HUMAN SPACE part l

[Nold Egenter]

HUMAN SPACE

Otto F. Bollnow's anthropological Concept of Space

A Book-Review

__________________________________________________________________

PREFACE

Our modern world, whatever it says and does, always is essentially based on the idea of a homogenously extended space, which expands from where we are to the endless infinity of the universe. This extension is so immense that it may take years for the light of a newly born star to reach us. This consciousness of an enormous universe in which our considerably large globe is just a miniature small sphere evidently influences our modern everyday feelings about space in various respects. However, this conceptualization of space is not ancient. It is a result of numerous discoveries only made possible by modern instruments. But to us nowadays this notion has become so self-evident, it is impossible to imagine that it ever was otherwise.

However, this kind of collective 'oblivion' becomes highly problematic when it comes to translating texts handed down from ancient societies to our times. The same problem arises in ethnology, when we communicate with peoples living on the edges of our modern world and who probably have very little understanding of this modern interpretation of space. In most cases, scientists are not even aware of the problem. As historians, they translate ancient texts (or, in the case of ethnologists, interpret questionnaires) as if these populations living in much smaller worlds had the same perception of space as someone living in our modern industrialized world. If such translations were made for the pure fun of it, this might be acceptable. Yet in various disciplines, these translations form the basis of specific theories essentially contributing to the definition our social existence, for instance in religion, when we talk about creation, in philosophy, when we discuss metaphysics. The same applies to art with regard to aesthetics, when we talk of beauty, or in architecture, when houses, settlements, or cities are planned. In all these domains, space is an absolutely primary component. It makes a tremendous difference whether ancient myths and stories of creation are seen from a perspective of modern concepts of the universe or whether they are related to environmental, or settlement conditions of early history. Likewise, whether one discusses metaphysics within a framework of idealistic philosophy, which - naturally based on similarly interpreted ancient texts! - allows its ideas stream into the infinite cosmic spaces, or whether one seeks for environmental and anthropological 'circumstances' for the origins of metaphysics. It also makes a tremendous difference whether one evaluates objects of art according to a historically supported aesthetic concept of the Platonic-cosmological kind, or whether one strives to understand the notion of beauty anthropologically within the concrete human tradition. In architecture, the situation is even worse:maybe architects force men - on a worldwide level - into a wrong spatial corset.

O.F. Bollnow's book 'Man and Space' provides this new standpoint by confronting the physical-mathematical conception of space with the anthropological dimensions of space. If this anthropological theory of space were used on a broad basis, that is to say in prehistory, history, and ethnology, or generally in the humanities, then, most of what our 'intellectual sciences' (humanities) had accumulated over centuries would have to be written anew.

Crucial, in a scientifically methodological sense, is that if, with Bollnow, space, in its primary conception can no longer be conceived as an infinite void but as a human and ecological implant into what we nowadays consider homogenous space in physical terms, then space essentially becomes pluralistic and qualitatively bound to human environments. From an anthropological perspective, its structure can now be researched inductively, as closely related to human experience and behaviour. Basic and 'universal' metaphysical terms are now down-to-earth, entering the human domain, their concrete cultural tradition. Bollnow thus represents not only individually, but also scientifically, a revolution. In Thomas KuhnÕs sense, he has introduced a new paradigm, which will, however, not manifest itself in this or that branch of this or that discipline alone. Rather, in this case of Bollnow's anthropological concept of space, we are dealing with a paradigm that will revolutionize our modern scientific 'tree of knowledge' from top to bottom.

INTRODUCTION

Space still is one of the primary aspects of man's culture and is basic to any architectural discussion, whether in the domain of practical architectural design or in architectural research. In 1971, Christian Norberg-Schulz ('Existence Space and Architecture') proposed his concept of 'existential space', which was based on Jean Piaget's studies of a child's concept of space ('ontogenetical aspects of space conception') and, in its socio-cultural aspects ('philogenetic problem of space conception'), was inspired by many previous studies. Evidently, most important as stimulating precursors were the well-known historian of religion, Mircea Eliade, the art historian Dagobert Frey, and the philosophical phenomenologist Otto Friedrich Bollnow.

