MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003750794 · doi:10.1080/13264826.2010.495448

Alberti's Window: A Phenomenological Dilemma

2010· article· en· W2003750794 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
B. Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueArchitectural Theory Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitecture and Art History Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)PaintingArchitectureArt historyScholarshipDilemmaVisual artsArtDisciplineSociologyAestheticsPhilosophyHistoryEpistemologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract From traditional hand-drawings to contemporary CAD visualisation, Alberti's Window has persisted as a fundamental instrument of architectural representation for over half a millennium. Writing from a phenomenological standpoint, architect and scholar Juhani Pallasmaa has criticised Alberti's Window for perpetuating a visually-biased design culture that marginalises the importance of other sensory modalities to spatio-temporal experience: this is the phenomenological dilemma of Alberti's Window . He has gone so far as to call for its rejection altogether. This paper seeks to establish a discursive foundation to address Pallasmaa's justifiable concerns. Adopted in its current form from Alberti's treatise on the art of painting in perspective De Pictura in 1435, the method was distilled mathematically by Cambridge scholar Brook Taylor in the early eighteenth century. Read in a phenomenological context, aspects of Brook Taylor's scholarship present a critical foundation from which to extrapolate the instrument's more complete conceptual potency within an architectural context. Notes 1. Juhani Pallasmaa, “Dwelling in the World: vision, hearing and hapticity in existential space”, Architecture/Music/Acoustics International Cross-Disciplinary Conference, Toronto: Ryerson University, June 8-10, 2006. 2. Juhani Pallasmaa, The Eyes of the Skin, Oxford: Wiley-Academy, 2005, pp. 25-34. 3. Erwin Panofsky, Perspective as Symbolic Form, New York: Urzone Inc, 1991, p. 43. 4. Leon Battista Alberti, De Pictura, London: Phaidon, 1972. Translated by Cecil Grayson from 1435 edition. 5. Alberti, De Pictura. 6. Panofsky, Perspective as Symbolic Form. M. H. Pirenne, Optics, Painting & Photography, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. 7. Peter Eisenman, Diagram Diaries, New York: Universe Publishing, 1999, p. 39. 8. Sigfried Giedion, Space, Time and Architecture: the growth of a new tradition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1941, 1967, p. 31. 9. Panofsky, Perspective as Symbolic Form, p. 49. 10. Panofsky, Perspective as Symbolic Form, p. 63. 11. Leon Battista Alberti, Della Architectura di Leon Battista Alberti including De Pictura, London: James Leoni Edition, 1739. Translated by Cosimo Bartoli from 1452 edition and 1435 editions respectively. 12. Kirsti Andersen, Brook Taylor's Work on Linear Perspective: A Study of Taylor's Role in the History of Perspective Geometry. Including Facsimiles of Taylor's Two Books on Perspective, New York: Springer Verlag, 1992, pp. 7-8. 13. Taylor, Brook, New Principles of Linear Perspective: or the art of designing on a plane the representations of all sorts of objects, in a more general and simple method than has been done before, London: St Paul's Churchyard, 1719. 14. Alberti, De Pictura, p. 54. 15. Pallasmaa, The Eyes of the Skin, pp. 20, 25-34. 16. Pallasmaa, The Eyes of the Skin, p. 27. 17. Pallasmaa, The Eyes of the Skin, p. 10. 18. Pallasmaa, The Eyes of the Skin, p. 34. 19. Catherine Ingraham, Architecture and the Burdens of Linearity: Theoretical Perspectives in Architectural History and Criticism, London: Yale University Press, 1998, p. 33. 20. Sanford Kwinter, Architectures of Time: toward a theory of the event in modernist culture, Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2002, p. 54. 21. Alan Baddeley, Human Memory: Theory and Practice, Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1990. 22. Harry J, Gensler, Introduction to Logic, London: Routledge, 2002, p. 388. 23. Pallasmaa, The Eyes of the Skin, p. 12. 24. The term “intervallic structure” is here used in the musical sense of the term to connote the architectonics (structuring) of musical tones/notes in the form of chords.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchitectural Theory ReviewSame topicArchitecture and Art History StudiesFrench-language works237,207