Nexus Network Journal

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 131–149 | Cite as

The Grammar of Movement: A Step Towards a Corporeal Architecture

  • M. Piedade Ferreira
  • Duarte Cabral de Mello
  • José Pinto Duarte
Research

Abstract

This research uses shape grammars as the basis of a computational tool to explore the relationship between the human body in motion and space, aiming to develop further knowledge about cognition and architecture. Artistic and scientific tools and methods already used to develop these concepts are being studied in order to create a new tool that will help us to understand, through simulation, how the body mediated through architecture can influence human cognitive response and thus behaviour. The goal is a methodology for the design of a “corporeal architecture” that can create a naturally immersive environment in which the ability of its geometry and physical properties to conduct or induce body movements in space for specific purposes can generate experience. Also discussed is the potential of the tool proposed for the study of the human body in movement as a generative strategy in architecture. In describing the parameters and criteria chosen to develop our software, we exemplify briefly how a shape grammar, as a system of rules, can be used to generate sequences of actions, establishing the idea that human behaviour in space can be composed as choreography and provide a means of considering architectural space not only in terms of shape but particularly in terms of life.

Keywords

shape grammars corporeal architecture choreography performance attunement 

References

  1. Alexander. Christopher. 1965. “A city is not a tree”, In Architectural Forum, Vol 122, No 1, April 1965, (Part I), Vol 122, No 2, May 1965, pp. 58-62;Google Scholar
  2. Bachelard, Gaston 2005. A Poética do espaço (1957). António de Pádua Danesi. São Paulo. Martins Fontes.Google Scholar
  3. Bergson Henri (1991) Matter and Memory. (1896). Zone Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Cabral de Mello, Duarte. 2007. A Arquitectura Dita / Anamorfose & Projecto (PhD thesis). Technical University of Lisbon.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, Robin, Norbert Lynton, et. al. 1971. Art in Revolution: Soviet Art and Design since 1917. Catalogue from the exhibition in the New York Cultural Center. 9 September to 31 October 1971. New York. London. Arts Council.Google Scholar
  6. Goldberg, RoseLee. 2006. Performance Art, from Futurism to the Present (1988). “word of art”. London. Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
  7. Hillier Bill, Hanson Julienne (1996) The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Kemp, Martin. 1989. Leonardo On Painting. Martin Kemp, Margareth Walker, selec. and trans. Newhaven and London.Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Goel, Nitin. 2001. Shiva as Nataraja – Dance and Destruction In Indian Art. Ed. Nitin KUMAR. ExoticIndianArt Pvt Ltd. http://www.exoticindiaart.com/article/nataraja. Last accessed 16 November 2010.
  10. Le Corbusier. 2000. The Modulor. 1954. Peter de Francia and Anna Bostock, trans. Rpt. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  11. Mcewen, Indra Kagis. 2003. Vitruvius – Writing the Body of Architecture. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Merleau Ponty, Maurice. 2002. Phenomenology of Perception. (1945). New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Pallasmaa, Juhani. 2005. The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses. West Sussex England. Wiley Academy Press. Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  14. Queysanne, Bruno. 1987. Penser l’Architecture c’est Penser Autrement. Pp. 95-98 in Mesure pour Mesure, Architecture et Philosophie, n. sp. Cahier du CCI, Centre de Création Industriel. Paris: Centre George Pompidou.Google Scholar
  15. Rasmussen, Steen Eiler. 1964. Experiencing Architecture. (1959). Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Saumjan, Sebastian Kontantinovic. 1970. Cibernética e Língua. Pp. 129-144 in Novas Perspectivas Linguísticas, M. Lemele and Y. Leite, orgs. Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro: Editora Vozes.Google Scholar
  17. Schlemmer, Oskar 1987. Escritos sobre Arte: Pintura, Teatro, Danza, Cartas y Diarios. (1977) Ramón Ribalta, trans. Barcelona: Paidos Estetica.Google Scholar
  18. Silvério Marques, Manuel Barroso. 1990. Modularity, Mind and Brain Theory – an essay on Fodor’s Theory of the Mind (1985). In Controvérsias Científicas e Filosóficas. Ed. GIL, Fernando. Lisbon. Editorial Fragmentos, Lda. pp. 159-187.Google Scholar
  19. Preziosi Donald (1979) Semiotics of Built Environment: Introduction to Architectonic Analysis. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  20. Varela, Francisco J.; Thompson, Evan; Rosch, Eleanor, co-authors. 1991. The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Zeizel, John. 2006. Inquiry by Design - Environmental / Behaviour / Neuroscience in Architecture, Interiors, Landscape, and Planning. (1981). Revised Edition (New York, London, W.W. Norton & Company).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kim Williams Books, Turin 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Piedade Ferreira
    • 1
  • Duarte Cabral de Mello
    • 2
  • José Pinto Duarte
    • 2
  1. 1.Curso de Doutoramento em Arquitectura, Faculdade de ArquitecturaUniversidade Técnica de Lisboa, Rua Sá Nogueira, Pólo UniversitárioLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Faculdade de ArquitecturaUniversidade Técnica de Lisboa, Rua Sá Nogueira, Pólo UniversitárioLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations