This essay was written by Kerri R Simpson (Me), please refrain from copying the body of this essay,references are given at the end.
Architectural Sexology:
Alpha, Omega and their space secretes
Alpha
– The first letter of the Greek ‘alpha’-bet, a word used to describe a male of
dominance, a prefix for many a words such as alphabetisation, alphanumerical, alpha-meric;
words that are used to assemble order. Symbolically represented as an angle
creating a peak, the universal ‘Α’ when caps are locked, adapting his self to a ‘α’
in his lowercase.
Omega
– The last letter of the Greek alphabet, a word used to describe the female,
the end, the death. However once her surface has been unrolled, her literal
meaning is the ‘Great O’. Then symbolically
represented by an ‘O’, with feet in her capital and a curvaceous petite ‘ω’ in her lowercase form.
Sex and sexuality a once taboo subject matter that
today is discussed freely among 21st century dwellers of all
hierarchy’s, becoming a common ice breaker between juveniles before performing
near public acts at their own discretions; with readily available contraceptive
methods provided by the economy schemes , creates a freedom for the multitude. Thirteen year old Alpha takes his C-Card to
his local clinic where he can obtain a selection of condoms at no charge, he
can only do this Three times a year but he does get Twelve condoms each time
meaning he could potentially have sex safely Thirty Six times a year, this is
not so bad considering it said that the average working couple have sex Two to
Five times a month.
However the key difference between lowercase alpha
and a working couple is that little alpha, although obtaining his free rubber,
he probably does not have a space that allows him to perform his sexual acts as
freely. Whereas our fully grown Alpha and Omega have a large dwelling of which
they have a form of ownership, allowing them to participate in activities how
and when they please.
This exploration poises the statement “Architectural
Sexology”, the above statement simply explores our ability to participate in
activities on a sexual or non-sexual level within a form of architecture. Architecture is a dictator of sexual
lifestyles as it can either provide a sexy boudoir or what is known to many
youngsters of the north today a ‘Halfway house’, being a multipurpose house
that is used by many at different times to engage in sexual activities,
determined by key holders.
The presence of these private or semi-private spaces
allow for sexual life’s to exists, thus showing the importance of sexual
lifestyles to define such spaces as private, semi-private and public.
There have been many discussions as to why and how
sexuality relates to architecture considering man and woman as an emotional
response to dwelling as well as the influence of the human aesthetic formation,
furthermore the architectural representation by a force trying to project its
power to society, a variation of theories relating to anthropomorphism.
Alpha body and Omega body
A key
important factor in our sexual lifestyles is the body, whether you love a
person more for their personality than their body; an instinctive reaction to
an attractive figure enhances the bond between the two persons.
The body is
frequently used as a resource throughout design disciplines, particularly and interestingly
used in building design as it creates a connection between the human and the
building beyond just interaction. Taking the way in which we describe an
architectural piece and the analogies we have assigned to the layers of the
structure as skeleton, skin and footing bares close reference to the human
body, this consideration is derivative from a theory by Ayn Rand in ‘the fountain head’ novel where he
portrays a male figure as the ideal man, embracing the common perception people
have on the role that male architects hold and their persistence in creating
what is deemed as masculinity.
The
character in the novel agrees with the principals of modernity that buildings
are generally masculine with the assertion of integrity supposedly just like
men, hence the anthropomorphism.
In addition
to this anthropomorphism, the construction of high rise buildings and the
prominent civic architecture are regarded as an emblem of power in a city
scape. The ideology stands that –
“without symmetry and proportions
there can be no design principles in any design of the temple; that is, if
there is no precise relation between its members as in the case of a
well-shaped man” (Iain Borden,
2003)
The male
body is deemed a perfect earthly creation, a body of immaculate proportion of
which should be used as a template for construction. The beauty of the male is
admired by females and males, a powerful form that again is regarded as
strength however having the ability to nurture its user, like a muscular Alpha
cradling his new born child. Creating a sense of protection, care, sensitivity
and homage; a place where the child can retreat to feel secure, the space in
terms of the distance between two objects or more, in this case the biceps and
the chest create a temple of retreat. Later in the young infant’s life, the
same ratio also becomes a temple of appreciation, with a prayer pattern of
embrace. Once the Omega sees such things she senses dominance and results in
fatal attraction of which she would have for no other alpha, another alpha may
see this as a threat or become envious due to the fathers well-shaped symmetry
and proportions, wanting to become like him. This sets a template for the
perfect man.
