dc.contributor.author |
Roberts, Nick
|
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2013-05-20T09:16:21Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2013-05-20T09:16:21Z |
|
dc.date.issued |
2012 |
|
dc.description.abstract |
Historically, there have been two primary ways of perceiving space that have been considered opposed
to one another. First is the analytical, measured space of representation - the drawings and models
architects make, which have historically been called the ‘instrumental’ (as they are instruments in
the description of architecture). Second is the sensory, embodied space of a direct perception of
architecture as built. This is generally understood as our primary way of understanding space. This
work challenges that they are independent and oppositional ways of understanding space. |
en_US |
dc.format.extent |
14 pages |
en_US |
dc.format.medium |
PDF |
en_US |
dc.identifier.citation |
Roberts, N 2012, 'A projective site: inhabiting the metaphorical interval between the instrumental and symbolic meanings of architecture', South African Journal of Art History, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 68-81. [http://www.journals.co.za/ej/ejour_sajah.html] |
en_US |
dc.identifier.issn |
0258-3542 |
|
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/2263/21522 |
|
dc.language.iso |
en |
en_US |
dc.publisher |
Art Historical Work Group of South Africa |
en_US |
dc.rights |
Art Historical Work Group of South Africa |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Architectural space |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Perception |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Representation |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Symbolic |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Instrumental |
en_US |
dc.subject.lcsh |
Art -- History |
|
dc.subject.lcsh |
Architecture -- History |
|
dc.title |
A projective site: inhabiting the metaphorical interval between the instrumental and symbolic meanings of architecture |
en_US |
dc.type |
Article |
en_US |