Norberg-Schulz's existential alternative to the Euclidian concept of space had no real influence on architectural design, mainly for the following reasons:he used the results of these works rather arbitrarily to support his own concept of architectural space and, secondly, the discussion was obscured by postmodern rhetoric.

In this context, Bollnow's book 'Mensch und Raum' (Man and Space, 1963) is most important. His work can be considered the first to deal with the 'anthropology of space' in a comprehensive manner in ontological and intercultural terms. The book clearly assigns a secondary position to cosmologically or metaphysically extended space and a primary position to the ordering of space as developed in human settlements. Further, Bollnow put man and his complementary need for movement and rest at the centre of his spatial concept. Space in this sense becomes heterogenous, which is expressed in many observations closely related to building. "The anthropological significance of the house has to be rediscovered today" (:137). The fundamental and far-reaching significance of this approach for architectural research is evident.

Surprisingly however, Bollnow is hardly known, particularly among architectural researchers. In comparison to Heidegger's widely and intensively discussed studies related to building and space, he is rarely quoted. His systematic research has not been given the attention it deserves. In some cases, he is not even mentioned in thematically related research and studies where his immediate influence is evident. Most often, however, his revolutionary contribution to the discussion of space is simply overlooked. Unfortunately, the book has not been translated into English or French.

To clarify this situation and to contribute to a wider diffusion of Bollnow's fundamental thoughts, the present paper reviews Bollnow's important approach, trying to give an idea of his most important and, to some extent, quite ingenious and epoch-making achievements. 2 In general, we follow the structure of his book.

BOLLNOW: METHODS AND SOURCES

Bollnow justifies the choice of his philosophical ontology of space on the basis of the philosophy of his time. Bergson, Simmel, Heidegger, Sartre, Merlau-Ponty, and Minkowsky all had discussed the temporality of human existence as the central and basic philosophical problem. Spatial conditions of human existence remained in the background. Some studies had been done in the thirties focusing on space as it is experienced in the frame of psychopathology and psychology. Thus, philosophically, Bollnow places his studies in a wider framework, related to Heidegger, Graf Dürckheim, Minkowsky, Straus, Binswanger, Lassen, Beutendyk, Bachelard and - in other ways - to Cassirer's philosophy of symbolic forms.

Bollnow's methodology is closely related to that of phenomenology. Norberg-Schulz considers his book to be speculative and nonscientific, but he obviously did not understand that phenomenology does not construct its theories by systematic, logical calculation, but rather cultivates its clear view in a philosophical sense. As expressed in the term 'phenomenology', it is concerned with the description of phenomena, being convinced that, with well-founded reflections, the studied object will reveal its pure essence. And, in fact, Bollnow, by describing space in close relation to human behaviour and environmental conditions, seems to have discovered the essential structure of space. Obviously, this can also be valuable in an anthropological sense.

In a stark contrast to Norberg Schulz's concept, which is to some extent still anchored in conventional architectural rationalism, Bollnow's outlook is deeply humanistic in that it places man and his immediate environment at the centre of everything he describes. He thus manages to present an enormous variety of new insights which contrast greatly with the poverty of the spatial concepts of present architectural design. In fact, one is tempted to imagine how much different architecture would be today, if, instead of postmodernism, Bollnow's concept of anthropological space had become the basis for architectural reasoning of the last three decades.

Bollnow's method is also reflected in the contents of the book, which presents a rich catalogue of approaches and themes. But this complexity should not be a source of confusion. On the contrary, the phenomenological method defines its subject through the greatest possible number of perspectives and, thus, Bollnow manages to respond to the factual complexity of space.

Obviously, Bollnow has received great impulses from the structure of the German language. In contrast to the more rationalistic traditions, e.g. those of the Romance languages - in particular French - the German language has not lost many of its primitive roots. Thus, it has preserved many terms related to original conditions of space, words which imply meanings very different from their Romance counterparts (e.g. 'Platz' (place) versus 'Ort', 'Stelle', 'Heim' etc.). Consequently, important parts of Bollnow's discussions are based on the history of words, language, and thought as expressed in literature. In this sense particularly, etymology could become an important source for research into human space concepts and architecture. 3

Further, Bollnow deals extensively with the philosophical discussions of his time in so far as they relate to his theme. In a wider context, he also uses cultural history, mainly European, but partly non-European, and ethnology. Mircea Eliade's structural history of religion plays a considerable part but Bollnow remains sceptical of his metaphysical interpretation, which contrasts sharply with Bollnow's own humanistic approach.

