Psyhéarchitecture Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture

Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture Psyhéarchitecture

Psyhé architecture Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture
Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture Psyhéarchitecture
Psyhé architectuPsyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture
Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture Psyhéarchitecture

1
Psyhé architecture Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture
Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture Psyhéarchitecture
Psyhé architecture Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture
Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture Psyhéarchitecture
Psyhé architecturePsyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture
A NEW ARCHITECTURAL
Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture Psyhéarchitecture
PARADIGM:
Psyhéarchitecture Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture
PSYHÉARCHITECTURE
Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture Psyhéarchitecture
Psyhé architecture Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture
Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture Psyhéarchitecture
Psyhé architectuPsyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture
Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture Psyhéarchitecture
Psyhé architecture Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture
Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture Psyhéarchitecture
Psyhé architecture Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture
Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture Psyhéarchitecture
Psyhé architecturePsyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture
Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture Psyhéarchitecture
Psyhéarchitecture Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture
Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture Psyhéarchitecture
Psyhé architecture Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture
Psyhéarchitecture Psyhé architecture Psyhéarchitecture
I became architect in a postmodernist school but the early years started with
classics modernist. Wright was one of my first student idols. I loved his
traditional forms refined in a modern way, his wooden interiors that utter
”home sweet home!”. When I began my practice, I start myself to design
thinking of what I had learned: cubes, prisms, rigorous and perfect controlled
compositions of volumes that stands exquisite in the light. Mies van der
Rohe, Le Corbusier, were, many years, my paradigm in architecture. It was
allays about composition of forms, function and dimensions.

Fig. 1, Bauhouse houses, Dessau, Germany , an example of simple volume modernist composition
(personal archive)

In my late student years, I've played in postmodernist rules. Great buildings

arisen in that time. Jean Nouvel Arab World Institute from Paris was ready
when I finished high school. All architecture reviews had pages full of it.
Christian de Portzanparc "Cité de la musique" was finished along with my
years of student. Postmodernist architects learned me other rules to play with
forms and volumes. Besides them, modernists seemed unimaginative but
each threw a different light on what constitutes architecture. I was educated in
a school of architecture where the graphic beauty of the plan evade the

2
reality. I was taught to work the volumes, placing them, rotating, tilting and
intersecting them to get the most beautiful compositions that contain the most
appropriate functions. But I've never seen my compositions from the human
psyché scale, I've never raised the questions about what animates the
architecture, whichever are the factors that makes buildings alive. Of course
there are ergonomics, modules, the design laws, all of them bringing in
architecture the human factor. But the connection between the project and
the inhabitant was reduced to functional, dimensional, visual-esthetical,
stability and safety, in fact the Vitruvian principles, so nothing to reproach.
And yet, something escapes the apparent order and reliability to do so. It
seems we are the prisoners of palpable an visual world like one said: "I
believe only what I see and feel." Like Renaissance artists who were seeking
the beauty formula, the architects seem to be excited about their formulas for
solving the building, expecting the man who lives inside their buildings, to be
automatically happy. But still, in exclusive designed homes were lived so
many sad life stories. Public spaces that were cited for their aesthetic and
historical quality have been the scene of terrible stories in human history.
With all the knowledge that we imagine that we have, there are still cities and
buildings which bring sickness and are stressful instead of pleasant and
comfort.
In his book "Architecture of Happiness," inspired by a TV series with the
same name, Alain de Botton demonstrates that the built environment does
not matter at all in becoming of man and mankind. As a royal quint in a game
of poker, he throws on the table the decisive argument: unchanged spaces
were silent witnesses to love, crime, petty or brave acts, without affecting the
actions in any way. Alain de Botton, concludes that architecture is only a
scene that does not counts for real, is not crucially in the process of human
life. They were simple scenography for the inhabitants.
In fact, the problem put in this way is misplaced and slightly rough. Between
the walls of houses are parading an array of gestures and emotions as large
as before a Brancusi sculpture, for example or any artistically object, without
any interaction or effect.
On the other hand, there are testimonials, comments on the architectural
elements such as colour or proportion or how the light falls, or the space
appears which prove something else. There is a thin line between the reality
and the imagination and that is present in our mind, the influence and the act
of doing something physical.

