For me, phenomenology as described in these articles ultimately is the delicate balance between a person, their senses, and the architecture to form a relationship and connection with the architecture. From Dalibor Vesely’s On the Relevance of phenomenology, he describes it as “an attempt to understand from the inside – and not to dismiss or criticize from the outside, the whole spectrum of the current experience which we generally call reality”. While Martin Heideggar stated it as a “movement that contributes to how people dwell in their own habitat.” So clearly, phenomenology is a pretty complex definition with multiple interpretations from different people as to what it truly is. Another interesting quote from Vesely’s On the Revelance of Phenomenology, Vesely is interviewed by University of Houston alum Ben Nicholson, where Vesely is asked questions regarding phenomenology, and about Heidigger’s interpretation of dwelling, and how that relates to his. “The architect contributes to the situation but, in an important sense, he does not create it. Dwelling means being situated and having the ability and opportunity to come to a very rich context and live in it, inhabit it..” In conclusion, phenomenology can be viewed in many different lenses, as seen in the different interpretations of the term through the different architects and psychologists we have studied, and ultimately how nature, and architecture can be explained or manipulated through the human senses, and can also ultimately explain what “reality” truly is to a person.
Heidegger, Martin. Building Dwelling Thinking, 1971
Vesely, Dalibor. On the Relevance of Phenomenology. Houston, Texas: University of Houston, 1984
Max, this summary is quite broad and it’s difficult to pinpoint your personal critique/investment into the readings. Let’s clarify specific ideas presented by Heidegger, Norberg-Schulz, or Kahn, and elaborate an argument from them.