This week I’ve been focusing on reading more about the methodology of architectural phenomenology. I’ve certainly been learning a lot about the ‘doing’ of architectural phenomenology and have been exercising my nascent skills while spending time in my daily spaces. I’m starting to see my process as a way of holding space, similar to how one would hold an object they have just discovered in order to analyze it, in a way that suspends my experience in it. That is, I find myself lingering in hallways and stairwells, walking slowly, as if prolonging my exposure to the architecture will enhance my sensitivities and allow me to examine my experience more fully.
My feeling is that this is an important undertaking if I am to do justice in my analysis of the two Living Buildings I’ve selected. In his article published in 2000, A Way of Seeing People and Place: Phenomenology in Environment-Behavior Research, Professor David Seamon from the University of Kansas argues that there are “four qualities [that] help readers judge the trustworthiness of phenomenological interpretation: vividness, accuracy, richness, and elegance. First, vividness is a quality that draws readers in, generating a sense of reality and honesty. Second, accuracy refers to believability in that readers are able to recognize the phenomenon in their own lifeworlds or they can imagine the situation vicariously. Third, richness relates to the aesthetic depth and quality of the description, so that the reader can enter the interpretation emotionally as well as intellectually. Finally, elegance points to descriptive economy and a disclosure of the phenomenon in a graceful, even poignant, way.”
Following these four conditions of successful phenomenological research I find that my work for now should not only be concerned with learning how to properly discern and record meaningful phenomenological data, but also how to communicate my findings most effectively.
Lastly, I’m beginning to feel a bit of pressure to move on from my reading of phenomenology and cover more ground in philosophy and the anthropocene. I plan on revisiting Latour’s Gifford Lectures, as well as diving into Zizek’s “Living in the End Times.” I have a bit of literature backing up concerning architecture, but will put that on the side burner until I make some more substantial headway in the anthropocene and philosophy, especially reading with a focus of applying the anthropocene-as-conversation-about-us to behavior and architectural production. i.e. I’m not really trying to learn more about the science of the anthropocene at this point, but trying to better understand the anthropocene as a philosophical concept about human action with moral implications for behavior. Unless you think this is a bad idea and I should learn more about the science. Let me know in the comments!
Also related to holding space, my outline is in progress! More on that sooner than later, outlines hold space for ideas nicely.