设计空间的含义Meanings of Designed SpacesMeanings of Designed SpacesSpaces of Everyday Life, Self, and Social Constructions Significant space, house, habitat, home, dwelling, gender, social status, spatial arrangements, living well, escapism, semiology, cultural and visual content analysis, politically social spaces, social space construction, theatrical space construction, cultural space construction, public and private spaces, political spaces, proxemics.AFTER READING THIS CHAPTER, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO:· Glean ideas about social spaces, spaces of living, and how spaces become places of social constructions.· Differentiate philosophical approaches to spaces of living.· Consider what constitutes a significant space.· Distinguish concepts of "living well" versus "home as defining a sense of self."· Understand spaces of living and the social constructions of space and place.· Identify characteristics of house as home, dwelling as home, and house as habitat.· Consider cultural contexts to issues of dwelling, gender, and space.· Understand how identity frames spaces as places of dwelling.INTRODUCTIONSpaces we live in formulate our experiences. We attribute meaning to the things and spaces that surround us. Our sense of self, the way we engage in our daily life, depends on our surroundings, our home, our place of work, and the places we hold dear. Spaces of living impact our sense of self, what we do, and the ways that we define ourselves in society, and in turn they provide us with meanings alongside a host of multiple perceptions and reactions. How might spaces of the everyday be understood from the perspectives of domestic life? How do living spaces reflect social constructions that affect our sense of self and who we are in the world?While spaces are created with visual and aesthetic properties in mind, they are ultimately meant for people to experience. People appropriate spaces they occupy and change them to suit their purposes. People attach value to the things that they have,while values are also imposed by society and are complicated by the fracturing of contemporary society. This is further complicated by the ways spaces are framed that determine social status as much aswell-being. What values we hold as a society also affect both our capacity to make choices and our social place in the world, and often inadvertently frame our design decision making. All these factors affect the spaces we inhabit, the ways we design these spaces, and the underlying values that shape spatial constructions we then experience.We place great value on culture, politics, and social norms and customs while we are also caught up in changing values. Among the underlying values that shape a society are social customs, voices of diverse people, or cultural customs. Although dwellings vary greatly as spaces depending on the societal values, economic location, and a host of factors that drive how we live, dwellings also are places where people often look to others tohelp them achieve meaning.Christian Norberg-Shultz has Suggested that home representsthe very nature of human existence. It gives man a place to be, a place in which to stay and spend time in safety and comfort. (Rengel, 2003, pp. 51-52)And while our aspirations are to achieve these goals, for many in our world, their places and spaces of living are far from this ideal. More often the values we set in terms of our dwelling places are tied to the acquisition of material goods, while for others this is a distant reality as they eke out an existence on the fringe (Poldma, 2008). Furthermore, this problem of value-setting creates a need for some to actualize values through the designs of lived spaces at the expense of the meaning of home and house. In a philosophical sense, the meanings of house and home have been subjugated:We look for meaning in our dwellings, and some hire architects and designers to actualize their values spatially. . . . and many do not know how to do so. The meanings of home and house have become lost in the quest to dwell, and the quest for dwelling has become lost in the acquisition of more goods and cultural symbols of that same house and home in a given society. (Poldma, 2008)These issues will be examined in this chapter from the perspectives of dwelling and gender as social or philosophical spaces. Two theoretical papers examine meanings of house and home. Virginie LaSalle takes a philosophical perspective about how the concept of "living well" intersects with notions of design spaces by providing spaces that form places of habitation that symbolize beauty and material wealth. She examines the sense of home as a habitat, and how an individual's experience of inhabiting is more than the physical and material visual attributes we assign. She explores Bachelard and Serfaty-Garzon's ideas of intimate spaces. She further juxtaposes the symbolic views of home with the philosophies of Heidegger and Levinas, who examine the dichotomy of the environment/spaces of living as a concept versus the daily experiences of the inhabitants. LaSalle is promoting the concept of a"significant space" that bridges the forms and substance with the meanings of those who live and perceive the space as a dynamic place.Hanna Mendoza and Matthew Dudzik provide a provocation that contrasts living well with realities in a cultural context. Mendoza and Dudzik examine how home becomes a culturally defined place of identity, and how economics and cultural contexts change not only concepts of house and home but also determine territoriality and sense of self in social stratification. Using Brazil as the setting, Mendoza and Dudzik examine the impact of globalization and economic values juxtaposed against the realities of dichotomies, where we look for meaning in our dwellings, and some hire architects and designers to actualize their values spatially. ownership and control of personal space has become battle between the marginalized and empowered in Brazilian society. Notions of tribalism, nostalgia, and