The book is divided into five main chapters entitled:'The Elementary Articulation of Space' / 'The Wide World' / 'The House and the Feeling of Security /' Aspects of Space' / 'The Spatiality of Human Life'. Trying to preserve the basic structure of Bollnow's book, we will, in the following, outline in short his most important thoughts - as far as this is possible, after all, his book is of more than three hundred pages.

THE ELEMENTARY ARTICULATION OF SPACE

In his first main chapter, Bollnow usesvarious sources to show that, in its origins, space was not a boundless concept, but on the contrary, was more or less clearly limited, defined, rather environmental and closely related to the history of human settlements.

History

Space is not homogeneous, but articulated. There is a suggestion of this in Aristotle's puzzling discussion in the fourth book of his 'Physics', the first treatise on spatial problems in the occidental tradition of thought. Relating it to the four elements (fire, air, water, earth), he teaches the "natural articulation" of space, that each of these elements show a natural directionality, e.g., upwards in the case of fire and light things, and downwards with regard to earth or heavy things. Bollnow emphasizes that this concept differs essentially from our modern view of space. There is another puzzling aspect in the Aristotelian notion of space:what we would consider as "place" (topos, 'Ort' in German) somehow appears to be hierarchically projected from a local to a cosmic dimension and thus shows extension, which Bollnow compares to a container. Conclusion:Aristotle's view is never one of endless mathematical space but is limited in its utmost extension to "the void delimited by the heaven's vault."(:30)

Etymology

That space was originally delimited is also suggested by the etymology of the German word "Raum". Grimm derived it from the corresponding verbal form "räumen", to clear a part of the wilderness with the intention of settling down, to establish a dwelling. Bollnow elaborates on this point, giving many examples of everyday use of related terms, demonstrating that the roots of the word are closely related to dwelling, to the orderly human environment. Thus "Raum" used with a definite or indefinite article always relates, e.g., as generic term for the rooms of a house, to buildings. Its use is not compatible with open-air locations (e.g. meeting place). Without the article, it is also related to the human environment, meaning space for movement between things or objects. Only in a second stage does the concept of "Raum" appear with extended meanings ("raume" [= offene] See, "Weltraum", etc.). Similarly related terms are always applied to objects of the human environment, e.g., "Ort" (punctated localization originally alluding to pointed things like spears (used as place markers?), pointed landforms like cape, etc.) or "Stelle" (basically related to some building construction, furniture) or "Fleck" (horizontal extension of land, marketplace, etc.).

This extremely convincing emphasis on the environmental origins of the notion of space has far-reaching consequences, not only for architectural research and architectural theory, but also for our whole concept of man, in so far as our ontology, our metaphysics are based on primary cosmologies. In other words, Bollnow advocates a dramatic reversion, an "implosion" of our modern space concepts, an implosion which, by the way, is already well established in ecology and animal behaviour studies (Uexküll), but not at all in architecture and urbanism.

Directional elements and axiality

Bollnow's following sections deal with directional elements of space. Here too, he ingeniously "deconstructs" established systems, e.g., axiality. The pairs suggested already by Aristotle (above - below, in front - behind, right - left) are contraindications of homogeneity, particularly if they are not merely interpreted in terms of abstract linear axial systems, but are related to objective reality. Bollnow maintains that ground and air are two entirely different "half-spaces", necessarily complementary to human life. If the ground loses its quality of support, human existence is threatened. He refers here to Kierkegaard and his concept of anxiety. In their intrinsic relation with ideology and moral values, the two pairs, 'front and back' and 'right and left', clearly show their close relation to cultural history, but obviously not in the anthropomorphous sense, as generally thought, but rather in relation to the spatial organization of the environment.

