< terug

Reverse Perspective

ADO ‘on Reverse Perspective’ / Maig34
Studio Wim Goes
Academic year 2021-22, semester 3, Ghent
Engagement: Mediating Tactics

Image: Tarkovsky / Ando

Quote

“What is landscape? Is it the familiar view from the window, the unknown streets of the neighbourhood, or is it the sublime beauty of nature, the wilderness of the jungle?  Wherever we find our definitions, landscapes exist at the opposite ends of perspective – from a very personal space, where we attach meaning, context, derive safety, and aspects of identity, to the often-compulsive apprehension of the unknow, in views of wilderness.”

Watts, E, (2012). Images in a Meta Landscape – The work of Ng Sai Kit, Klock, Hong Kong

Studio assignment

How to be at the opposite ends of perspective?

How to involve personal space, meaning, context, aspects of identity, the unknown, …?

We start from references. Something speaks, depth invites, elements unfold…

Does something motivate us to measure depth and to set relations?

Can we unframe elements of reverse perspective?

This re-search results in an intermedium workpiece using such an element.

From this intermedium workpiece we question how it could relate to an architectural context/landscape (see below).

Let’s make an architectural proposal from the opposite end.
The student can choose in between an individual workpiece designing a ‘refuge’ (to sleep, protected from natural elements) or a groupwork designing a ‘community space’ (to gather, to prepare food, to dine, to celebrate,…), integrated in nature.

During the studio we interact with the elective ‘Art & Architecture’*.

(*Sometimes we share sessions with the elective on Friday morning. If possible, please keep your Friday morning free from other assignments when choosing the studio!)

The cross sessions are organized between Sint-Lucas Architecture and LUCA School of arts.
Architects and artist meet and discuss.
Architect Wim Goes, philosopher Dr. Volkmar Muhleis and guests will lecture.
We will present our book Reverse Perspective with contributions of Volkmar Mühleis, Clemena Antonova and Wim Goes.

architectural context/landscape

The site is in Luxemburg (Belgium).
What used to be the garden of a castle
Overtaken/overgrown by nature
Mystical elements define the site, traces of cultivation and culture
View on the valley

We will visit the site together to inhale its atmosphere, to search and re-search.

The site will ‘form’ the dissolution and disintegration of the architectural proposal as it becomes a part of the context itself (how it appears / disappears).
Landscape feeds the proposal
Landscape feeds upon the proposal

Outcome

Working model site

Intermedium workpiece
Drawing / model

Architectural proposal
Drawing / model

Working on a publication

Working on an exhibition?
Cross session with elective Art and Architecture

Jury
With guests

Activities (adjustable timing / to discuss)

W1 Introduction (ref. / who – why?)
W X (to agree with students): site visit (weather conditions?)
W 4 Presentation chosen element of RP
W 7 Intermedium work: jury
W13 Exhibition: intermedium work
W14 Final jury

Research question

As part of the elective
We focus on the relation of image and architecture to establish presence, not via linear perspective, but elements of Reverse Perspective as professor C. Antonova described. We do a practical test, before there is a theory. First engagement of the studio forms the exploration of the relation between icons and orthodox architecture in the horizon of the study of Antonova (I), second the relation of images configured by Reverse Perspective and architecture in general (II), as in cubism or recent paintings of David Hockney in comparison with possible architectural responses. This means we also have to explore by design: the relation of image/representation and architecture/presence (III) and the difference between a secular, historical (modernist and contemporary) understanding of Reverse Perspective and its orthodox, ongoing history (IV).

As part of the studio Reverse Perspective
Within a contemporary context we recognize elements of Reverse Perspective in Architecture.
We name them through the medium of drawing/model.
We test in practice its potentiality to establish presence.
We group the elements and rename them.
We search and re-search.
We re-search by practice.
We practice and re-practice.
We come to architecture by the play of making and designing.

About

At a very early stage the practicing architect Wim Goes was confronted with contemporary art. Meeting and discussing with artists and art curators changed his vision on the position of people in and towards art and architecture, a position allowing the human presence to complete the art and architectural work.
Exhibitions, lectures, … ‘on Reverse Perspective’ to find on the website of the office:
www.wimgoesarchitectuur.be

Network:

School of Architecture, dr. Sam Kebbel and associate dr. Mark Southcombe, Victoria University of Wellington

Vienna University, Clemena Antonova, Research Director of the “Eurasia in Global Dialogue” programme, Institute for the Human Sciences, Vienna

LUCA School of Arts, dr. Volkmar Muhleis, campus Sint-Lucas Gent and Brussel

Bibliography

Books/

Mühleis V., Goes W., Antonova C. (2020), Reverse Perspective. Ghent: Grafische Cel

Alberti, L. B. (2004). On Painting. London: Penguin Books

Antonova, C. (2010). Space, Time and Presence in the Icon: Seeing the World with the Eyes of God. Farnham: Ashgate

Aureli, P. V., Giudici, M. S. (eds.) (2016). Rituals and Walls: The Architecture of Sacred Space. London: AA Publications

Damisch. H. (2000). The origin of perspective. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press

Florensky, P. (2002). Beyond Vision: Essays on the Perception of Art. London: Reaktion Books Ltd

Gombrich, E. H. (2002) Art & Illusion: A study in the psychology of pictorial representation. London: Phaidon

Huylebrouck, D. (2016). Mathematics and popular painting in Congo. In Cueppens, B., and Baloji, S. (eds.) Congo Art Works (pp. 86 – 105) Lannoo: Africa Museum Tervuren;

Kuma, K. (2008). Anti-Object: The dissolution and disintegration of architecture. London: AA Publications

Pallasmaa. J. (2012). The Eyes of the skin: Architecture and the senses. West Sussex: Wiley

Panofsky, E. (1997). Perspective as Symbolic Form. New York: Zone books

Tarkovsky, A. (1988). Sculpting in Time: Reflections on the Cinema. University of Texas Press

Articles/

Antonova, C. (2010). On the Problem of “Reverse Perspective”: Definitions East and West. Leonardo. Vol. 43, No. 5. pp. 464-469

Avci, O. (July 2015). Rethinking architectural perspective through reverse perspective in orthodox Christian iconography. A|Z ITU Vol. 12. No. 2. pp. 159-171.

Huylebrouck, D. (2016). Reverse Fishbone Perspective. FME Transactions. Vol. 45, No. 2. pp. 209 – 214

Marcikic, I., Paunovic, M. (2017). Inverse perspective in Cézanne’s art. FME Transactions. Vol. 45. No.2. pp. 301-306.

Rowe, C., Slutzky, R. (1963) Transparency: Literal and Phenomenal. Perspecta. Vol. 8, pp. 45-54

Studio description as pdf.