues seemingly antithetical to art and admittedly to artist. Most artists like being artist enjoying their well known characteristics, objectivity, sanctification and perspective. On the other hand there are many architects whose practice reject the mundane, banal and mediocrity of plane vanilla, hack and under funded projects only seeking and accepting commissions which seek an” artistic”, creative and inventive solution, creation and work. The architects will often propose their portfolio filled with colorful renderings, models and photographs emphasizing the art of architecture, exotic forms, and brilliant design.
These portfolios raise the level of excellence, accomplishments and creativity to new heights hoping to compete against other like-minded architects.
In these cases they freely bandy the “art”[A]  word balancing it with other more responsible adherence to budgets, functions, and corporate identity.  Underlying the social argument is a matter of rightness, social identity and the iconic value of resources, especially material matter, including precious stones, metals, antiques, cloths, etc. Social values and the ability man-made goods identify a culture, society, families, groups, companies and individuals is the heart of the argument. No one will argue about art of architecture in general but they will about the art of specific buildings.
Who was the architect and was he considered and artist? Have other people valued the building and has it been traded and valued over time. Does it have unique patterns, forms, shapes, colors and what is its relative cost? Is it more expensive or in a class of expensive buildings.  The issues and questions are endless but the underlying motive is the same, values are at stake. These arguments care little about the science, axioms, and reasoning of metaphors but are about metaphor’s essence, that it is a man-made artifact of value, made by an artist, craftsman, and manufactures resulting in a valued property. Whether real or liquid property the product is a referent which refers connects transfers and likens one thing to another.
In the case of buildings the argument of the art of the building may involve its price, quality, origins, uses, location and history of ownership. In any case the opponents would not delve to find the metaphors, concepts, ideas but appraise the value based on the market and comparable for similar buildings.


Metaphors would only be considered when the seller or the buyer, maker or user, owner or the public had to originate their valuation. As soon as that happens the parties to the work need a vocabulary aside from public opinion to create, evaluate, and judge the work. While architects make a combination of conceptual and technical metaphors they do so metaphorically and by attending to scientific, material and factual matters.  Yet in so doing , no  mater to what degree of technical or conceptual the very process of any work translating requirements from wishes to design to construction to occupation involves metaphors, symbols and representations which carry-over and describe on thing in terms of another.
How does claiming that architecture is the making of metaphors settle the argument?
Architecture is the making of metaphors [B] establishing the stasis between art and architecture focus attention on the commonplace between all arts and also architecture and with supporting topoi, evidence, axioms, and issues warrant the ways and means that the architect, while attending to the practical, scientific, banal and mundane, makes metaphors. Irregardless of which one of the arguments we choose so long as the stasis has no value amongst society, scholars and the profession there cannot be a  real world dispute. As any argument, it needs two parties who agree to disagree, where success ultimately depends on the assent of an audience and who both agree on the focal point (stasis) of the argument. Architecture as the making of metaphors cannot be used to teach or affect the practice architecture unless educators and parishioners agree to the vocabulary, the premises and practicality. So long as society does not acknowledge the degree of art in science, art in architecture and art in engineering metaphors and art in the argument where absolutes, liability and certainty are normative. So while architecture is the making of metaphor’s the truth  which would easily settle disputes it is marginalized by both sides of the argument that are looking to metaphors of social, cultural and context.
They expand their differences beyond agreeable intersections to such a large degree that they can only unreasonably agree or disagree. However, it is in this way that the metaphors are very effective as a base of both inductive and deductive reasoning as the metaphor clarifies the relationships and makes them part of the argument.
In their unreasonable non-arguments they toss around superficial but socially accepted metaphors.  In our argument we have claimed that art  is the making of …………; not that architecture is art but that architecture is an art [A], meaning that architecture is one of the arts and has its’ (arts)  characteristics. It is different than saying that it is art [A]. This means that all of the characteristics that distinguish any of the arts  or any other field still are their unique distinctives but that some of the non arts do have artistic characteristics and in particular one which is the dominant, most prevalent  and common. Common because it is in all concepts of art’s  [A]  technical and conceptual dimensions.
That is to say that even the technical of art [A]  has a both a technique and concept of the technique both common to all the arts and yet unique to its own medium.  At the heart of these arguments is often the inability to define either art or architecture so that arguments do not have a stasis and arguments are never resolved. 
The arguments (and resolutions) about architecture and metaphors [1]
The reasons supporting my claim affecting policy and procedures of real estate development, housing and urban development, professional practice affecting cities, projects, buildings and single family residences. 
Resolutions:
  1. That architecture is the making of metaphors [[B] and
  2. Architecture is the making of metaphors is the stasis of why architecture is an art [A]  [3];
  3. Why art is the making of metaphors[4], and
  4. Why the architect is responsible for both the technical and conceptual architectural metaphors; and
  5. Why architects like all the other arts is responsible for presenting society with public, social, contextual and cultural perspectives.