Renzo
Piano’s Shard, being the tallest building in the UK at 24 storeys high; is a
reflection of male dominance. The shape of the shard is a pyramid which unlike
other vertical towers, diminishes in floor space as you circulate to the peak
of the tower, a shape which is also deemed as a hierarchal shape that once you
reach the top you are the most powerful. This brings me back to the ironic
shape of the Alpha symbol the ‘A’ which coincidentally holds the same
formation. Furthermore the Shard is constructed with concrete, glass reflecting
the weather, at most times appearing to be a transparent centre point and a
steal frame having the confidence to be different along the London skyline. The
Shard has masculine virtue of ratio, size and quality, but it could also be
taken as a homosexual due to its un-conformed nature.
In contrast
to Renzo’s poetic response to masculinity, Le Corbusier ‘Modulor’ explores
mathematical proportions of a six foot
able bodied white man, then used his findings to improve the appearance as well
as function of architecture.
“…Range of harmonious
measurements to suit the human scale, universally applicable to architecture
and the mechanical things”
Masculine
architecture in all aspects from the geometric to the symbolic is defined by
orientation and its association with architectural elements. Vertical elements have an association with
the masculine and the astronomical, where horizontal elements are seen as
earthly and feminine.
Femininity
in architecture is based more on its curvilinear features, like the male it has
its own poetic and geometric make up, however its connotations are generally defined
by the male.
For example,
females are pressured to have a certain appearance, they come in all different
shapes and sizes, more variant than that of the male. Yet femininity is defined
by curvilinear form, not all females are as curvaceous as another, the
percentage of sex appeal of a curvaceous figure is equated by the analysis of
breast, buttocks and hips. A proportion is required among many men for a woman
to be visually stimulating, encouraging the need for exploration; this is a
reflection of its femininity in architecture in its geometric sense.
Le
Corbusier’s visit to Rio in 1929 reflects just this theory, after having an
affair with a jazz singer Miss Josephine Baker; he becomes engrossed in the
beauty of Brazilian women. The architect develops a sketchbook of Mulatas from
clothed to naked, being obsessed with these women he brings his new found
interest into an architectural piece developing a plan for Rio that consists of
sinuosity and overt landscape to sea expressing the beauty the city has to
offer. The attempt to explore his sexuality in architecture with his curvaceous
mega structure is an opportunity he may not have had in Europe, a freely exotic
exploration he obtained in Brazil.
Vitruvius-
“In the invention of two types of columns, they
borrowed the manly beauty, naked and unadorned for the one, and for the other
the delicacy, adornment and proportions characteristics of women”
Vitruvius
associates ornamented surfaces with femininity, describing the common Doric column
(template) of strength, solidifying and being beautiful. Discussing how the Doric
column can mutate into a female form thus the Corinthian column becoming
slimmer and elegant with attributes of nature replicating locks of hair.
Similar to how Eve the daughter of the Christian God became a being from the
single rib of Adam in Genesis 2:21-23, not to be over shadowed by Adam but to
be of equal importance having the same value but a different form.
The idea of
feminine ornament in architecture allowed the buildings to become attractive to
the eye instead of being a mere vernacular form, diverting ones perception from
the internal order by way of decorative natures poising a distraction from
reality. In relation to decorative natures representing femininity comes the
textures or materials used, for instance a masculine natured building is
defined by its rigidity, coldness and crystalline nature like that of a igneous
extruded rock whereas a female the Omega is perceived to be soft, timid and
subtle baring relative to membranes, floral and
internal furnishings.