3
I'm asking: Should we expect the built environment to influence man
more than does generally the art?
An entire architecture history proves something else, equally convincing: the
architectural space induce powerful emotions in human spirit.
I remember what I felt in Jewish Memorial from Berlin, when I was close to
the space that evokes the war genocide. At first, I heard a strange noise like
someone has thrown pieces of metal. The noise make me curious and I look
up the source: it came from an area located as if by chance, after a corner.
So the surprise was greater. The mysterious sound has gained significance.
The light, the composition of forms, it's height, the nude concrete and the
metal pieces with a specific symbols communicate the message without a
word. (fig.3)

Fig. 2 Fig. 3

The interior atmosphere thrilled me: it was about human slaughtering;

sometime, other people trod over their fellows as if they were inanimate
objects(fig.3). Then, another space that suggest gassing area brought a
particularly strong emotion (fig.2). I pulled a large and heavy side door, nor
have penetrated well that I understood what the meaning of that chamber is.
Everything: the proportion, the darkness and the upper light aperture, the only
way the light can came in...or out, everything creates a powerful emotion
which connects me in a glance with the story of this particular place. Without
any word but only the space, one could foresee the spirit leaving the dark
world trough the gap between the walls, to the light, can feel the sensation of
escape and alleviation. In a very special way, that space metaphorically

4
express pain and hope, dead and light. You could feel the joy of the spirit
release from the cage, from heavy, cold and dark materiality.
I'm studying for a while this border field between form and perception,
between thought and wall, field of psychology of built space. About the
interaction between construction and the environment have been thoroughly
studied and written, as one between man and the environment.
I look up to find a term or a word to define psychology of built space:
”psychéarchitecture”. This term is not another word for the international
”neuroarchitecture” because the paradigms are not the same.
I consider that the term ”neuroarchitecture” induces ambiguous connotations,
specially for those not from the scientific field. It direct the researchers to the
field of neurological architecture or the architecture of the neuronal paths and
relations. All the human and architectural history proves the environment
influence is on multiple levels, started of course with basic mental processes
of perception but going on the state of soul, spirit, at a philosophical levels. I
think the term ”psyhéarchitecture” is more complex and gives the correct
perspective over the fields of knowledge that we need in order to build ”good
architecture”. There is ”architecture” but it is also ”psyché”, not ”psycho”
because ”psyché”1 is related to soul, mental state, emotional state and has, in
fact as complex denominations as man has. I consider, as Jung remembered
from his earlier writings, the human mind is not just simple patterns of
neurological processes, but one of the most incomprehensible wonders of
the world rather than been comprehensible or measurable . For example, the
common but the important notion of ”comfort” has dimensional-physical-
connotations but also an important psychological, emotional component. If
the term "psychological" is pretty well defined by specialists, "emotional"
remains a word that is written on paper and read between the lines.

So the big difference between the two terms is that ”psyhéarhitecture” links
the architectural space - designed and manufactured by man- and the
human psyché, that is not reduced only to its neurological processes -
the tangible and material part of the human mind.

The interaction between construction and the environment, human or natural,

have been thoroughly studied and written about, as that one between man
and the environment. There are well known the written of Pallasmaa, Zumthor