Three workable tools:
The arguments (reasons and resolutions) about architecture and metaphors include three workable tools (schedules):
1. The Six Ways in Which Architecture Works as a Metaphor [5] (in this monograph)
2   Five principles of architecture [6] included in the Technical and Conceptual Metaphors [7], and
3. 28 axioms and many sub-axioms [8] in my Metaphor’s Architectural Axioms [9].
The three can be cross referenced to provide a comprehensive, coordinated and complete picture of the workings of architectural metaphors all inferences from scientific evidence where these axioms also warrant the claims.
Introduction:
Early monographs justifying architecture as the making of metaphors were steeped in deductive reasoning since we could not find new information pertaining to metaphors. Many of my monographs included analyzing and explaining the syllogism:
  • Art [A]  is the making of metaphors
  • Architecture is an art
  • Therefore architecture is the making of metaphors.
Till now we did nothing to reason why art is the making of metaphors nor why architecture is an art. Since 1967 I proceeded to analyze the presumptions and find its many applications. This new evidence in Metaphor and Thought by Andrew Ortony first published in 1979, provides evidence to support inductive reasoning and to this end each axiom is its own warrant to the inferences of the above syllogism and the answer to questions of why metaphor is the stasis to any of the syllogism’s conclusion.
As with many investigative studies mine is not different as it was prompted by a personal dilemma affecting my intellectual, professional and artistic career. Unannounced and discouraged, as a child, before dawn, I’d take to the Bronx streets examining cellars, fire escapes, sewers, gutters, sidewalks, buildings, fences, grilles and gratings. I’d build huts on empty lots, dig and inhabit holes in the ground and build covered sheltered rooms in our sun parlor.
I’d build miniature stage settings out of tissue boxes and light them for various effects. It wasn’t until I married a sculptress who, like my self, believed that building and sculpture should have common concern above and beyond Kent Bloomers [16] observation that skyscrapers and sculpture problem to engage the ground are similar. My wife and I looked to the positive and negative spaces, shapes and forms, the top and bottoms and then contextualization that come for my interior design experience designing places with the peculiar characteristic of the people and places.
In this regard we discussed metaphors and their use in design and programming so that when we heard Irving Kriesberg’s [17] announce that art was the making of metaphors we immediately recalled our experience of the art of  architecture and found the reason. This was back at Yale in 1967 and the rest is history.
The argument for Architectural Urbanism as the Making of Metaphors:
Urban design, urban planning and Real Estate Development maker of metaphors. Newtown ,malls, city centers, urban renewal, alternate use, and green building designs have already shifted design from limited building, site and project design to include theme, marketing, Internet , life style maintenance and holistic wellness living, recreation and entertainment, t hey already use interdisciplinary vocabulary.
The built environment is being synthesized and controlled and new professionals, design tools and evolving teams.  Both architectural practice and use of its outcomes are incomplete because while it is a metaphor it is not known nor understood. 

To be complete the practice and use of the built environment must be consciously designed and known as a metaphor; in this way it will be complete and relate to its use and purpose.  At the moment there is a "disconnect"(disparity) between the creative and user community. It may explain why there is a profusion of banality and apathy toward the built environment. On the other hand there is another maker of metaphors which has eve loved to engulf and expand built metaphors and as the other design professionals so does this need to be translated from reality to the classroom to prepare the next generation of makers of metaphors.  Conceptual tools beyond each profession are needed to conceive of the collaborative mega projects and at the other end of the economic spectrum the revitalization of deteriorated urban cores, including retrofitting and changing uses of building types.   While a work of urban design may be intrinsically metaphoric, momentarily metaphoric and metaphoric to its owner and general public it may be mistaken, fallacious, accidental, and irrelevant. By a process of making, understanding and reifying metaphors of building parts and whole; and town parts and whole the project is made relevant.
The resolution to the arguments for contemporary urban design:
1.1 Is to discover the conceptual basis of the shift in design profession’s paradigm ushered by the potential to interact electronically and exchange information and input from end users, builders and manufactures?    Not a unified language but a conceptual base of concerns, ways of considering one thing in terms of another, transferring, bridging, carrying over, sharing, macro values with mini issues.
1.2 To identify how design professionals currently carry out the design process and what additional tools are needed to expand practice to include metaphors and metaphorical ways. Architects typically plod through six phases of programming planning, schematics, preliminary final design, working drawings and bidding; and possibly supervision. Most other services are optional as additional services.
1.3 To acknowledge that at the moment building codes and state statues include registered architects, interior designers and engineers as responsible.  Planners, poets, writers, artists are not included. Each has an association which promulgated policies and procedures and each teach their respective discipline in universities.
1.4  As without a vision a nation perishes so with out metaphors the resulting works are irrelevant and discarded. In this regard the metaphor means that the thing has value and is valued and has a grasp not only of the moment and the present context but of the future, and its relationship to other contexts. The interdisciplinary urban design and development team would benefit from such an overview, linkage and commonality.
