 |
 |
by Daniel Huertas Nadal (translated by Jemima Taylor) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The use of glass in architecture was associated with the use of other artificial materials, such as steel and reinforced concrete. These materials heralded new trends in architecture. Glass was initially incorporated into steel structures destined for railway 0terminals and glasshouses; Paxton and Burton come to mind. Pavilions for national exhibitions(1) like Paxton’s Crystal Palace were also beneficiaries of this new architectural technology. Possibilities for the use of glass were dazzling and transcended the mere technical. (Fig. 1) Use of glass and the subsequent effect on the space that it enclosed challenged traditional architectural concepts. The most significant change was brought about by the introduction of levity--or the transgression of solidity. Traditionally the stone wall had dictated how architecture was approached and, curiously perhaps, an absence of material introduced the idea of gravity into architecture. A wall brings with it the concept of subtraction for it must be pierced or opened up in some way to allow the entry of light. The oculus of the Pantheon or Salon de Comares in the Alhambra palace are here brought to mind. Glass, for its part, demarcates and encloses. Levity is an intrinsic and unencumbered quality of this material and for whatever reason glass qualitatively increases the density of a space. Glass came to symbolize anthropological expectations(2) which architects interpreted as a way of stigmatizing incipient modernity(3) . This material triggered a series of reflections regarding its capacity to limit and expand interior space. As far as spatial projection is concerned, use of glass alone is limited as it, in time come to present boundaries and thresholds. It supposes both lines moving towards others, and the disappearance of edges. The departure of the window as marker, and loss of the objectifying effect of the perforation which can serve to locate a building in its surroundings broadened architectural horizons and brought about new notions of material: not only can visual continuity can be obtained via the glass surface, but also an infernal conflict between the order of the crystal mesh and the flatness of the membrane. This conflict engenders intense conceptual density. The apparent external order or finality implicit in transparent thinness is not so. What we are experiencing here is, in fact, the ideal expression of entropy.(4) This being so the fascination exerted on man by this material poses a fundamental question: The very natural nature of the architecture that we have been loyal to since the 400s has been architecture linked to seeing, and to the process by which we see. The development of vertical panes of glass between horizontal ones from floor to ceiling meant an opacity of almost zero. The resulting virtually complete transparency of the wall introduced a kind of ontologous motive to the process of construction(5) . This process of association had a direct effect on the construction process and, more importantly it defined a specific way of knowing: Knowing through seeing(6) . This tuning of perception that enabled glass to be exploited brought about a change in the way one perceived ones surroundings from within buildings as there was now a multiplication of viewing points. The objective perspective was removed. The simplest way of seeing glass incorporated architecture was as a structure that incorporates a personal understanding of the space that can be successively transformed across a horizon defined by a person’s ability to see things(7) . Glass edges, in spatial architectural terms, signify a geometrical space that encloses perpetual multiplicity. The glass space becomes a spatial interpretation of one’s own. This idea is backed up by the idea of the reversibility of glass through transparency and reflection. A plural reality or truth evolves, which implies the superposition of converging layers; a constant disintegration of the limits and a permanent propulsion of space. Reality and truth stop being the same implying that some kind of totality might be attained. Sight becomes linked to the transformation of consciousness. When one’s view is sequestered by glass, a glass that reveals the visible surroundings moment the moment is expanded. A lasting but fugitive unassailability is conceived: the superposition of time, the detainment and advance of sight ends up becoming an almost aesthetic dimension of the glass itself. Amongst the architectural resonances there is a kind of identification between mind and material(8) . Space, when imagined in this way, is something that is alive. It is a place of continual birth, of endless possibilities and differences, a fertile generator of signs, rhythms and forms. It is not by mere chance that glass has come to provoke so many questions, it is due to its expressive nature and ability to resonate for man. Duchamp and the circularity of vision