escapism are explored in these contexts, as is how spaces become frameworks for changing territorial and personal experiences.The second part of the chapter examines the socially constructed nature of gendered spaces. Theoretical constructs of gender and spaces are defined as I examine both gender and physical spaces as determinants in how social relations are played out. Tracing two seminal texts, fundamental ideas about space and gender are defined by Shirley Ardener, who unfolds concepts of social spaces, while Daphne Spain examines what constitutes gendered spaces. The paper then elaborates on views about culturally determined rules in terms of space and gender.Finally, the Dialogues and Perspectives closes the chapter with an examination of gender and social relations set in an examination of a woman photographer's framing of spaces at the turn of the century. Susan Close presents the context of gendered space within the framework of the photographic interiors of Lady Clementina Hawarden, from the perspective of cultural theory and gendered spaces. The ensuing dialogue examines issues of boundary, making it a historic context while also introducing a research methodology that uses cultural analysis as the framework for the methodology of reading the images. This semiotic approach in research that uses found images (as in photography) analyzes the interior spaces as a means of comparing and contrasting social space, theatrical construction of space, and gendered space and in the context of social status.REFERENCESPoldma, T. (2008). Dwelling Futures and Lived Experience: Transforming InteriorSpace. Design hilosophy Papers, /dpp/dpp_journal/paper2/body.html.Rengel, R. (2003). Shaping Interior Space. New York: Fairchild Publications.The Sense of Home as Habitat Virginie LasalleWhat help is it, to solve philosophical problems, if [one] cannot settle the chief, most important thing-how to live a good and happy life? "Live well!" is the supreme philosophical commandment.-Ludwig Wittgenstein (excerpt from Shusterman, 1997) In the above quote, Wittgenstein is suggesting that one's will to contribute to good living should guide the design of the philosophical approach. If the thinker considers the goal of a good and healthy existence as predominant, it is because this existence underlies aspirations residing in everyone. For professionals in the disciplines of design, the will to contribute to this good living of our peers is a consideration that always inspires and is echoed in our spatial conceptions. The same applies to the design of interior space, notably when it comes to thinking and to shaping people's habitations, a proven material symbol of good and happy living in North American culture. The concept of home is often used as an archetypal refuge for dwellers in theirintimacy and their way of being.As designers of the interior inhabited space, we must ask ourselves what this intention-to live a good and happy life-means intrinsically and to strive to endow the space with solutions that, if adequate, will contribute to satisfying of this fundamental need. In a succinct look at the phenomenon of habitation, let us introduce the perceptions of thinkers to diverse disciplinary orientations for which the reflections guide the process of designing the residence.The Senses of HabitationThis will to develop the sense of home as habitat and to find the design approach has resided within thinkers and designers for a long time; the reiteration and expansion of reflections clearly confirm the importance still attributed to the habitation today. For example, the versatility of the habitation's forms, which vary greatly with a number of criteria-including the functions of the space, needs, the living and cultural habits of the inhabitants, and the geographical situation. If reflection on the habitat's constructed frame ultimately concerns design professionals, then the theories that guide their actions are frequently the fruit of thinkers from diverse disciplines; thewritings of philosophers, anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists participate in the founding of the design approach. A good part of this situation can be explained by the great complexity of the phenomenon of habitation, which firmly establishes itself to encompass a multitude of factors to be considered. Among the host of sources existing today, Gaston Bachelard, Perla Serfaty-Garzon, Martin Heidegger, and Emmanuel Levinas are invaluable references for their study of the phenomenon of habitation.In his phenomenological work, Tlze Poetics of Space (1957), Gaston Bachelard examines the being's invariable essence of inhabiting, while analyzing the poetics of habitation, perceived as an image of intimacy through its most authentic object that is the home. According to Bachelard, the home, in its unity and complexity, represents the material sense of the human experience and the materialization of its poetics. It is man's concrete anchoring, his primary world, and it characterizes him in his fundamental dimension of habitation:We should therefore have to say how we inhabit our vital space, in accord with all the dialectics of life, how we take root, day after day, in a "corner of the world." [. . .] For our house is our corner of the world. [. . .], it is our first universe. (1957)Bachelard's analysis of the poetics of habitation considers two predominant phases of analysis for this living space. First, the home is approached as an analysis instrument of the soul. Then the home is regarded more as an object to be developed, a collection of symbols for phenomenological material analysis. This second phase of analysis deals with the material and symbolic properties of the home. Through formal observation of his object, the philosopher expands on the poetic images that are found-such as the fireside, the space conducive to reverie- which make the habitation significant and bring it to the status of home for the resident.With her interest in the various senses or habitation, sociologist