Informal Reasoning [2]
Since architecture is the making of metaphors follows from the formal deductive claim that since art[A]  is the making of metaphors and architecture is an art [A]
therefore it too makes metaphors. This formal logic which achieves deductive certainty is that it has limited relevance to everyday affairs. Design professionals realize that there is a world of concerns outside of their professional practice which is now being absorbed by others or disregarded. . Introducing metaphors into the process widens the conversation and inclusion of other concerns.  Inductive uncertainty in concerns of building and using habit ed places are making the built environment reflective of the public users where the design and outcome are the intended metaphor. Making the right metaphors and then optimally using their final product is one of the contemporary social issues.
Urban planners, designers, real estate developers, Architects and interior designers are well aware of this as witnessed by the surge in synthetic urban design, new urbanism, and green buildings and green building products.  This example shows that there is already so much agreement in and amongst the building industry and its information technology supports. They all agree on that architecture and all that makes up the environment is indeed related and cohesive. Yet they are each separate and sovereign disciples with there on vocabulary and budgets, codes and ordinance, engineering, etc. The reasoning that is not sponsored is the age old unifying language which will bridge and tie them so that what they produce is a cohesive work of art. Already Real Estate developers of new towns, new cities have already achieved all of this but without an exegesis to explain what is they are doing.

The argument [2] for Architecture as the Making of Metaphors [B]
Evidence of crisis:
The public is apathetic about their environment because it is irrelevant. People are lonely in big cities because their buildings have no individuality, identity and are impersonal. They wander the streets in search of the illusive place.
Ticky tack suburbs they are likewise lost and disenchanted. Builders and real estate developers fill the gap where the design professionals leave of providing the romance, images and story of the built environment. Disney, Las Vegas, Hilton, etc. provide the story and enclose it with buildings and artifacts. Whether we make them or not architecture is a metaphor (bland or romantic) and if architects don’t make them others are. Planning, design and building professional need a new paradigm.  Both architectural practice and use of its outcomes are incomplete because while it is a metaphor it is not known nor understood.  To be complete the practice and use of the built environment must be consciously designed and known as a metaphor; in this way it will be complete and relate to its use and purpose. At the moment there is a "disconnect"(disparity) between the creative and user community. It may explain why there is a profusion of banality and apathy toward the built environment.
Metaphors that define and fill the environment stand as icons reflecting their presence or absence of relevant information despite designer’s willful intention or disregard. Seeing the built environment, buildings, parks, etc as metaphors by placing this conversation at the center of the planning, programming and building program will return the city back to its inhabitants and engender their care and concern for its up-keep.  People like Jane Jacobs, Lewis Mumford realized some of this but they focused on particular functional solutions.  To begin with my claim that architecture, as art, is too the making of metaphors took place with the academic audience in mind, in particular architectural scholars. To this day it is only this audience which has published my monographs and entertains this argument. Knowing this may be the case my former mentor Dr. Paul Weiss guided me to first define the metaphor, link it to architecture as he so well did in our Yale lecture series.

Weiss then advised that I proceed to come up with evidence and relevant examples. To this end the lecture series presented prominent design professionals who gave examples which suggested that the claims being advanced was not universal truth but subject to the acceptance of the actual listeners. In fact most of the warrants I have listed below are derived either directly or indirectly from Dr. Paul Weiss.  Since the original lecture series in 1967 and many learned journals publications no counter argument has been put forth that architecture is not the making of metaphors.
The closest counterclaim has been to prefer a world where architecture would not be metaphorical but something direct, instinctive and void of references; as a kind of mindless psychic impulse of creativity coupled with a likewise similar mindless non-empirical perception of the final work. These counter arguments are fallacious because whether intended, perceived or not work architecture is a metaphor, the process by which it is created is metaphorical and the elements from which it is composed are each metaphors. Like a sheet of music, poem, a manuscript, painting, sculpture which is in a warehouse and not seen does not make these works of art nay less metaphorical because they are not perceived.  They are also not any less metaphorical because their creators did not intend them to be metaphors. As art is the making of metaphors and has intrinsic value and relationships with it self so is a work of architecture.   In this sense you might say that that any thing crafted, manufactured or synthesized by man demands it is composed by process analogous to the way an artist creates a work and the way a work is perceived. 

In the first place we are using the term in a metaphorical a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance.[3]    A metaphor is something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol. This transference defines a process in literature which we claim is true for art and by extrapolation for architecture.  We metaphorically transfer the definition of the nature of metaphor by a metaphor to the making works of art and from works of art to works of architecture.
In the second place without respect to the inner working of the metaphor, all forms of   art, architecture and landscape and environmental works are claimed to be metaphors of man’s identify, achievements, value and stature. [4]  
They are sometimes called monuments, historical preservation landmarks or just ordinary homes, building and public utilities. These are all read by the public and sewn into the cultural and value vocabulary of society. These are the ways in which metaphors are most often identifies other than the literary ones.  However, despite the plethora of historical and contemporary evidence we still need to explain  the experiential personal evidence that can only be experienced, and described by the result of the both the creative and users experience of the work as the arguments witness of the work of the metaphor.
