ARCHITECTURE AS AN EXPRESSION OF POLITICAL IDEOLOGY

Alice Sabrina Ismail , Dr

1 Senior Lecturer, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, Skudai 81310, Johor

ABSTRACT
This essay discusses on the study of architecture as a sign system by analyzing its generic
elements- form and space as understood from the Western philosophers as well as seeks to
investigate how built form act as a sign and have major symbolic content which give concrete
expression to the socio cultural and political phenomenon. In this case, prominent buildings
found in the modern context are used as examples to explain how built form capable of
communicating the intentions of patrons to building users as well as transmitting messages
when users invest the building with meaning. This is important as built form do not only
symbolise norms of society but their social structure as well that relative to world view,
hierarchies and the like. This paper therefore, is significant as it develops a systematic approach
to understand the relationship between sign symbols and material culture. This understanding
makes substantive contribution to understanding the production of meaning in relation to the
built environment across different cultural settings. Furthermore, it provides an insight that the
meaning of the built environment is dependent on human intentions and purposes as conceived
in a particular cultural context. Therefore, it provides a clear framework to lead architectural
scholars, designers and researchers, who are interested in analysing the themed environments,
toward a better understanding of the structural relationship that exists between the built
environment and social culture in contemporary society.


Keywords political ideology, material culture, sign, symbol, non verbal communication, built
form. spatial organization

Introduction
In common terms, architecture is understood as the art or practice of designing and erecting
buildings, or in other words it is the combination of building and art (Conway & Roenish 1984).
Architecture by itself is acknowledged as a self referential object due to the basic generic
elements such as volume, line, plane, surface, mass, material, and structure that constitute it.
These fundamental elements become important in themselves - when combined, interacting and
united they make up the physical and visual form that helps to define the existing context and
space (Luecking 2002).
Architecture occupies and shapes the physical social context as well as influencing the
perceptual nature of human behavior (Rapoport 1990). This is possible as architectures aesthetic
manifestation satisfies and motivates the human emotion. Architectures physical appearance and
visual impression not only help engage the user to its content, similar to the reaction of a picture-
object that engages our disposition to the world, but also allows the user to use physical senses
to recognise the architectural function (Matravers 1998). Due to this interactive situation,
communication between users and the built environment therefore exists, as architectural
function helps organise the space of human actions. As Umberto Eco has noted, we commonly
do experience architecture as communication, even while recognizing its functionality
(1997:182). Since architecture is capable of being used to communicate and of being
understood, it is perceived by many scholars to transmit messages when building users invest the
building with meaning.


Architecture as a sign and as form of communication
The assumption that architecture is invested with meaning and is a means of conveying meaning
is not a new one. Throughout history, architects and writers in the architectural field have argued
and discussed this subject. Many contend that architecture is more than utilitarian since
architecture is the evidence of social life. Architecture is capable of conveying social and
intellectual meaning including expressing the religious belief and political practice of society
through its physical and visual form (Rappoport 1990; Vitruvius 1991; Morris 1998). Preziosi
(1979) adds that architecture may also be understood from another aspect, which involves the
structured relationship that exists between the building with its immediate and wider surrounding
environment: both at the time it was built and thereafter.
Since architecture by itself is a self contained sign system, with its own grammar and
syntax, most scholars in the field of architecture have attempted to import structuralist
methodology to understand architecture, as they believe that architecture can be read as text
(Whyte 2006). This structuralist approach to understanding architecture was based upon the
assumption that architecture was a sign system, a means of communication that was analogous
to verbal or written language. Examples of this approach are seen in the work by Broadbent
(1980), Eco (1997), Hersbeger (1988), Jencks (1997) and Whyte (2006) where they state that
architecture can be understood by analogy to language; as a code capable of being used to
communicate the intentions of the patron to the building user. The physical manifestations of
architectural form and space can be read through a recognised code, to be interpreted by the
user (Jencks 1997; Eco 1980). In Boffrands words (1972:2), form including spatial layout
through their disposition, their structure, and the manner in which they are decorated, announce
their purpose to the spectator. This is because the dynamic qualities of form and spatial
layout help translate the building function into a non verbal coding system which makes
communication with the user possible (Arnheim 1977:263). As described by Jencks (1980:20-
21):

When I look at the architectural form - windows on the faade of
the building, my attention may be turned to a window as an
opening for viewing the outside world - meaning that is based
on function, but in which the function has receded to the extent
that I may even forget it, for the moment concentrating on
relationships through which the windows become elements of
architectural rhythm -
Windows in their form, their number, their disposition on a
faade (portholes, loopholes ,curtain walls, etc) - may, besides
denoting function , refer to a certain inhabitation and use; they
may connote an overall ideology that has informed the
architects operation.