Fixed points

Particularly important is Bollnow's statement that there are zero or fixed points in his humane concept of space. He extensively describes the polarity of departing and returning to hereditary places (home) or temporary zero points (hotel room in foreign city) and postulates them as essential references within a subjective system of orientation. This he calls the "centre" of space. 4 "If we move out of our apartment to a new one, our whole world is newly reorganized from the new one." (:58)

The social and spatial hierarchy of centre-markers

This fundamental concept is then extended in triangular relations between individual, social, and the hierarchical systems of markers for such central points (dwelling, church/market, centre of city and state). In this system, Bollnow describes ancient ideas which interpreted such fixed points marking "the centre of the world" or the "axis mundi". He also enumerates many concrete symbols related to such central fixed points (pillars, palaces, sanctuaries, sacred mountains) in many cultures. Following Haberland ('Space Concepts of Natural Societies'; 1957) and Brunner ('Regarding the Notion of Space in Ancient Egypt'; 1957), he explains phenomena of this type dualistically on the basis of the tensions between inhabited space and surrounding chaos, and he classifies them - in sharp contrast to Eliade - as delimited space. This part, which refers to many examples of symbolic markers of such fixed points, is extremely important because it contains the seed of an ethnology of space.

River and compass as systems of orientation

Other directional systems are the four directions of the compass, which appear to be interpreted in very different ways among various cultures (Frobenius:golden pillars supporting heaven). Referring to Jensen (1947), he mentions the river as the central system of orientation which, on a horizontal level, provides important criteria like upwards and downwards, left and right, with regard to the water flowing from the mountains towards lakes or the sea. Such directional systems may be absolutely puzzling to a modern mind (contradictory directions and lack of absolute compass). They make sense, however, if, in the context of evolutionary expansion of space perception, it is assumed that such river systems were of primary importance with regard to later systems related to solar movements. Thus, with these descriptions too, Bollnow gives many indications for a programme of research into the ethnology of space concepts.

Conclusion

Thus the first main chapter essentially deals with primitive space concepts rooted in the human environment and, in particular, related to the anthropology of dwelling and settlement. The overall conclusion:space is not at all homogeneous in its primary structure. Bollnow's arguments for the environmental origins of space conceptions are absolutely convincing. This becomes very important with regard to the second main chapter.


THE WIDE WORLD

The second main chapter contrasts strongly with the first. The first part essentially deals with localized, more or less permanent places. In the second part three sections ('the vast, the foreign, and the distant', 'the path and the street', 'the hiking-path') deal with spatial extension and movement.

This leads us to an important structural characteristic within Bollnow's work. He presents his spatial concept in complementary oppositions. Evidently this has to do with his subject. On whatever level, experienced space is structured according to complementary principles. Bollnow describes the dynamics of "back and forth", the "fundamental double movement of going away and coming back" which articulate human space. This leads him to the description of all kinds of paths, ways, and roads and how space along such movements is experienced. 5 Later we hear about the "hodological" space. This is a type of space which differs absolutely from mathematical space. Path-space or hodological space, corresponds to the factual human experience during movement between two different points on a map. It is absolutely different from the geometrical line which connects two points.

There is an additional revolutionary concept in Bollnow's work. Space was not there from the beginning, as we assume with the Euclidian concept. Space in the human sense has evolved. As a concept related to human perception and culture, it was originally closely related to dwelling and settlement and subsequently developed by extension of the spatial perception of man.

Bollnow demonstrates this with convincing arguments. Tremendous changes occurred at the beginning of our modern times. These changes are characterized by an historical key event:The poet Petrarch, climbing to the top of Mont Ventoux in 1336, describes his grandiose experience of the endless skies. It was remarkable for the times that the description was not devoted to the outer extensions, but reflected in his soul instead, that is to say, within his delimited physical interior. Bollnow relates this decisive change to what follows later:the discovery of planetary mechanics, the move away from conventional coastal navigation, the sudden courage to cross the oceans, the discovery of America and the strange traces of thought it left (West Indies), the discovery of many faraway and exotic cultures, in short, the age of discovery.