So for any one work are there two metaphors about the same work? One for the seen and another for the unseen; that’s absurd, so that must be that it is the same work which is the same metaphor which we engage on different levels, intensities and perspectives. Technicians will find the hidden while the general public the superficial. With education some will appreciate the wok’s historical methods while others its technical metaphoric vocabulary.  The original conclusion was that if art was the making of metaphors and architecture is an art then it follows that architecture is too the making of metaphors. However this conclusion contains no new information not already in the premises and thus to add new information one must turn to informal reasoning.
The resolution [2]  that needs to be reasoned is to show that art and architecture are an art because they work in the same way. To do so we need to explain how art works and how architecture works and that they both work in the same way. Despite that some arts are applied while others are fine is not necessary to prove at this point. That one is habitable and the others are for not utilitarian is irrelevant for this argument.
While these may be the very things that scholars may disagree they do not enter into this argument. Another may be created. It would argue that a utilitarian product cannot be a work as works of art are only for perception and enjoyment and any utility would only detract from the products scientific, engineering, and manufacturing (construction) needs and necessities. I cannot discount this argument as it may explain why after over forty years of promulgating this hypothesis the “professionals” , “business” and “building law” has ignored and sidestepped the resolution and its apartment truth. While the resolution has gained in importance in theoretical design language and information technology it has not had popular reception.
As a practicing professional I can only attribute this to yet another commonplace that while these who market to consumers and users overlay build works with artistic rhetoric the societies of the creators consisting of manufacturers, builders, engineers, contractors pride themselves on being scientific, controlling cost, schedule and quality they do not want to let the uncertainty implied in art be part of their modus operendi. To the extent that architects are regarded as artist government, corporate, business , and non-architectural and interior design professionals regard architects a  service which must be managed and limited despite and because architecture is too an art.
The business community is faced with the dilemma of both wanting the highest quality , imaginative and beauty that results for art while holding in disdain the persons and process which brings about the desired results.  It is for this reason that in 1896 the American Institute of Architects created AIA 210 the Standard form of the General Conditions for construction contract which mainly puts the architect between the owner and the contactor. So this argument [2]  is not about the preeminence between design professionals and the others in the overall project participants as that argument is settled elsewhere and through other instruments. Our aim is to elevate the architect’s creative process above technique, construction and even formal art to include social, psychological, political and economic considerations all of which are included in users decision to create a work of architecture and should therefore be included in its creation. If architecture is the making of metaphors and it is an art than it must also be the sum and summation of all that it selects for reality to include in its product.  It is not only to elevate but to widen the scope of practice beyond current limits.
Other than the controversies I have just stated there is no active controversy as whether architects make or do not make metaphors. What is at odds is whether a building not made by an architect going through the metaphoric process is a metaphor and if so what kind?  Or is there a metaphoric knowledge necessary to further add onto the education and practice of architecture?  The reason architects are not taught that they are making metaphors is that it seems too complex and uncontrollable. It is for this reason that non-architects are taking control of the process because architects refuse to include making metaphors into their process.
So the argument is with the profession of architecture. To regain your rightful place in the creation of the built environment you must include what is at the end; metaphor. To do so you must both know what the metaphor is at the end and then know how to build it into the making of the work of architecture.  Architecture the making of metaphors introduces a paradigm for the creation of habitable metaphors including:
One that serves as a pattern or model. A set or list of all the inflectional forms of a word or of one of its grammatical categories: the paradigm of an irregular verb. A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.
A paradigm is one that serves as a pattern or model; a set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.  Architecture as the making of metaphors [B]  is that inclusive set shared by both creator and user. The new paradigm of shapers of built metaphors includes people like Donald Trump, Rockefellers, Astor, Emirs, princes, and kings, with wealth, influence and power not unlike the royalty of old Europe.
No one dispute the claim that architecture is the making of metaphors [B]  but there is an essence of illumination, description and detailed evidence as to why this is so. This is a claim of definition which requires interpretation. As such it needs to place concepts into categories and provide perspective; and, the interpretation is important because definitions are not neutral. In a simple argument the warrant is the proof of the authenticity or truth of the inference which links the evidence to the claim.
The metaphor carries over from one to another proves that the building’s steel structure and curtain wall are metaphoric in that they make the metaphor of the high-rise office building.  Remove either one ant the metaphor would no longer exist. Another warrant is that they transfer and the curtain wall depends on the structure while the structure supports the curtain wall they each tell something about each other. They are both linked by bolts and clips which are attached to each other. The connection is itself a metaphor transferring structure to curtain-wall and vice versa. By analogy the metaphor of each building connector, hardware, structure and cladding is a metaphor for the next and is similarly warranted and to make the inference between evidence and claim.