1
”psyhe=the mind, or the deepest thoughts, feelings, or beliefs of a person or group”,
source: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/psyche
5
or Liebeskind about emotional architecture. Gaston Bachelard talks about the
”poetics of space”. There has been a lot of researches about the philosophy
or architecture and space and I would remember Michel Foucault or Christian
Norberg Schultz with his ”Towards a phenomenology of architecture”. Each of
one deepened the study about some aspect of human reaction on specified
layer of existence. But philosophy or basic emotion, spiritual catharsis or
simple comfort, all that state of being are decoded and begin as a mental
process. Simple taste reaction of like-dislike is influenced not only by
education, but the character, possible traumas, anchors memories or mental
patterns can be very important.
One of the areas of psychology, called environmental psychology and even
one of the three branches of ergonomics is cognitive ergonomics which study
the interaction ways between human and his environment. There is also
psychology of art, but architecture is not only an art but an inhabited art, as
we aim, so it's influence and importance are much more complex. Human
being is so complex and has reaction and aspects of existence on many
levels from spiritual-divine to physical-pragmatic ones, that his interaction with
built space is as well as complex and diverse.
Psyhéarhitecture could be a concept and specific border-field between many
specialties, a scientific research field to bring new information both in
architecture and psyché, bringing together sociology, theory and history of
architecture and art, psychoanalysis, aesthetics, cognitive ergonomics and
the environment psychologies, philosophy, neuroscience.
The questions that direct to the paradigms of psyhéarchitecture are:

CAN THE BUILT SPACE, REALLY, INFLUENCE THE PSYCHÉ as

MENTAL STATE, SPIRIT, EMOTIONAL STATE ?

Is this influence just a pure subjectivity of perception given by the mindset of

the inhabitant?

And if it does INFLUENCE, how much, what levels? How deep?

Is it about autosuggestion?

CAN BUILT SPACE BE DESTRUCTIVE OR A REAL HEALER?

Are the theories that sustain the positive effect of therapeutically
environment or healing architecture simple speculations?

6
For now is certain that same space, the same architectural form, the same
artistic gesture have totally different results from a viewer (who lived) to
another. Even more, we ourselves can have different moods in the same
place. For example one can find it absolutely banal but, once, the same place
was the most wonderful place on Earth, just because he was in love. That
simple example can easily demonstrate that what we see with our eyes is
only a projection of what we perceive with the mind.
It is interesting to see how the built environment, that agglomeration of cold
and impersonal material assembled by an artist's vision is filled with life by its
inhabitants, as the two worlds intermingle so far: roughness- the concrete
material and the fluid emotion- so unreal and impossible to palpate. Everyone
has a life story that select his own set of truths. But whether it is the story of
our similar beginning, parentage or any common unconscious, there is a
common denominator that makes people to be similar in some aspects. It
demonstrates how we all perceive in the same way the wavelengths of light
as colors. It is proved by the moods given us by colors or music, moods
which are quite common to a majority. Anyone can remember the feeling that

7
same built space has left upon himself, depending on the mood he had at the
time.
In fact we could give an answer to the first question:
Yes, the architecture have a deep influence on his inhabitants, and the proof
lies in the history of mankind, from the Neanderthals until today. There is no
reason to argue about the fact the natural environment shaped the humans,
giving there today state of being. Their clothes, appearance, silhouette, even
the metabolism or character is a result of environment adaptation. Today
mankind do not live in caves, trees or deep in nature. From the beginning
history of the cities, man lives built spaces and this is happening for several
thousand years. So now, the „natural” mankind environment is the built space
not the green one.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE BUILT SPACE OVER THE MANKIND IS AS

DEEP AND STRUCTURED LIKE THE ONE THAT SHAPED HIM TILL NOW

Like geographical or climate, natural environment that chiseled the human

kind, architecture refined a new man, architectural man, man of walls and
roads and windows, man of designed places, from his own private space to
what was once natural environment-designed parks and lakes.

Mankind is living today a space that is entirely designed, formed,

controlled by himself.

Even the organic or bionic approach of forms and concepts are controlled by
his mind. So is no surprise that man expects to control and predict everything,
from the day of birth till the day and way he'll die and he is surprised every
time when nature proves him that nothing can be really controllable or
predicted. Maybe this is the big task of mankind, to go beyond of his
addiction to control everything, to predict every happening and to reject what
is natural and free of control. This kind of control is, indeed, a great power
but it is also a weakness. Even the mathematicians that works with theories
of probabilities recognize that reality present and future has so many
changing variables that can't be foreseen. To believe that one have the
knowledge and the power to predict and control everything increase the fear
of unknown and the custom to have control gives inadaptability to new, and
changeable situations.

