Inquiring limits in architecture

In architecture, the notion of limit is frequently inquired based on a substantialist approach and inquiries using this approach put an emphasis on architecture as if architecture is a substantialist entity. The basic assumptions hold sway throughout the disciplines, which beholden to the idea that fundamentals or substances come first and relations among them subsequently. Accordingly, "blurring limits in architecture" stands as an approach with an aim to inquire limits by a relational point of view. In the way that architecture is outlined by limits, or mentioning a sort of limitation that is prevailed in regard to architecture; how to inquire limits emerge as a principal discussion. Differentiated meanings of limit could be distinguished through their delineations by substantialist and transactional (relational) approaches. As an example, if we assume that there is a limit separating the fundamentals x and y from each other, both x and y stand as the reason of the other one`s becoming. Therefore, limit cannot be positioned beyond a relational context as if relations happen outside of these fundamentals. If relation is defined as a distinctive entity besides x and y, it would only appear as relational while it is essentially substantialist. In other words, when the relation between x and y is considered as a third entity, relation stands in a sort of eclecticism. That sort of inquiries are interpreted as relational, however, they should be addressed as substantialist or outlined as "pseudo-relational". In this regard, what is meant by pseudo-transactional or pseudo-relational is a sort of illusion in which a thing is not what it really is. Therefore, transactional approach is not considered only as the method but cogitated as a pivotal part of this research. Within this point of view, the research is to inquire limits in architecture according to transactional (relational) approach versus to substantialist one, referring to critical theories in regard to a trans-disciplinary understanding. The title of "Limits of the Term 'Limit'" involves a discussion on differentiated descriptions of "limit", in which some other terms such as border, boundary and bound are referred. By declaring the consequences of a trans-disciplinary approach, an online platform entitled Synoros is generated with an aim to ground a further discussion. Synoros published its first issue as "limit" and asked people to share their own ways of expressing what limit is. Afterwards, the published works at Synoros are inquired based on how they address "limit". Accordingly, two approaches are determined in regard to those works as: 1. Concentrating on the limits as stable fundamentals and 2. Mentioning what could be approached beyond a limit condition by considering its potentials. Whether Synoros is to be considered as a convenient platform for such an inquiry or not, it outlines how a trans-disciplinary approach accommodates differentiated point of views. Besides, distinguishing disciplinary boundaries involves a transactional consideration in regard to disciplines, in which an in-between positioning emerges. In this regard, what stands beyond a substantialist way of consideration is addressed by the notion of "in-between". "In-between" provides an inquiry of the relations and acts rather than concentrating on their consequences. An in-between space, in fact, is where things are undone as a part of an ongoing process. What is meant by "in-between" and what stands beyond a (substantialist) limit are interpreted by dualistic approaches. In the field of architecture, two of commonly revealed binaries could be mentioned as "inside and outside" and "interior and exterior". By considering what those binaries are referred to, it is outlined that an outside is the active poduction of an inside, deliberating a whole together. After mentioning the scope of the thesis, the chapter entitled "Blurring Limits in Architecture" involve a proposal in regard to architecture by declaring blurring as an architectural act. Blurring, as an act, seeks to undermine the well-defined limits in architecture that involve substantialist considerations. In order to understand what "blurring limit" is referred to, three exemplars are chosen, outlining three acts of blurring limits in architecture: altering, transforming and transgressing. Once a limit is altered, transformed and/or transgressed, mainstream considerations become changed to suggest a new way of thinking in architecture. Accordingly, two common properties are determined for defining the exemplars: a. Providing a trans-disciplinary point of view, and b. blurring their standing limits by using a differentiated inquiry in comparison to their contextual backgrounds. Hence, three trans-disciplinary works are chosen by way of representing three acts, which blur their established limits. Those three acts are discussed in regard to their spatial and experimental meanings, where each act involves a discussion with some other artworks, installations and/ or projects: 1. Altering: the act of modification or adjustment James Turrell`s works exemplify the act of altering by providing differentiated perceptions for an existing building or providing a new spatial experience to acknowledge an existing environment. Turrell mentions that his works do not have an object, an image or a focus instead he aims to create an experience for the visitors "looking themselves at looking". 2. Transforming: the act of a major change "Sleep No More" is a performance created by a theatre company, offering an experimental theatre where the audience and performance spaces are involved in the acting process. The spatial necessities of such an experience blurs the limits of a stage where it is transformed to be a wearable object, a mask. That performance does not only suggest an inquiry on the frequent understanding of a theatre but the changing demands of a differentiated act and its spatial responses. 3. Transgressing: the act of a radical change, infringement Transgressing involves an activist approach where an ambiguity is left for further possibilities. It might not reflect a transformation at its present time, or an alteration of an entity but a sort of future projection. It is an act to push the boundaries of a known object or space where an ambiguity is left for further approaches. The exemplars inquired by that act, in fact, are critical approaches and/or projects that provide a reversed perspective. Rachel Whiteread and her sculptures are discussed within that title, which explore the inner life of rooms and objects where the emptiness and/or spaces between the walls are filled. Thus, the sculptures of Whiteread creates an ambiguity whether to call the space as an interior or exterior one. These three acts and their relational discourse based on transactional approach can be considered as a method for inquiring limits in architecture. The acts are discussed by differentiated exemplars that are deliberated in regard to each act. Some of keywords and/or projects that are reviewed could be mentioned as: Materiality, transparency, light as a spatial medium, visuality (altering); dynamism, incomplete design, follies, Sendai Mediateque, Foundation Building (transforming) and Pompidou, Blur Building, and non-liveable house (transgressing). As discussed based on materiality, for example, transparency and its spatial reciprocity might be assumed as relational in terms of visual characteristics of the materials, while the spatial experience might exhibit a pseudo-relational condition. However, the focus should not be restricted with materiality and its visual aspects in regard to the field of architecture. As those exemplars correspondingly demonstrate, design by a transactional approach suggests inquiring the whole relations where the process, the users (as actors and actants) as well as the design itself are interrelated. Consequently, a limit involves potentials of being altered / transformed or transgressed by a relational point of view. Accordingly, a limit might stand as a repetitive notion affecting a design process, or an architectural element that is to be transformed by technological developments. Blurring that sort of limits is where a new approach, or a new material, or a new spatial understanding (et cetera) might emerge. Acknowledging architecture as the field of designing limits and prevailing within them; the aspects behind those limits remain essential. In other words, how limits are discoursed and applied in the field of architecture represent the future of the field, in which dynamic relations have become a necessity within the changing demands of today`s world.