Latest / Soft Ratios Research / Intimacy draws its own architecture (on The Poetics of Space)

Transcript

Intimacy draws its own architecture (on The Poetics of Space) · Soft Ratios Research

• 0:09
  Figure: Soft Ratios Research.
• 0:12
  Ground: The voices are synthetic [pause] no act, just the thinking.
• 0:19
  Figure: Hoyd Breton, a designer at Soft Ratios Studio, teaching himself in the open [pause] which works better with a reply. [pause] If this is interesting, write a review with your thoughts.
• 0:31
  Ground: One subject at a time, twice a week [pause] Tuesday and Thursday. [pause] Today, The Poetics of Space.
• 0:39
  Figure: Here's the paradox to start with. There's a book that turns up on the syllabus of nearly every architecture school. It sits next to the courses on structures and materials. Students underline it, argue about it, carry it for decades. And it is not, in any ordinary sense, a book about architecture.
• 0:57
  Ground: Then what is it about?
• 0:58
  Figure: A retired philosopher of science, sitting alone with images. The house. A drawer. A bird's nest, a seashell, a corner of a room. He isn't asking what a house is. He's asking what happens inside you when a poet simply says the word house — what the word does to you when it lands.
• 1:20
  Ground: And the strange part is who adopted it. The people who actually shape space — Norberg-Schulz, Pallasmaa, Steven Holl. A novelist too: Danielewski's House of Leaves drew on it. People who make space reached for a book that refuses to tell them how to make anything.
• 1:41
  Figure: Not one rule in it. No proportion, no plan, nothing you could draw from. So the first thing we should do is figure out why a book with no instructions became required reading for the people whose whole job is instructions.
• 1:54
  Ground: Who is he, before he's a citation on a reading list?
• 1:58
  Figure: Gaston Bachelard. Born in 1884 in a Champagne town, into a family of shoemakers. A postal-telegraph clerk who taught himself physics, three years in the trenches of the First World War, and eventually the chair of the history and philosophy of science at the Sorbonne. Joan Ockman says he was reputed to read six books a day — twenty-three of his own by the time he died. And half of those are hard, cold epistemology. Beginning in his fifties, while still writing epistemology, he opened a second front: fire, water, air, earth, and eventually poetic space. He continued to call science and poetry opposed, though later scholars increasingly read them as complementary parts of one anti-Cartesian project.
• 2:48
  Ground: So the same man who spent thirty years teaching people to scrub feeling out of science writes a book that is nothing but feeling.
• 2:58
  Figure: That's the split people name the two Bachelards. Dominique Lecourt gave it the shape — the day philosopher and the night philosopher, the scientist and the dreamer, opposed like daylight and dark. And Bachelard fed the story himself. He said the axes of poetry and science are opposed from the very outset.
• 3:17
  Ground: I don't buy the clean break. A man doesn't split into two people in middle age. What if it's one project the whole time, just wearing two different coats?
• 3:27
  Figure: The strongest reading is on your side, more or less. In the science, his great quarry was what he called the epistemological obstacle — the unconscious, prescientific structures inside thought, often affective or imagistic, that block knowledge. In the poems he goes hunting the same thing. The image inside the word. Except now he doesn't want to purge it. He wants to keep it. Same object, opposite verdict.
• 3:55
  Ground: So it's not two men. It's one man giving the image opposite jobs — purging its obstacles in science, preserving its novelty in poetry.
• 4:05
  Figure: That's the spine. And it means the method is the thing to get right. So — how does he actually read? He gives it a name. Topoanalysis. [pause] He frames it as a companion to psychoanalysis. But where the analyst lays you out on the axis of time — dates, childhood, the wound — topoanalysis lays out the places. The rooms of your intimate life. And crucially, not surveyed rooms. Not floor plans. Dreamed ones, remembered ones, the ones you read in a poem.
• 4:36
  Ground: The house you grew up in, but as you carry it now — not as it actually stood.