In this context, Bollnow hints at Sedlmayr's notion of the loss of the centre ('Verlust der Mitte'). Man's psyche lost its naive roots in his native place, in what formerly was believed to be the centre of the world. The position of man in this world was seriously questioned, annihilated in the face of the new spatial dimensions now suddenly perceived. Copernicus, postulating the spherical form of the earth, disproved the earlier Ptolemaic system which conceived of the world on a disc surrounding the Mediterranean Sea. The antique identification with the local world became obsolete. The sun was now the centre of our planetary system and the skies dissolved into infinity. The famous woodcut print showing the celestial dome pierced by an arm stretched out towards the infinite clearly depicts this revolutionary change of paradigms.

Most educated persons are more or less familiar with this great change of ideas, which in general appears naturally integrated into our concept of progress. But hardly anybody reflects upon its implications:that space concepts were originally limited to very restricted environmental conditions. We have already indicated the consequences:it would not only mean a total revision of architectural theory. More than that. Anyone familiar with the cultural implications of space can easily understand that this approach hurls many a famous philosopher from his high pedestal. It will question our idealistic metaphysics and our theology with its primary cosmological concepts of creation.

Baroque architecture and the ecstasy of infinity

Bollnow also describes this change as it is reflected in Baroque architecture. There is an ecstasy of infinity. Enclosures of architectural space are disguised with all kinds of means (plastic decorations, mirrors, etc.). Perspectives leading through endless series of halls and rooms abolish clearly defined limits. Ceilings are opened at the top towards the skies. And, as in the case of Petrarch, the perception of infinite space happens by interlinking opposites, that is to say, of closed and open spaces.

Vastness and narrowness

Vastness is the opposite of narrowness. Bollnow uses polar opposites to define his terms, showing that both can be used at quite different spatial levels. Clothes can be narrow, but so too an apartment, a town, landscapes, a valley; and all can be contrasted with their spacious opposites. Distant foreign space also makes sense only if contrasted with what is close at hand and familiar. Bollnow quotes Rilke, Hesse, and particularly Nietzsche, who all favoured a balance between the distant and the near at hand, between the unknown and the known with regard to the formation of human personality and character.

Typology of movement outside the house

A long discussion is then devoted to various types of paths, streets, ways, which at any level imply the movement of man. Animals too have paths on which they move outwards and return to their "fixed point" (Hediger). Streets often develop from simple footpaths, sometimes over very short, sometimes over long periods of time. Streets attract traffic; they develop with technology. Originally they were strictly bound to landscape. Modern technology allows a higher degree of independence.

Bollnow's typology of movement outside the house is very complex and gives many valuable insights, particularly if compared with the poor stereotypes of architectural literature (Alexander: community and privacy!). But the fundamental insight that Bollnow presents to us here is the following:he describes how networks for mobility influence our experience of space. The streets of a city acquire a certain autonomy, create their own spatial conditions, engender a homogeneous landscape of their own. Linschoten also characterized the space of pathway as "non-cultivated space", or, more drastically, as a kind of desert. The system of streets is no longer directly related to this or that house, it forms a supraindividual type of space. It is neutral, but has its own objectivity in so far as it forms the communal system of spatial communication. The individual loses his domestic imprints, becomes anonymous. Similarly, the landscape loses its individuality, e.g., if perceived from the window of a moving car. New principles prevail:efficiency, conditions of the roads. Signs and place names are needed for orientation of the traveller unfamiliar with the local environment.

"All roads lead to the end of the world." According to Linschoten, the street is ex-centrically related to dwelling space. It is the expression of a world in which man is no longer quite at home. On the other hand, many symbolic and philosophical concepts are related to the path, the road, as a human condition (Tao, China, man as an eternal wanderer who never finds a permanent resting place). Throughout the book, Bollnow emphasizes these two aspects:man as dweller and wanderer, as a centric and ex-centric being. And he elaborates the idea in several of the following paragraphs, using either phenomenological reflections or discussing literary sources. But here, we want to avoid too much detail and will turn to the third main chapter.

=> See part ll

[P.C.]

When you understand the way modern projecting allow you to jettison the tree construction planes , when you realise that the horisontal and vertical planes are not anymore your directions and limitations ,a new creature enter the scene.
All building, all construction emagination creativity, has been bound in the tree tradisional construction planes, floors and walls are just a transcription of vertical and horison --- how can we even think outside these borders ; the floors has to be horison and the walls can only be vertical --- our whole engineering is based on the calculations in 3D space whaer we first of all establish 3 planes.