and environmental psychologist Perla Serfaty-Garzon observes the semantic richness of the various terms used to denote habitation-residence, house, home, hearth, etc. in connection with their manifestations constructed over time. According to Serfaty-Garzon, this archetypal inhabited space merits the appellation home; for it is the anchoring point that provides life with spatial rooting. Inhabiting means living in a historical perspective, in symbiosis with a space and the people who share it.Thus, Serfaty-Garzon considers the phenomenon of habitation in a historical and sociological perspective. In her understanding, the emergence of the sphere of private life that led to the design of intimacy in occidental societies would be related to the specialization of spaces and would have brought about a sacralization of the dwelling. The appropriation envisaged by Serfaty-Garzon as an active component of home (2003, p.102) includes a moral, psychological, and affective sense. She suggests that the material character and ways that we personalize the space arc in part identified by a cultural model and then adjusted by our own particular individual expression that affirms our identity and how we construct oneself through our inhabited space (p.92).The symbolic analysis of the home's premises, as perceived by Serfaty-Garzon in a Bachelardian spirit, leads her to examine the hidden areas, such as the cellar and the attic territories of the unconscious through their own symbolism, but also through a constituent analysis that considers the verticality of the construction filled with dreamlike meaning in the experience of home (pp. 182-183). Related to the states of the person's soul, these spatial qualities fill the home's premises with meaning. They allude to an apparent irrationality (1999, p. 83) associated with the secret of what is concealed to foreign observation, corresponding to an inner self (1999, p. 86). Serfaty-Garzon suggests that the rooms of the home thus encompass meanings, essential to the respect of the living space's boundaries that are more or less permeable. Thus, the entrance would represent the area that civilizes intrusion; as a midway, it can call for or invite the passage to the interior space, or it can stop a movement.The entrance is the true in- between area: it is neither inside nor outside (2003, pp. 143-145). The living room is defined in modernity by the home's archetypal space for socializing. It is the home's foreground, the spatial conveyance of the inhabitant's construction and social consolidation process (2003, p. 162).Among the written sources that examine the phenomenon of man's inhabitation, the text "Building, Dwelling, Thinking" (Essays and Conferences, 1954) by Martin Heidegger is a choice reference. Through a semantic study of the German word bauen, Heidegger discusses the existential dimension of inhabiting, and through an analysis of the relationships of meaning, developing the significations of building. This etymological work leads the thinker to build the action of inhabiting as a fundamental feature of the human condition. Heidegger's judgment of the context, which to him is contemporary, underlies a flaw between meaning and the taking of shape, as he observes dwelling. He claims that dwellings can be well understood, can facilitate practical living, can be affordable, and can be open to the air, light, and sun, but he questions whether they can actually guarantee in and of themselves that dwelling takes place (p. 171).Heidegger guides us toward this all-too-frequent dichotomy that can be observed between the environment in a conceptual state, the dwelling as a constructed environment, and, ultimately, the daily experiences lived by the inhabitants of the designed space. This observation is also made by architect and theorist Juhani Pallasmaa, who deplores the recurring impertinence of responses lavished by designers to subtle, emotional, and diffused aspects of the home (1992).One of the theories that philosopher Emmanuel Levinas develops in his work Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority (1971) incites one to think about the habitation and to see it anew as more than a space expected to meet the relative needs of habitation. On the premise of reasoning intrinsically relating the need, the act of satisfying this need-through what he calls contents of life-and the pleasure occasioned by the satisfying of the need or by the contents of life, Levinas presents his idea of a joy essential to human existence:Even if the content of life ensures my life, the means is immediately sought as an end, and the pursuit of this end becomes an end in its turn. Thus things are always more than the strictly necessary; they make up the grace of life. (. . .) Qua object the object seen occupies life; but the vision of the object makes for the "joy" of life. (1971, p.114)Applied to the person's habitation space, this approach calls for a projection of the habitat that goes far beyond strictly functional considerations to which the construction must provide and refers to a qualification of the interior premises that supports and promulgates the pleasure of inhabiting, the joy of dwelling. Further, when Levinas discusses the dwelling and the habitation, he sees it first as a tool, but insists on its privileged purpose:The home would serve for habitation as the hammer for the driving in of a nail or the pen for writing. For it does indeed belong to the gear consisting of things necessary for the life of man. It serves to shelter him from the inclemencies of the weather, to hide him from enemies or the importunate. And yet, within the system of finalities in which human life maintains itself the home occupies a privileged place. (1971, p. 162)For Levinas, this distinction of the home among other tools comes from its dimension as the beginning of human activity. and intimacy the person needs in this archetypal private domain to be able to engage in subsequent social activities with others.Designing Significant Living