Habitual Alpha and Omega
Habitual
alpha and omega are known as man and
woman living in co-existence like that of Adam and Eve , how male and female
interact with a space given, how space is defined by sexual interactions in the
literal and the figurative, the impact of architectural configurations of
public, private and semi-private on relationships between people .
The
politics to such situations are defined as ‘Sexpol’ since the 1920’s discussed
in books such as ‘The Sexual Revolution’ by Freudian Wilhelm Reich conversing
the ability to control and regulate sexual activities in the places we interact
with such as a University, a home or the doctors surgery. He explores
positioning and separation of rooms, the situ of certain walls to instil a political
force upon society relating to the USSR communist conformity.
Freud the
psychoanalytic took 2oth century Vienna as his case study working with the
bourgeois from whom he himself derived, a small minority that had the same
habitual attitude, releasing the repression and assumptions about the
prohibition of sexuality in the bourgeois society. In Vienna a city where
gender roles are clearly distinguishable as female being the labourer of
domestic life and the barer of children, this policy fuelled his exploration as
a large fraction of Freud male clients had their first sexual experience with
domestic servants, furthermore the exclusive public spaces in the city which
allow the development of sexual relationships of the bourgeois society and further
the indulgence in sexuality, noting the availability of sex to the extent that
it could be purchased ; yet still having a need to keep it hidden away or to be
a taboo.
This is a
key example of the sexual tension between private and public sexuality
demonstrating repression, although being
available in the ‘public’ on streets in the form of prostitution as pointed out
by like-minded poet Zweig as ‘ at every hour and at every price’. Being so
readily available in the current climates of the public streets and the built
environment however it is still denied socially. Although Reich discusses
spaces, the spaces are rarely named as definitive names but mostly as just
space, the in-between.
Referring
back to little alpha and his free condoms, through Freud’s theory, the boy
should have the ‘freedom from sexual oppression’ which would be ‘meaningless
without the freedom from economic, i.e. that sexual freedom is a condition of
communism and vice versa.’ Reich wrote a book aimed at eight to twelve year olds,
entitled ‘The Sexual Struggle of Youth’ at an attempt to begin the overturn of
sexual division becoming socialistic.
Using the
Constructivist Architectural Sexpol theory, where people such as Leonard
Sabsovich who tried to be implement the idea of the ‘Dom Kommuny’ also known as
house-collectives, the methodology of construction was to encourage a change in
the form of sexual relations. The intention to diminish marital status exposes its
dwellers to become potential bachelors, wives and playmates; leaving the possibility
for couples to be parted by the portioning of space via sliding walls. Such
walls are a reminder of blinds in the glass communal house that can be lowered
for as they say “Sexy time”, with a permission slip one has the ability to
engage in sexual relations with another. This opens up space for V mayakovsky
like threesomes becoming a masculine revolutionary and liberation in sexuality.
Therefore
leaving the structures to structure the inhabited and embodied space, defining
sexual identities, “logic derived from
common set of conditions of existence to regulate practice of a set of individuals
in common response to those conditions” (Outline of a Theory of Practice
81). The habitants of the architecture
is conditioned, distinguishing genders
via the distribution of bodies in space and being a democracy from the alpha and omega bodies in space; a
variation in the flow through the building as a male or a female. The distinct
flow is worked by partitioning or variation in floor levels to maintain social
hierarchy and distinctions.
An example
of this in use, in line with the discussion is the Schindler’s House. Located
in a reclusive Hollywood suburb, away from view of the road while it kinkily
reveals itself in sections; it is a collection of interlocking L- shapes
composed of concrete and wood incorporated with views to the garden. Deemed as a co-operative dwelling, it is an
open house design for two couples, Rudolph Schindlers and his wife Pauline and
their close friends Marian and Clyde Chace. Such arrangements may lead to
adultery in both marriages, although flirtation in this environment is clear,
it would be ok to assume that there would be a possibility for a more fluid
sexual relation in the design. Instead of being a successful arrangement, it
was actually a project fail as the Chase’s moved out in 1925 after three years
and the Schindlers went their separate ways in 1926.