“It is important to understand the components of an argument, in addition to the claim” A warrant [2] may need a separate argument to back it up.
The claim that architecture is making of metaphors and that buildings are therefore metaphors and the makers are therefore responsible for making the metaphor should be believed and followed by action.
The opinions and agreements about historical and contemporary works are the evidence which represents the grounds for making the claim. What is not believed and acted is the inference between the metaphor and the claim and the warrants of the inference are necessary to argue the claim.
The 10 warrants [2] to the inference are:
1. Metaphors allow us to express two truths at the same time about two times, the past and future; the past can illuminate the future or the future the past. They are interactive. Both ideas converge on the idea of some activity, vision, or idea. The metaphor points beyond each of its members to the reality then diversity express, articulating a power common to both, telling us that both have an intrinsic nature. In the case of certain building types the original prototype or model may illuminate the proposed and the proposed the original model.
2. Metaphors make the strange familiar and talk about one thing in terms of another expressing a truth common to both.
3. The metaphor contains our identity, signs and signals.
4. Architecture blends certain programmatic specifics with concerns implicit to its own medium.
5. Metaphor is a literary term which means "carrying-over"; it associates meanings, emotions, things, times and places which otherwise would not have been related. It is a two way  process where the metaphor points beyond each of its members to the reality they diversely express, articulating a characteristic common to both, telling us that they both have an intrinsic nature. Weiss uses such metaphors as Richard the Lion Hearted as an example.
6. Strictly speaking, a metaphor involves the carrying over of material ordinarily employed in a rather well-defined context into a wholly different situation. If there is not initial separation between the two elements, there is no metaphor.
The metaphor involves the intrusion not of neighbors but of aliens. It brings together what seems to be radically different in nature. This is the heart and secret of great art, and of great architecture.
7. The metaphor brings together components which heretofore have characterized other uses, operations and goals; it expresses the physical, social, intellectual and spiritual  requirements of human beings; it is an organic whole, wherein each element with the work explains the existence and meaning of the others; it is a catalyst which fuses memories, experiences and other modes of existence; it embodies within its own distinctiveness certain universal symbols and concepts common to mankind and to a specific culture, context and social, political and geographic environment (urban, suburban & rural).
8. Metametaphorically times and places (or any essence thereof) known to have a preferential, specific or localized use in one context are explicitly employed in another. One familiar and one strange term are usually composed into a single form where one term normally used in one context is brought over into another with the object of illuminating; making more evident something in the second domain which otherwise remains obscure.
9. The design of a work of architecture may be constant but is only part of the conception. It is the user who will ultimately perceive and experience the personalized ideas of the designer. Habitable, structural, volumetric, usable metaphors like music are composed, assembled, and conjured. Reified and created by technique from experiences with the elements of the metaphor. The designer has experienced the metamorphosis of the elements.  The designer has "seen" the commonalities, the differences and the essence common to both. In any case the building's is a variable in the experience of the metaphor and depending on his choices, decisions, faith, discipline, conditioning, skill, and commitment and language skills will he participate. But he is part of the metaphor.
10. Architecture is not only the making of metaphors and is a metaphor but architecture is a symphony of dominant, subdominant and tertiary metaphors. Each differently conceived and perceived by different players, creators, users, buyers, owners, etc. There is the overall building, its different systems and subsystems and its various elements.

Test for a metaphor:
A. Does the work make the strange familiar?
            a)         What are the commonalities?
            b)         What are their differences?
B.         Are the elements apparently unrelated?
C.        What kind of metaphor is it?
            a)         Analogies
            b)         Symbols
If inference [2] is the main proof-line leading from evidence to claim then architecture is the making of metaphors is an inference. If evidence represent the grounds for making a claim it must be accepted by the audience, or a separate argument will be required to establish its truth. Not if it is accepted as new evidence is found and inference with warrants. Building types, building components, design tools, and a variety of user types can be sited as evidence to prove that architecture is the making of metaphors.
That is it brings together components which heretofore have characterized other uses, operations and goals while it expresses the physical, social, intellectual and spiritual requirements of human beings. Even building types with less historical, apparent and obvious public acclaim are evidence as hospitals, police stations, public toilets, subway stations, bus terminals, garages, parking structures, etc.  Each has an overall image, disassociated materials and building systems, shapes and forms from one or another context, spaces, volumes and styles formerly associated with other contexts, a context and users, owners and creators for a variety of associated and disparate contexts.
In a complex argument, the resolution is a statement capturing the substance of the controversy. Both architectural practice and use of its outcomes are incomplete because while it is a metaphor it is not known nor understood.  To be complete the practice and use of the built environment must be consciously designed and known as a metaphor; in this way it will be complete and relate to its use and purpose. At the moment there is a disconnect between the creative and user community.


It is a simple as the question:” if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it does it still make a sound?”  (Technically, if the energy vibrations that would cause sound never reach the 'organs of hearing', then no- it does not make a sound). Yet, if a metaphor exists and there is no one there to perceive it is it still metaphor.
