#8 STATIC + DYNAMIC

NEW WAYS OF SEEING SPACE + MOVEMENT TOGETHER

This weeks focus is on how a specific style of dance and the space that it takes part in creates a dynamic space over a static space. Though I seem to be finding a theme of how dance and architecture work together, I am finding new ways of viewing it which is presenting new questions for me to move forward.

ARTICLE #8

The Choreography of Space with Body

As humans, we are aided in our daily lives by our senses. They allow us to have a subconscious understanding of our environment constantly. Our bodies influence our surroundings due to this complex nature. We are dynamic creatures. It is interesting to think of ourselves this way, but this world would not be what it is without the need to aid and nurture these bodies. Our bodies bring the spaces we occupy to live. The author suggests these things and states that it is our responsibility, in a sense, to make our environments dynamic, too.

For this read, space means to be defined as ‘multi-dimensional behavioral layers, and it appears dynamic flexible imaginable structure.’ Our bodies can be described this way as well. Who is to say the space we occupy and our bodies are not the same? We, as designers, are asked to develop spaces for a purpose. They have a reason behind their design, a traceable concept back to the root of the project. Because of this, the spaces we design give the body the option to use it as it needs. As a cognitive process, our bodies take in a new space one bit at a time before fully understanding space to its most total capacity. If we design to the best of our abilities for the human, regardless of the physical outcome, the cognitive result will positively follow.

The author takes us down a path to consider how we view and utilize space:

1. Movement-body-space relation

2. Movement-body-dance relation

3. Dance-body-architecture relation

The Movement-Body-Space Relation analyzes the choreography style and way of Laban. Laban is the written way to understand dance, the process created by Rudolf Laban. He views choreography in four ways: body, effort, shape, and space. We, as designers and architects, also view designing in similar ways. Movement-Body-Dance Relation looks towards how the audience views dancers from the staging point. A single dancer may be on stage, but the image of the dancer is from infinite perspectives. If both the dancer and the space they move on and in are doing their job, the message is portrayed through movement, and space will be understood equally. Lastly, Dance-Body-Architecture Relation views how the body makes static space dynamic. Our bodies, form, and movement are embedded into architecture. This, as the author describes, challenges the idea of the Cartesian form. The body breaks that grid.

Though two different entities, dance, and architecture, complement one another, one could not fulfill its purpose without the other. As the space changes over time, the way a person moves in that space will, too. This seems to be a recurring theme in my literature reviews but always from a different standpoint.

ARTICLE #9

The Bauhaus Theater – Oskar Schlemmer’s Design-In Motion Concept

With the topic of discussion in The Bauhaus Theater – Oskar Schlemmer’s Design-In Motion Concept, being the Bauhaus Theater, Schlemmer looks at how color, shapes, form, costuming, and lighting come to play an essential role in theater design in connection with the human body. Schlemmer’s big question to start the article is which one, space or body, is more important? Which one works more for the other? To me, it only makes sense that they work equally for one another, as I discussed in the first review of this blog post. I see where Schlemmer could be coming from; he only looks at ways to dominate the other. Space can form to the human just as the human forms to the space; it depends on the scenario.

For example, when you go to a theater, you go for the man. You watch a person or group dancing, a musical or play performing, a musician playing a set-piece. You do not go to a theater to sit and stare at nothing for an extended period. The design is to support entertainment. So, which one does more change in this scenario? The physical action of what is set on stage is the human, so the human changes. But whatever may be utilizing the space will change the space, so the stage changes. The work is interconnected. The stage is designed to support any idea the body or brain may have. With a blank slate, a play can change in between scenes easily because that is what the theater is meant to do. The body brings the space to life, but the space brings to life the idea that is trying to be portrayed. It is interesting to view design and body movement in this situation.

When looking closely at what each offers the other, you learn so much that you may never have thought about before. That is a good design. The space does what it is supposed to do without making the user question it. When we look logistically at the scientific geometric forms, we use, and only at the forms, we take away the human. If you take a step back and understand how those same geometries can work with humans, you create a dynamic space. We cannot always look at things 100% logistically the way science asks us to because then we take the human out of the end goal. The end should always be better for both the space and the movement.