The effort required to envisage space as the superposition of independent layers, each one interacting with one another lies in the identification of the invisible marker that runs through all the layers. When Marcel Duchamp painted Nude Descending a Staircase (9) (Fig. 2), he clearly indicates that this being is no more than a fragile collection of fictitious moments; a series of rhythms that will constitute a defiance of understanding of this situation as any kind of spatial continuity, since what this static collection of captured movements does is dissolve a central idea of an ephemeral moment. It does not capture a precipitation of pure time, but time itself. This painting, in its spatial development, incorporates time and movement as a definitive element for understanding the object. Its approach is not at all technical; it is dispossessed of expressive techniques like those of Chocolate Grinder number 2 (1914) (Fig. 3) in which disproportionate attention is given to precision and exactitude. Jumping from one work to another is fundamental when trying to understand Duchampian conceptual origins: The Large Glass(10) (Fig. 4) implied a movement from expressive retinal vision to intellectual vision, aimed at understanding. In this work Duchamp made no attempt to represent reality. He was trying to give some kind of presence to reality. This desire to stop the Large Glass being subjected to any kind of aesthetic provoked the appearance of the Green Box (11) in 1934 (Fig. 5), a series of writings, calculations and reflections to be consulted while observing the Large Glass. It would prevent the chance of any kind of association between traditional painting and this work. The need for plastic support to facilitate these readings implicated glass as being a replacement for the traditional canvas, lacking any interpretative possibilities--visual ones aside. In pictorial terms glass signified absence. The transparency of glass makes it a means of a certain type of expression related to its surroundings(12). As the work develops the relationship between the work and the object is established, and vice versa. These links are sustained by the superposition of the significant elements. Having abandoned the spatial development of cubism, whereby fragmentation and development of the object make it plastic, Duchamp extracts that space from the canvas and generates an object capable of holding that space. In this way he establishes a dialogue between ideas suspended in his new glass membrane and those of the observer who approaches, goes round and situates himself in a space shared with the work. The work is nourished by this process of spatial recognition. In preliminary studies for the Large Glass, 9 Malic Moulds (Fig. 6), and the Glider containing a Water Mill made of Neighbouring metals(13)(Fig. 7) and Duchamp discovered the possibilities of glass by photographing little sketches drawn on the glass in different spaces and positioning himself for these photographs either in front of or behind the glass. Now it was not a question of seeing less, rather seeing through or, in the case of the encrypted Large Glass, not seeing through the transparency. This fundamental idea of concentrating on the threshold, on the surface of the relation between two faces was concurrent with propositions by the so-called Modern Movement in architecture. Using a thin threshold the dual possibilities of space are suggested. Duchamp is even more challenging as he places the individual inside the space and somehow negates its existence through the affirmative presence the observer, as well as giving the space a relational potency that is activated one the individual is installed.
Thus one possibility is superposed upon another, a mass of accumulated space projected onto a minimum transparency: A huge amount of meaning is thus conferred upon an evanescent threshold. Here the idea of the infrathin (14) is highly significant, which Duchamp accorded the highest emotional significance. The notion of infrathin is one of focus, focus viewing spatial positions, a definitive nexus with later architectural concepts the qualities of the space to maximum involvement: a crystallized skin that simultaneously resolves the interior space and the exterior symmetries of the building. The projection of different, meaningful layers on one level means that the Large Glass presents a critically suspended perspective. Duchamp’s work as a librarian in St. Genevieve in Paris would allow him to study different treatments of perspective, about which he would make copious notes. Explicit links between the Large Glass and 16th century perspectives would be established at this time, like those of Durer (Fig. 8) who would expose Duchamp to new pathways in the spatial development of the collection as a whole(15). The possibility of changing the traditional concept of spatial representation lead him to conceive of the space as a spatial projection within the space itself, that is to say, not indifferent to it as in a painting, but dependant on it. Having been divested of any kind of gravitational support, objects become linked to a kind of idealized space. The marker nevertheless, and its clearly demarcated lines of division functions with the indescribable power of a decontextualized window (ie estranged from its wall). This marker, however, has the ability to emphasize the idea of transit, of thresholds and of significant space.
Glass turns space towards the observer by suspending retinal values and the subsequent aesthetic enjoyment brought about by contemplating them, it distances the object and affirms the space, which results in the individual questioning the very act of seeing(16). Multiple readings, as well as the projection onto the work of different visions of the surroundings, variations in light, fragmented reflections ultimately expand the process of cognition. (Fig. 9) The development of the viewpoint passes from birth as a vision to maturity as knowledge. The individual sees himself looking. In this way, the encounter with the glass leads the observer back to his starting point, in which finally the work confronts the observer with himself, with his space and with his desire to know it. The circularity of the process is ensured.
Notes
Yoshiaki Tono, responsible for organizing this exhibition, illustrates this term with different photographs of the surface of water, continual, dual and with no thickness (Fig. 11)
Fig.
2-7, 10 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