In the matter of arguments the evidence is presented to support the claim but may not justify the claim and therefore warrants are provided for the inference from the claim. The warrants are licenses to make the inference.
The warrant [2] that a metaphor talks about on thing in terms of another supports the claim that the evidence of whole cities, estates, buildings, rooms, building systems, materials, forms, and styles supports architecture as the making of metaphors. A New York City sky scraper shows that by shear height, volume and shape a building can be a sign of New York’s preeminence in its location, for the city and the state the building is not only habitable and utilitarian but its size magnifies the size and numbers of the city it represents. We are many and many are great. We are the tallest and therefore the strongest we even scrape the sky. As the tower of Babel,  we and our city are “deity-like “and this is the symbol of our accomplishment.
This particular claim merely uses only one of the ten warrants I have cited and does not at all deal with the many sub dominant and tertiary metaphors with analogous warrants for the same building but of its various parts and there relationships.  Since architecture is the making of metaphors follows from the formal deductive claim that since art is the making of metaphors and architecture is an art therefore it too makes metaphors. This formal logic which achieves deductive certainty is that it has limited relevance to everyday affairs.
Inductive uncertainty in concerns of building and using inhabited places are making the built environment reflective of the public users where the design and outcome are the intended metaphor. Making the right metaphors and then optimally using their final product is one contemporary social issue. Urban planners, designers, real estate developers, architects and interior designers are well aware of this as witnessed by the surge in synthetic urban design, new urbanism, and green buildings and green building products. This example shows that there is already so much agreement in and amongst the building industry and its information technology supports.
They all agree on that architecture and all that makes up the environment transfers, carries-over, bridges and is in whole or part reminiscent of another.  Yet the various members of the design, manufacturing and building team are each separate and sovereign disciplines with their own vocabulary, contract documents, budgets, codes and ordinance, engineering, etc.  This reasoning is not the age-old unifying language which will bridge and tie them so that what they produce is a cohesive work of art.
At the mega scale Real Estate Developers of new towns, new cities have already achieved this entire but without an exegesis to explain what it is they are doing.  Synthetic cities, town centers, new towns, shopping centers, malls, etc are good examples of built-metaphors expanding on making metaphors.  When we use a building we don't immediately correlate it to the linguistic metaphor of its structure yet we might relate the condition of the building and inference that if the building is dilapidated, old and falling apart it must have been poorly built and maintained which is like one's life and the value of every thing else associated with one's life.  The building tells us something about ourselves as we relate our selves to the building.
On the other hand if we visit a glamorous public building we exhume its identify and covet it to our own identity and we are better than the place we live identifying what the public building as a reflection of our society and our place in that society. Buildings are more than symbols but objects of identity as we perceive our environment.
The difference between architecture and non-architect construction is architect is the combination of many thought s while non-architect is a construction by copy, engineering or tradition or manufacture. It the thought that makes it metaphoric.
The Six Ways in Which Architecture Works as a Metaphor
Six Ways in Which Architecture Works as a Metaphor is evidence to prove how architecture is a metaphor.
Why a work of architecture is a metaphor is yet another subject.
What architecture is and what are architects are two other subjects.
What is a metaphor and what makes a metaphor work is also another subject.
The 6 examples described below are not meant to be exhaustive but to typify the nature of how Architecture Works as a Metaphor

6 Examples Outline:
1. between the parts of itself
2. between it and its users
3. between it and its creator(s)
4. between it and other metaphors
5. between it and the world
6. between its design documents
Descriptions of 6 Examples:
The characteristics of the applicable warrants are that:
            a. They are interactive. Both ideas converge on the idea of some activity, vision, or idea. No one element can act independent of the other.
They are interactive.
            b. The metaphor points beyond each of its members to the reality then diversity express, articulating a power common to both, telling us that both have an intrinsic nature.
            c. Architecture blends certain programmatic specifics with concerns implicit to its own medium.
            d. Metaphor involves the carrying over of material ordinarily employed in a rather well-defined context into a wholly different situation
            e. The metaphor brings together components which heretofore have characterized other uses, operations and goals
Examples:
1.0 Between the parts of itself:
            1.1 Structural components transfer stress, loads and are tied together with connectors common to both. These connectors share the burden to load imposed by the elements and transfer them from the roof to the ground. The beam does not become a column nor the column a beam but they both have a commonality and they both are supports and they both form the building’s support structure. In Classical architecture they were called the “post and lintel”, etc.
            1.2 Circulation system and areas for people, materials and vehicles reify the described operations from descriptions to flow diagrams to be limited and bound by walls and allowable areas.
            1.3 The work’s conditions , operations, ideals and goals are both independently identifies and correlated as well as matched and made to work with the other. For example a building code about circulation and egress is related to the areas, circulation and construction materials.