• 4:41
  Figure: And the first thing he throws overboard is cause. This is the scientist committing a small heresy. He says the poetic image is not an echo of the past — it has, in his phrase, a direct ontology. It doesn't come from anywhere prior. To explain a flower, he says, people reach for the fertilizer. He refuses. The flower is the fact.
• 5:04
  Ground: Which is a strange thing to say out loud. Everything comes from somewhere.
• 5:09
  Figure: For the analyst, absolutely. The image is a symptom — it always means something other than itself, a caricature of the psyche you decode back down to a drive. And Bachelard had done exactly that himself, years earlier, on the poet Lautréamont — reconstructed the man from his complexes. Colette Gaudin points out that he then renounces it flat. He refuses to go digging for the sexual sources anymore. The image is an origin now, not a clue.
• 5:38
  Ground: Alright — if it doesn't come from my past, how does it reach me? What's the actual mechanism? Something crosses from the page into me.
• 5:48
  Figure: He borrows the word from a psychiatrist. Eugène Minkowski, a 1936 book called Vers une cosmologie. The word is retentissement — reverberation. And Bachelard sets it against a near-twin that sounds almost the same: resonance. [pause] Resonance is horizontal. An image spreads sideways across your life — it touches this memory, that mood, fans out along the planes of who you already are. Reverberation goes straight down. In resonance, he says, you hear the poem. In reverberation you speak it — it becomes yours, as though you had written it. And that deeper one, he says, brings about a change of being.
• 6:37
  Ground: Give me Minkowski's pictures, because he stole two of them. [pause] The first is a spring welling up inside a sealed vase. The water rises, the waves hit the walls, echo back, and fill the whole vase with sound. Nothing gets in, nothing gets out — the sound is entirely interior. And the second: a hunting horn sounds, and the echo runs out through a forest until the tiniest leaf, the tiniest wisp of moss, shudders with it. One note, and the whole wood becomes a vibrating, sounding thing. [pause] That's what a good line of poetry does to you. It doesn't inform you. It makes the leaves move.
• 7:25
  Figure: And notice exactly what those pictures buy him. The picture doesn't ask us to reconstruct the causal chain. It foregrounds the forest's shared vibration — the image's effect, without reducing that effect to an explanation by what came before. The forest just… participates. That's the whole appeal of the word. It lets him describe an image taking you over without ever having to say what caused what.
• 7:53
  Figure: And here is where the scientist in me digs in his heels. Because if there's no cause, there's no test. Anything can reverberate. You can never be wrong. He hands you a poem, you feel the shudder or you don't, and either way the method comes out clean. That isn't a method. That's a permission slip with no failure condition.
• 8:13
  Ground: Then it isn't a scientific method. Edward Casey calls topoanalysis less a method than an attitude. Bachelard never once claimed he was doing science in this book. He says the philosopher of science has to forget his learning to practice it. Unlearn.
• 8:34
  Figure: I'll grant him that. He's not smuggling. He tells you at the door that he's walked out of the lab. So my worry isn't dishonesty — it's reach. He describes the house, one house, everybody's house, from a narrow, overwhelmingly French and Francophone archive of lyric poetry, deliberately mixing minor poets with major ones, and calls it the house of mankind. The archive is tiny and the claim is universal.
• 9:00
  Ground: Hold that thought — I want to come back to whose house it is. But let him build the thing first. Walk me up through it. Cellar to attic.
• 9:09
  Figure: The house has an axis, top to bottom, and the two ends are two kinds of mind. Go up into the attic and you're in daylight logic — you can see the beams, the pitch of the roof, the carpentry that holds off the rain. Fears get rationalized up there, because you can see how the thing is made. [pause] Go down into the cellar and the walls are buried walls — his phrase. Earth on the far side, no window, the irrational packed in tight around you. Same house. One roof of reason, one floor of dream, and you living on the stairs between them. [pause] And he says the house you were born in is physically inscribed in you. A set of reflexes so deep they've gone into the body — the exact turn of one particular staircase, a threshold your feet still know.
• 9:58
  Ground: Everyone has that staircase. You could walk it in the pitch dark forty years later and not miss a step.