The house
of Schindler perceives sex as the pinnacle aspect of life, encouraging sexual
encounters not as a XXX situation but an opportunity to be open about sexual
habits, a methodology that USSR adopted in order to create communal living
which instead of becoming more sexually fluid, it became tense and sexless
breaking down the relationships between Alpha and Omega resulting in the need
for privatisation for such acts through Architecture.
Sex is Sex Conclusion
The Alpha
no matter how it is portrayed, whether he be a boy or a man he can do as he
please whenever he please, alpha dares to explore his sexuality publicly,
semi-publicly or privately. Flaunting his form as a result of his perfectly
assembled structure, his vertical nature combined with his rigidity and
coolness; he is the political key holder of power architecturally due to his
role as a functional building and a dictator of sexual interaction due to his
ability to create and divide socialist spaces. Even when he dares to differ
from normalcy he still finds his way of creating that emblem of power, control
and leadership; he is responsible for defining femininity and provided the
template for femininity.
Femininity
seem to come second to Alpha, she is the lady and the woman however she hardly gets the opportunity to
show it accordingly, knowing she has derived from Alpha she has no choice but
to be sexualised due its opposing nature, “ if it isn’t straight it is curved”,
she has sinuosity that no man could naturally achieve . Her femininity even as
a labourer or a prostitute is powerful force in itself, the way she takes over
the Doric column and makes it her own, the way she uses the vertical planes to
provide public space to seek victims that she allows in her private domain; this
displays her area of control, the ability to entice the alpha to adapt slightly
as an encouragement to break down conformity.
The Schindlers
house not being a completely successful in its experimentation, shows that more
than one man and one woman in the same dwelling with minimal, what we deem as
‘privacy’ cannot be achieved; primarily because it is too open of a situation
where the relationship between Alpha and Omega is no longer exclusive. This
then becomes a sexpot with no differentiation between mine and yours, right or
wrongs, husband and wife. In theory the building is semi-public as relationships
diminish between parties and there are no privatised areas, with no single
ownership over an entire area. Spaces only defined by removal of walls means
that a space cannot be defined hence the reason Reich could never define or
name spaces.
Concluding
there can only be one Alpha and one Omega, the two works in harmony, the
situation sees that the two may co-exist in private but may not co-exist in constant
publicity.
Anything else in my opinion is crude sexuality
that holds no bounds for existence, with no real powerful influence on
infrastructure or structure. Love conquers all.
Bibliography
Corbusier, L. (2004). Le Corbusier. Princeton
Architectural Press.
Farrar, S. a. (1969). The sexual Revolution. New
York.
Hatherly, O. (2008). Militant Modernism. John
Hunt publishing.
Iain Borden, B. P. (2003). Gender Space
Architecture: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Taylor & Francis
e-library.
Lico, G. R. (n.d.). Architecture and sexuality. The
politics of Gendered Space, pp. 30-44.
Sanders, J. (1996). Stud Architctures of
Masculinity. Princton Architectural press.
Schindler, R. (1932). A Co-operative Dwelling.
T-Square.
Williams, D. R. (n.d.). Sexuality,Space And the
Architectural Project. : A Privisonal History, pp. 1-14.
Works Cited
Corbusier, L. (2004). Le Corbusier.
Princeton Architectural Press.
Farrar, S. a. (1969). The sexual Revolution. New
York.
Hatherly, O. (2008). Militant Modernism.
John Hunt publishing.
Iain Borden, B. P. (2003). Gender Space
Architecture: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Taylor & Francis
e-library.
Lico, G. R. (n.d.). Architecture and sexuality. The
politics of Gendered Space, pp. 30-44.
Sanders, J. (1996). Stud Architctures of
Masculinity. Princton Architectural press.
Schindler, R. (1932). A Co-operative Dwelling.
T-Square.
Williams, D. R. (n.d.). Sexuality,Space And the
Architectural Project. : A Privisonal History, pp. 1-14.
© 2013 Kerri Rochelle Simpson copyright
All rights reserved