            1.4 The selection of materials, systems, products is often not identified with one or another building type and has to be adapted for use
2.0 Between it and its users
            2.1 The work becomes an icon, sign and symbol of the person’s values as a persons dwelling is converted from a mere shelter to becoming home. Where an ambulatory is faced with shops, uses and attractions filling the walk with social, cultural and commercial activity.
            2.2 Because of their size, volume, scale, decoration, location public building types such as church, theatre, commercial shops, malls, stadiums, etc allows the persons solitary identify to be associated with a social collective and shared use. The individuals sense of rightness, belonging and identity with something out side of self and private dwelling. The private dwelling and the public place interact and take of the characteristic of the context. This is why developments, cities, towns and villages town centers offset the often banal dwelling.
            2.3 User looks to the metaphor for clues about his own authenticity judging the reality of the habitat to be a reflection of his true self and the belief that the habitat is what he would build were he its' creator. The building reflects the user in its scale, openings, protective roof and supporting floor and the limits and bounds that afford privacy and limit the area and overall space.
            2.4 The user perceives the building types as part of his vocabulary of conventions separating cultural and societal functions as residential, industrial, and commercial, government, utility etc. The commonalities and differences manifest in its contents, finishes, cladding, scale and service systems. Hospital, police stations and fire stations are all public service building with roofs, floors and walls but with an array of special and unique performance areas and equipment. The best fire station exhibits its hose tower, giant garage doors to the street while the hospital has a complex set of specialty performance areas, pedestrian circulation (patient, staff, and visitors) entrances and access, etc.
3. between it and its creator(s)
The applicable warrants:
Reified and created by technique from experiences with the elements of the metaphor. The designer has experienced the metamorphosis of the elements. He has "seen" the commonalities, the differences and the essence common to both. In any case the building's is a variable in the experience of the metaphor and depending on his choices, decisions, faith, discipline, conditioning, skill, and commitment and language skills will he participate. But he is part of the metaphor.
3.1 Through out the design process the choices , analysis, conclusions  and program and design are all a reflection of the designer(s) , teams, equipment, experience and history they each and collectively bring to the process.
3.2 The product tells something about its designer and the designer is reelected in the product. Both are separate but they share common ideas, experiences, knowledge selections, etc.
{Four and five are not included }
6. Between its’ design documents
a. The metaphor points beyond each of its members to the reality then diversity express, articulating a power common to both, telling us that both have an intrinsic nature
b. Metaphors make the strange familiar and talk about one thing in terms of another expressing a truth common to both.
            6.1 Two dimensional (drawings and specifications) and multidimensional design tools (models)
                        6.1.1 Drawings; plans, sections and elevations: What is imagined from these documents is the multidimensional future reality. The plan is a horizontal slice through the elevations and section while the section a vertical slices through the plan.  The elevation is the outer edge of the all the possible horizontal slices where all intersect and share the common imagination of the multidimensional reality.
                        6.1.2 Models
                        61.13 Specifications of materials, building systems and conditions of the contract.
Citations listed alphabetically:

Boyd, Richard; 1.14.0
Conrad, Ulrich; 1.3
Fraser, Bruce; 1.10.0
Gentner, Dedre ;  1.13.0
Gibbs, Jr., Raymond W.; 1.9.0
Glucksberg, Sam; 1.12.0
Jeziorski, Michael; 1.13.0
Kuhn, Thomas S.; 1.15.0
Keysar, Boaz; 1.12.0
Lakoff, George; 1.4
Mayer, Richard E.; 1.17.0
Miller, George A.; 1.11.0
Nigro, Georgia; 1.5.0
Ortony,Andrew;1.0
Oshlag, Rebecca S.; 1.18.0
Petrie, Hugh G; 1.18.0      
Pylyshyn, Zeon W.; 1.16.0
Reddy. Michael J.; 1.2
Rumelhart, David E.; 1.7.0
Sadock, Jerrold M.; 1.6.0
Schon, Donald A. ; 1.1
Searle, John R.; 1.8.0
Sternberg, Robert J.; 1.5.0
Thomas G. Sticht; 1.19.0
Tourangeau, Roger; 1.5.0
Weiss,Paul; 1.4.11

Footnotes:
1. Metaphor and Thought by Andrew Ortony
2. The form of the argument is based on Northwestern University’s Professor David Zarefsky’s course on Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning published by the ‘The teaching company”.
3. . "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
4. . "Multi-dimensional metaphoric thinking" Open House, September 1997: Vol. 22;
No. 3, United Kingdom: Newcastle uponTyne
5. . From Caves to Co-Ops”: Evolution of the House: by Stephen Gardner MacMillan Publishing Co. New York, 1974; my review was published in the Jackson Sun in 1974
6. . Metaphorical way of knowing by William J.J Gordon: William J.J. Gordon began formulating the Synectics method in 1944 with a series ... William J. J. Gordon, The Metaphorical Way of Learning and Knowing (Cambridge, ... William J.J. Gordon in his book The Metaphorical Way of Learning and Knowing, Synectics asks participants to solve problems by thinking in analogies--to identify ways in which one pattern or situation is like or similar to another totally unrelated pattern or situation. Synectics uses comparisons such as analogies and metaphors to stimulate associations. Developed by George M. Prince. Gordon was one of the original speakers at the Yale lecture series.