• 10:04
  Figure: And the house does one job above all the others. It shelters daydreaming. It lets you dream in peace. Not comfort, exactly — permission. A place where reverie is safe enough to happen.
• 10:18
  Ground: And reverie's the word it all hangs on — and it is not dreaming. He's strict about the line. The night dream — the one that happens to you, where you dissolve and lose the wheel — that's not it. [pause] Reverie is the waking daydream. You keep the light on. You're conscious, you're steering, you're a little luminous. There is no well-being, he says, without reverie. It isn't escape from the world. It's a room you enter on purpose.
• 10:50
  Figure: And from the house he goes smaller — into the furniture of intimacy. The drawer, the chest, the wardrobe. A house hidden inside a box, he says: you open a casket and find a whole dwelling folded up in it. And then he goes into the corner.
• 11:07
  Ground: The corner. Which everyone treats as dead space.
• 11:11
  Figure: He calls every corner a symbol of solitude. You back into one and the room falls away — you go immobile, hidden, small. And then the line that turns it over: the corner, he says, is the germ of a room — or of a house. The smallest possible architecture of withdrawal, with an entire dwelling coiled up inside it.
• 11:34
  Ground: This is the chapter I keep with me. The miniature. He writes — the cleverer I am at miniaturizing the world, the better I possess it. Shrink a thing and you don't lose it, you own it more completely. [pause] Picture a child bent over a dollhouse. Or anyone leaning into something tiny and made — a model, a carved figure, a little painted scene. You go still. You lean in. The whole of you pours through a small opening, and on the far side the small thing opens back out onto something enormous. Scale flips. The tiny becomes the way in to the immense.
• 12:18
  Figure: And oddly, that isn't only poetry. There's an experiment. Alton DeLong, 1981, in the journal Science. He had subjects imagine themselves inside scale-model environments — including a room at one-sixth scale — and signal when they felt half an hour had passed. The smaller the model, the faster their inner clock ran. Time compressed, roughly in the same ratio as the shrink.
• 12:45
  Ground: So the leaning-in is real. The world got smaller and denser, and your engagement sped up to match it.
• 12:52
  Figure: Careful, though — a later replication found the effect much weaker, non-linear, and they thought it was information density doing the work, not scale as such. But directionally, yes. Bending over the small world measurably changes how you sit inside time. Bachelard felt it. They put a number on the edge of it. [pause] And then the book ends somewhere you would never guess. Not at a house at all. At roundness. The last chapter is built on a line from Karl Jaspers — das Dasein ist rund. Being is round.
• 13:28
  Ground: Round how? A person isn't a ball.
• 13:30
  Figure: When you gather yourself — really collect yourself, feel yourself whole and centered, not reaching outward — the shape of that state is round. Self-contained, no edge pointing away. And he stacks up witnesses for it. Van Gogh in a letter: life is probably round. And Joë Bousquet, independently: he'd been told that life was beautiful. No! Life is round. Michelet describing a bird as almost completely spherical. And Bachelard says: drop the almost, and you have round being itself.
• 14:08
  Ground: He edits the bird.
• 14:10
  Figure: He edits everyone. He does it to Jaspers too, openly — he shortens every being seems in itself round to being is round, explaining that he wants to remove the gap between seeming and being. Just: round.
• 14:26
  Ground: And I want to defend the bird here, because being is round sounds like nonsense right up until you've felt it. There's a state — sometimes, rarely — where you're not straining toward the next thing, not leaning out at all, and you sort of close over. Curl in. [pause] A bird on a branch really does look spherical when it's at rest and afraid of nothing. He isn't making an argument you could refute. He's naming a posture of the soul and saying: here — this is its shape. And once he's named it, you can't unfeel it.
• 15:07
  Figure: Which is exactly the move that needs testing against its opposites. And he has two great opposites. The first is sharp, because it's a straight inversion. Jean-Paul Sartre. [pause] Sartre, 1940, L'imaginaire. For Sartre, to imagine is to nihilate — his word, néantisation. When you picture something, you posit it as not here. Absent, elsewhere, nonexistent. Imagine a friend who's out of the room and you've just introduced a hole, a nothing, into the world. [pause] So imagining, for him, is a withdrawal from being. To imagine, he says, is to absent oneself. It empties the world by one thing.