SpacesSuch theories undoubtedly foster reflection in a good number of designers who focus on the habitation qualities of the living spaces that they imagine. One question remains: How docs one concretely interpret these notions so that within the designed space, these features and qualities can participate in the experience of the habitation space and enrich the occupants' living? Based on the work of selected theorists Edward T. Hall, Juhani Pallasmaa, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty let us expand on the means by which, as thinkers of inhabited architecture, we can move from these inspiring theories to the design of significant spaces that promote good living through habitation.In their analysis of the person's holistic experience, and notably from their spatial and habitation experience, a number of thinkers tend toward an initial perceptual understanding of the phenomenon. In The Hidden Dimension ( 1966), Edward T. Hall adopts an anthropological approach oriented toward man's sensory perception; he asserts that man-"as with all other members of the animal kingdom-is until the end and irrevocably a prisoner of his biological organism" (p.8). The originality of his approach involves his supposition that what is the human's own is the experiencing of his culture, which conditions him in his relationships with the world. Hall states that we attach ourselves to this type of profound, general, non verbalized experience that all the members of a single culture share and communicate without knowing, and that constitutes the backdrop in relation to which all the other events are situated (p.8).Architect Juhani Pallasmaa has also studied the importance of the person's sensory perception in the architected environment. Through various essays, of which the most famous is likely The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses (1995), Pallasmaa expresses his particular concerns about hegemonic vision in occidental architecture to the detriment of the other senses, thus leading to the disappearance of sensory and sensual qualities in arts and architecture. The tactile dimension of the environment and the sensory experience of the body influence our understanding of the world, as well as the habitation we make out of it. Pallasmaa claims that through our bodies we are at the center of the world; not as central observers of an environment, or as spectators, but as a place of reference, memory, imagination, and integration in the world (p. 11). Consequently, he asserts that thearchitectural experience should provide more than visual communication; it should question the person's haptic (that is, relating to touch) interest through the sensual qualities involved.He identifies the the natural materials-such as stone, brick, and wood-as communicating effectively with the person, as these materials express a certain wear that tells of their life-their age, marks left from wear and the passage of time, and their history (p.31). Pallasmaa advocates a building approach aspiring to re-sensualize architecture through a heightened sense of its materiality, its haptics, its texture, its weight, the density of its space, and the materialization of light (p. 37)Finally, as a summary of these reflections, Maurice Merleau-Ponty (notably in the 1945 work Phenomenologie de la perception) highlights the consideration of the person's subjectivity in the experience of his senses and his human habitat in the world. he reminds us that the needs to be satisfied by the home and its interior space are not so much about considering the design's strictly physical attributes-such as the finishes of surfaces and the aesthetics-as they are about overall communication with the for flexibility. In his view, the experience of space cannot be reduced to a list of perception criteria senses,culture, etc.-as it is an experience through which the multitude of possible contributions comes together and combines in a living experience proper to each person. It is a process both temporal and spatial, created and justified through lived experiences that interior design must encompass, as a backdrop for the person's activities.Variances and Constancies in HabitationAlthough certain justified a priorie lementsseem to remain intact in the space's design process, we notice that the constructed manifestations of the authentic habitation vary as an echo of the complexity of the factors involved during the design process. In the practice of interior design-or interior architecture-designing the space frequently means developing an existing space with form, material, and objects in the creation of spatial solutions. It is also important to understand that people adapt the space in their own manner, a fundamental aspect that must be considered during the project's design. Our success as professionals of inhabited space depends on our ability to discern what facilitates in the person's real and lived experiences- the adapting of the space that is his or her own and his or her pleasure to be there. Finally, it appears to us that the use of spatial devices emerges in the inhabited space, and that these components appear to be on the path to effectively satisfying certain manifest needs of these residents. To name only one of them, note the passage from a temporal spatiality (one room for one activity) to a spatial temporality (a multifunctional space) that demonstrates a patent potential to be modeled with the passing time, the moment of the day, the week, or the year.Discussion Questions1. Virginie LaSalle describes Bachelard's concept of home as "unity and complexity,repository material sense of human experience and materialized in its poetics."a. What does this mean?b. How is home a "collection of symbols"?2. How does Serfaty-Garzon understand home as an anchor point?3. What is Heidegger's idea of home as dwelling?4. What is the significance of lived space as home, as dwelling?设计空间的含义Tiiu Vaikla-Poldma关键词：空间结构居住空间空间价值社会习俗日常生活、自我和社会结构的空间读完这一章后，你就可以：·收集社会空间观念、空间的生活，以及如何成为社会建设的地方空间的想法。