Referneces:
A.  Art is the intentional and skillful act and/or  product applying a technique and differs from natural but pleasing behaviors and useful or decorative products in their intent and application of a developed technique and skill with that technique. Art is not limited to fields, persons or institutions as science, government, security, architecture, engineering, administration, construction, design, decorating, sports, etc. On the other hand in each there are both natural and artistic where metaphors (conceptual and/technical)  make the difference, art is something perfected and well done in that field. For example, the difference between an artistic copy and the original is the art of originality and authorship in that it documents a creative process lacking in the copy.
B.  The first lectures "Architecture as the Making of Metaphors" [3] were organized and conducted near the Art and Architecture building at the Museum of Fine Arts Yale University 11/02/67 until 12/04/67. The guest speakers were: Paul Weiss, William J. Gordon, Christopher Tunnard, Vincent Scully, Turan Onat, Kent Bloomer, Peter Millard, Robert Venturi, Charles Moore, Forrest Wilson, and John Cage.
Three major questions confront both the student and the practitioner of architecture: First, what is architecture? Second, why is architecture an art? Third, what are the architecture's organizing principles? Many answers to these questions have been provided by scholars and professionals, but seldom with enough rigors to satisfy close scrutiny. Nor have the questions been attached to proven and workable forms, so that the art could be developed beyond the limits of personal feelings.


In 1967, a group of master students gathered to discuss the issuance of Perspecta 12, Yale's architectural journal - a discussion which summarized the sad state of the profession as well as the major environmental problems society was generating and failing to solve. The group had already been exposed to studies on the creative process, on contradictions of form, on the comprehension of relevant facts of an existing life style, on planning systems, in educational theories, and in building methodologies, yet it seemed that fundamental question inherent in the profession were being skirted rather than directly attacked.
During the series of colloquia at Yale on art, Irving Kriesberg [4]  had spoken about the characteristics of painting as a metaphor. It seemed at once that this observation was applicable to architecture, to design of occupiable forms. An appeal to Paul Weiss drew from him the suggestion that we turn to English language and literature in order to develop a comprehensive, specific, and therefore usable definition of metaphor. But it soon became evident that the term was being defined through examples without explaining the phenomenon of the metaphor; for our purposes it would be essential to have evidence of the practical utility of the idea embodies in the metaphor as well as obvious physical examples. Out of this concern grew the proposal for a lecture series wherein professional and scholars would not only bring forward the uses of metaphor but would also produce arguments against its use.
Thus developed the symposium, which was presented by the Department of Architecture at Yale in the same year. 1967, with the intent "to illuminate, in order to refine and develop, the idea because it makes metaphors; that a work of architecture is a metaphor because it too blends certain programmatic specifics with concerns implicit to its own medium
C. Argument’s contextual  forms
Three levels of axioms matching three levels of disciplines:
  1. Multidiscipline: Macro most general where the metaphors and axioms and metaphors used by the widest and diverse disciplines, users and societies. All of society, crossing culture, disciplines, professions, industrialist arts and fields as mathematics and interdisciplinary vocabulary.
  2. Interdisciplinary axioms are between fields of art [A] whereas metaphors in general inhabit all these axioms drive a wide variety and aid in associations, interdisciplinary contributions and conversations about board fields not necessary involved with a particular project but if about a project about all context including city plan, land use, institutions, culture and site selection, site planning and potential  neighborhood and institutional involvement.
  3. Micro Discipline: Between architects all involved in making the built environment particularly on single projects in voting relevant arts[A], crafts, manufactures, engineers, sub-con tractors and contractors. As well as owners, users, neighbors, governments agencies, planning boards and town councils.
D. Chronology of my latest 2009 monographs:
I. Before the above three I began with the detailed review and derived general axioms [] from Andrew Ortony’s Metaphor and Thought [1].
II. This was followed by the science supporting the stasis to architecture being an art []:architecture is the making of metaphors” in which have fist paraphrased the scientist's conclusions which I later called architectural axioms.
III. Then I wrote Metaphor’s Architectural Axioms [] with axioms about metaphor’s work in architecture [],
IV. Then I wrote Metaphors and Architecture [] for a general application of
Ortony’s [] work to define architecture and metaphors.
E. 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 upon Tyne
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 explaining 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;
Contract to publish: 2011
Cambridge Scholars Publishing
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:
  1.  

Affluence, Analogies, architecture, Architecture is a metaphor, Arguments, art, Bee, Communications, Contextual, Cultural Perspectives, Dubbing, Information Technology, Barie Fez-Barringten,
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2433463466927232250#editor/target=post;postID=616527066950633358