• 15:52
  Ground: And Bachelard runs it in reverse.
• 15:55
  Figure: Dead reverse. For Bachelard the poetic image is a leap toward a new life. It doesn't subtract from the world, it adds — the imagination, he says, augments the values of reality. Same faculty, opposite sign. For Sartre, imagining empties. For Bachelard, imagining fills.
• 16:15
  Ground: Did the two of them ever actually meet on the page?
• 16:19
  Figure: Pointedly, in Being and Nothingness, Sartre stops to praise Bachelard's material imagination — the psychoanalysis of things — and then objects. He says Bachelard reads water, the substance itself, as if it were simply out there, objective, without ever tracing it back to the subject doing the dreaming. Sartre wants the thing referred back to a human freedom.
• 16:42
  Ground: Which is funny, because that's Bachelard's whole complaint about Sartre, run the other direction. One of them can't stop turning toward the world; the other can't stop turning toward the nothing inside the self.
• 16:54
  Figure: And the second foil is the one he never names at all. Heidegger. [pause] Almost the same years. Bachelard's rustic house in Champagne, 1957. [pause] Heidegger's two dwelling lectures, 1951 — Building Dwelling Thinking, and one whose title is lifted straight from Hölderlin, poetically man dwells. The Black Forest hut. [pause] Both men set a sheltering, gathering house against a flattening modern world. From across the room they look like they're doing the identical thing.
• 17:27
  Ground: But the two houses don't feel remotely alike.
• 17:31
  Figure: No — and it's the mood that splits them clean. Bachelard's house is felicitous. His own term, espace heureux, happy space. Protection, intimacy, well-being, roundness. Heidegger's man is thrown — Geworfenheit, delivered into a world he never chose — and at the root of it, not-at-home. Unheimlichkeit. Uncanny. In dread the ordinary house goes strange, and you feel you were never really housed at all.
• 18:04
  Ground: One says the house holds you. The other says you were never held.
• 18:10
  Figure: And Bachelard never mentions him. Not once in the entire book. Readers have wondered whether that silence is partly political — 1957, and the German philosopher's record in the war. But whatever the reason, he simply declines to engage the darker account. And I'll be honest — the darker account looks more grown-up. Thrownness, dread, the not-at-home. That reads as the serious position. Bachelard's happy house can look like a man who chose not to notice the twentieth century.
• 18:42
  Ground: Or it's the braver one. It's easy to treat thrownness, dread, and existential not-being-at-home as automatically more serious — and to flatter yourself as tough enough to face them. [pause] It's much harder to sit with someone and say: no. There was a house. There was a corner you folded into. You were once held, and that holding is every bit as real as any dread. He brackets the hostile space on purpose — he tells you he's only studying the space we love. That's not blindness. That's a decision about where to point the light.
• 19:19
  Figure: A decision with a bill attached, though. Which is where the critics come in.
• 19:23
  Ground: And this is my loop from earlier. Whose house is it?
• 19:28
  Figure: Iris Marion Young asks it hardest. The felicitous house shelters the dreamer — but somebody keeps that house standing. The intimacy runs on invisible labor. Reading Beauvoir and Irigaray, she argues the comfort and support of home have historically come at women's expense — women serve and maintain so that men and children get the confidence and the room to go make their mark on the world. Bachelard's dreamer is tacitly the one being sheltered. The man in the corner. Not the woman who cleaned it.
• 20:01
  Ground: And that lands hard. He never once asks who lit the hearth he's dreaming beside. [pause] But here's what I didn't see coming from Young. She doesn't burn the house down. Beauvoir had called housework the torture of Sisyphus — immanence, the endless repeat that makes nothing, only holds the present in place. [pause] Young says: don't throw the whole thing out with that. She pulls one word back out of the fire — preservation. Keeping a relationship. Caring for people and the things around them. Holding a life's meanings so they carry forward into the next day, the next generation. That's not nothing. That's a real act, a dignified one, the thing that keeps a culture continuous at all. [pause] So she rescues exactly what Bachelard felt — that the house matters enormously — but she puts a body and a name back inside it. The one who does the sheltering, standing right next to the one who gets to dream.