8
But let's not walk through the valley of speculations and let's keep the initial
path, of scientific research. What it can say for sure is now, unlike the early
years of human history, when natural environment was a given condition:

ARCHITECTURAL ENVIRONMENT IS CREATING THE MAN THAT CREATES IT.

Or...

BUILT SPACE SHAPE MAN AS MUCH AS HE SHAPES IT

New architecture which is building today, and I'm referring to parametric,

bionic, organic, leads the volumetric composition, specific putting in work of
materials and new housing paradigm to levels unimagined in an extraordinary
explosion which inspires. Moreover, the fact that Euclidean geometry is
replaced with hyperbolic geometry, with the fractal or other non-Euclidean
variants is a great leap in the history of architecture.

Fig. 4, Parametric architecture by Christoph-Hermann

Fig. 5 Bionic tower project

The dominance of the right angle, the prisms with regular faces and
Euclidean compositions assert the human reason dominance over nature.
Everything, even nature enter the ordered structure of the conceptions. On
the other hand the new architecture with non-Euclidean geometry seems to
declare something else: open dialogue with nature, the acceptance of the
characteristics of unexpected, changeable, her energy force and permanent

9
movement. The new architectural geometry expresses a new attitude of man
towards nature: respect, dialogue, harmony.
So new sets of paradigms impose in contemporary architecture, many of
which are also humanities. The problem about the stress caused by urban
spaces arises increasingly and studies about the psychological impact of the
built environment are more elaborate.
Psihéarhitecture is a concept that puts the spotlight on the human,
psychological, emotional and spiritual planes of architecture and tried to
outline what can also mean the beauty beyond the appearances, to help
humanize the architecture, on returning the Renaissance principles that put
the man not the form in center of the universe.
This book aim to present a point of view of an architect, about the profound
link between the architecture as complex structure and the very human mind
which interact with it. I will speak about the mental processes involved in the
perception of inner and outer constructed spaces and the implications of it,
the influence of architectural space upon the human psychological comfort.
Into the following pages, I shall introduce and define the term of
”psyhéarhitecture”, demonstrating the utility of this approach further
deepening of the design process.
The book has four main parts. First of all, I will discuss about space: the
meaning of inner and outer space, all complex mental processes of
perceiving, feeling and thinking about it, the mechanism of like-dislike in the
process of choosing a specific design. After that I present two types of
architecture that has an important impact. I introduce the term of ”narcissistic
architecture” - the architecture built for itself and not for the community- and
his influence. On the opposite pole there is ”healing architecture” - the
architecture that has an important contribution in the healing processes. I
made some short analysis on a few ”narcissistic” buildings from Bucharest
and, on the other pole, some hospitals which take into account the positive
influence of architecture over the inhabitants. After drawing the attention
about bright and dark side of architecture, I shall present conclusions of
scientific researches on the psychology and neuroscience about the
interaction between man and build environment. Also it will be presented
some other types of architecture that aim to use their influence on certain
aspects: schools design, psychiatric places, spaces for creative activities.
Those facts will generate analysis about the issue and psihéarchitecture
recommendations for architecture conception.

10
This book is designated for architects mainly, especially the young ones, to
educate in the spirit of humanity and science, for a better architecture that
have the same Vitruvian purposes, in a much more complex way:

 VETUSTAS- keep in mind also the beauty beyond the form, the beauty
that came from the non-material universe
 FIRMITAS - but not aggressive
 UTILITAS -
o to all layers of the human being not only physical
o for the community not only the beneficiary
And I want to add:
 COMFORTABLE: to all levels, designed for the human complexity,
trough mind, spirit, untill function, economical etc.
 HEALTHY - that's bring us to ECOLOGICAL a harmonious
dialogue with site, natural, constructed or human.

11