We stack the bricks so the wall don't fall the intire buildings structure follow these "rules" ; we can hardly emagine these things to be made different --- there we need a paragime shift to realise the structure to be the issue. Not the develobment in forms , the lack of or multible added decor, not the vertical or horisontal "spaces" of living, --- the very word "space" has to be rewritten in our mind it's limitation as within these 3 construction and planes in our minds and calculations , must be freed from centuries of ilogic conventions. ---- Now we press a button , and the "brickwork" the structure that replace the brick wall, the building part , thought within the limited 3 plane universe, will form our walls vertical and our floors , within a structure , that refuse the old tree planes.

3dh refuse the tradisional 3 planes --- what would be impossible before, is now possible from brand new planes in space, and where the planes before dictated everything , they now only dictate the design of our rooms the structure, that before was strictly bound to the same old planes are now free to follow any other planes --- we could emagine that the next freat adventure away from the boxes will be the organic forms ; but how will we build forms that is not strait , with materials and technikes , that is shapen of our limited tree planes no, organic architecture has nothing to do with the form of the house, it has to do with the technikes that make an organic form as sense, as a box --- of today's building technikes only a few allow this adventure, so how can that be the progress ?

We proberly be limited to the forms and attitude we seen for centuries becaurse this is not just one issue but many different ones. We think the structure has to follow the form , but it only has to do that becaurse our building materials and technike --- the strait beam make it's own limitations of the form --- the best example here, is how they was fighting the strait steel profile , by forcing and bending , fighting the material in fact, is disney new concert hall ; only to eject fancy forms they had to fight the materials --- a paragime shift there, would be 3dh , that ask no force to be forced into the projected form , need no minimised lenght to follow the curve, but only two new planes and the frames sliced out as sections that then is manufactored to offer any form, without fighting the strait steel beam, from a aincient technike.

[lekizz]

This is not really a place to advertise 3dh, is it? Bollnow is not talking about your rational, scientific, cartesian space but something quite different.

[P.C.]

No , but it seem he replace the innovation and newthinking, with words about it.
Neglect the creativity that is the core structure. Is arogant towerds what will become the paragime shift in architecture, when finaly creativity and newthinking get a chance to replace spetacular words --- how many idealists havn't then fallen on the academics battle fields. Battle fields where arogant academics allow their own seats, but make sure the bread are stolen from the mouth of the very very few visionari -- please to be visionary here, mean that you must have both practic and theoretic knowleage ... practic skills is what the academics hate the most.

[usarender]

Lekizz, pc has already been rebuked for his stubborn attitudes and still does not seem to learn a lesson.

[P.C.]

And usarender you don't even understand the humor when Lekizz say ; "Bollnow is not talking about your rational, scientific, cartesian space but something quite different."
But what about the near svastica Decor , we seen in ilustrations in these treads, --- these are cooerdinats we all shuld realise -- I love discussing directions and measures, but has an answer that is more than theori.

usarender jump strait onto what usarender think ,don't reconise how real arguments are welcome -- as then we can step out of usarenders clown acting, and whole obsession and get on into discussing why a new architecture must be new , must be new by core, and why sense arguments as sense they can be .. could soon be irelevant when we can build wonders with the computer aiding the difficult issues, that day these theories can not dictate our creations.

[usarender]

pc, you can read into Lekizz's words if you wish, and others can read into what they understand of my space concepts, but this does not reflect reality. You are only seizing these words, again, in an attempt to ridicule. Then you call it clown acting. You are being the clown pc, or that is, trying to make a clown of all on these forums, by thinking we will swallow your ideas and visions without questioning the same? You are trying to make a clown of rational intelligent architects. And when we question, you resort to emotional defensive name calling. Now, it becomes a game of building the wonders with a computer, as if the computer would hold the magic pill to the ills of architecture and construction. Kill history you say, kill the brick, and the history it holds, you say. Down with architecture and down with traditional methods of construction. This is you agenda. Up with 3dh, and the future! Hurah! Do you think we as architects are all clowns then? What a shame pc, I pity you.