• 21:14
  Figure: Which is the strongest kind of critique there is. It doesn't say he's wrong that the house is precious. It says he only ever stood on one side of the door. The other big objection is Henri Lefebvre, and it's structural. Space, he says, isn't merely dreamed — it's socially produced by money, labor, and the relations of a whole society. [pause] And he catches Bachelard giving the house what he calls an almost ontological dignity — drawers and chests treated as if they were nature itself, the dwelling made quasi-sacred. Lefebvre was among the first to pair Bachelard with Heidegger and name what they share underneath: nostalgia. A longing for a rooted rural house that the modern city had already dissolved.
• 22:00
  Ground: And Bachelard walks right into that one. He can't stand apartments.
• 22:05
  Figure: He really can't. The big-city building, he says, lacks cosmicity. The rooms are superimposed boxes — no roots, no space around them, the whole relation to the world gone mechanical and artificial. Which quietly tells you which house he means all along: detached, ancestral, with a cellar and an attic — a bourgeois model that excludes vast numbers of people living in apartments, tenancy, precarity, or homelessness.
• 22:35
  Ground: And it's 1957. France is deep in Algeria, in decolonization — real space being fought over and bled for — and he's writing timeless reverie by the fireside.
• 22:50
  Figure: Foucault more or less says he begins where Bachelard leaves off. He credits him, generously — Bachelard mapped the inside, the dreamed space charged with light and shadow. And then Foucault turns to the outside: space as a field of relations and power, real sites that contest and invert each other. Heterotopias, not nests.
• 23:13
  Ground: So do the critics win? Is the book a beautiful mistake?
• 23:18
  Figure: I don't think they win. I think they finish it. Every one of them — Young, Lefebvre, Foucault — needs the inside he described in order to have something to push off from. You can't produce space, or contest it, or ask who cleans it, until somebody has named what it feels like to be held by a room. He drew the felt map. They drew the power map on top of it.
• 23:41
  Ground: So what survives, once you stop demanding it be about architecture?
• 23:46
  Figure: The one thing nothing else gives you — a vocabulary. Words for qualities a blueprint physically can't hold. Intimacy. Cosmicity. Felicity. Roundness. The verticality of cellar and attic. Refuge. When he says a corner is the germ of a room, he's named a real, felt thing — the pull of an alcove, a window seat, a small enclosed volume — that you would otherwise have no name for at all.
• 24:12
  Ground: And the one line I'd keep above the rest: inhabited space transcends geometrical space. A room is not its dimensions. It's how it'll be dreamed, and used, and returned to. You can measure a place down to the millimeter and know nothing about it.
• 24:31
  Figure: Which is the quiet revenge of the night philosopher on the day one. The man who spent thirty years making knowledge precise ends by insisting that the most important thing about a room is the one thing you can't measure.
• 24:45
  Ground: Maybe that's why the architects held onto it. Not for rules. For the reminder that the drawing is never the dwelling.
• 24:53
  Figure: The tension never actually resolves, though — I want to be straight about that. He never proves a word of it. No test, no data, no cause. I said it at the top and it's still true here at the bottom: reverberation can't be falsified. And people have carried the book for nearly seventy years anyway.
• 25:11
  Ground: Because it does the very thing it describes. You read the line about the buried walls of the cellar, and something in you shudders like the leaf in the forest. The proof is the shudder. And that's either everything or nothing, depending on which of us you ask.
• 25:29
  Figure: Which is the honest place to stop. Two ledgers that won't reconcile. One says: it can't be shown. The other says: it's already happened to you.
• 25:38
  Ground: A book that gives no rules, about a house nobody lives in — and everyone who opens it recognizes the house.
• 25:47
  Ground: The house you grew up in — when it comes back to you, the turn of a stair, a corner you used to fold into — are you remembering a place that was, or making one, fresh, that never quite existed?