Since the works of Jencks, Eco, Boffrand and Arnheim have shown that architecture can
be described as a communication system, capable of communicating its function when the user
decodes the buildings physical attributes of form and space, I will explain how both of these
attributes - form and space - are being organised by the creators to potentially transmit
meaning and acts as a political symbol.


Connections between politics and architecture
Architectures form and space attributes not only produce messages potentially for individual
users. Architecture is also capable of acting as a sign for large groups of people or audiences: a
form of mass communication. As stated by Jencks, architecture seems to offer messages that
have mass appeal, that lend themselves to being taken for granted even when they are not
highly conventional, but there are at the same time inventive and heuristic aspects to these
messages (1980:42-43). He also adds that architectural objects besides permitting and
promoting certain functions, they permit and promote critical readings, in which one compares
them with prior (and subsequent) means of societies ideologies and inhabitation (Jencks
1980:43). From these statements, it is appropriate to say that architecture is a cultural object,
and is closely tied to a particular social context and historical moment (Goodman 1988). Owing to
its utilitarian value and its constituent elements, which are capable of symbolically communicating
the function it permits and promotes based on codes, architecture therefore can exert various
meanings at different moments for different groups in society (McLeod 1989).
Architecture may not carry the same meaning for everyone and for all the time (Smith
2000; Rappoport 1990). Meanings may change, in the extreme becoming the opposite or simply
different (Sonne 2003; Whyte 2006). However, architecture does have the potential to transmit
messages to the mass populace (Jencks 1980). For that matter, it is commonly used as a tool in
the service of politics by a ruling government, to serve as a symbol of the state.
Architecture has been manipulated by ruling bodies throughout history and across the
globe as symbols of the state to support specific regimes. Architecture is used to mediate forms
of political power in order to propagate political ideologies to the pluralist society (Vale
1992).These ruling bodies symbolically make use of the built environment as a tool to exercise
their authority, due to the physical existence of the built form allowing them to declare and enact
their political intention (Sudjic 2005; Dovey 1999).
Scholars such as Sudjic (2005), Sonne (2003) and Goodsell (1988) mention that this
phenomenon often occurred in many modern states throughout the world due to the uprising of
political regimes, since they greatly relied on symbols in the form of architecture, rituals,
ceremonies and displays to project the idea of legitimation. These potential symbols therefore
can be drawn upon by the ruling parties to assist them in gaining populist support. By arousing
nationalistic emotions of the masses and maneuvering the populace sentiments, they aim to
maintain their status and position in society (Coaldrake 1996; Sudjic 2005). The ruling regimes
main political ambition in modern states, and particularly in newly independent countries, is to
utilise architecture for the purpose of unifying the masses; and representing achievement and
gaining acknowledgement (Sudjic 2005; Sonne 2003; Vale 1992). Each of these aims will be
described briefly.


Architecture for the ruling body : Unifying the masses
The need to integrate the masses has always been a major issue for all countries in the world,
and especially for newly independent states which have previously undergone the process of
decolonisation. These newly independent states were divided by the colonialist into opposing
groups. As a result, in remote rural places often a persons loyalty still remains local rather than
national or regional integration (Young 1976).
To overcome this situation, most post-colonial governments try to integrate or unify the
population to follow one ruling body by making various programs such as the usage of icons in
the form of buildings to promote the idea of nationalism. Many buildings in these newly
independent nations seem to portray images referencing ethnic, cultural or religious belief in
order to potentially evoke the nationalistic sentiments among the masses (Gellner 1983).
Young (1976:73) states that nationalism is the main vehicle for a ruling body to secure
their political legitimacy and power in this newly independent society. Works of architecture
become the major focus for political leaders to render their national ideologies. Architecture is the
best tool as it metaphorically communicates to the masses through scale, form and other
elements (Vale 1992). A building can overwhelm due to the magnitude of its physical presence. It
can also lend visual prestige to its sponsors and help to reinforce their political power, as the
work of architecture has a dominant influence in the control of the conduct and action of others
(Coaldrake 1999).


Achievement and acknowledgement
The main interest of the ruling government in newly independent states is to treat architecture as
a visible sign of progress to gain global recognition from other nations: that is, a political need
for the new ruling regime to be more noticeable and to be more supreme (Shils 1975; Crinson
2003; Sudjic 2005).
Shils (1975:68) proposes that the two main reasons for this political act. Firstly, to show
what they have achieved is equal to other developed nations namely the West, and secondly, to
gain and claim social acknowledgement from the local masses. In order to achieve this
recognition, the ruling governments erect monumental buildings with a modern appearance
parallel to a global audiences preferences (Shils 1975; Vale 1992; Berger 2006). The kind of
building design that may symbolise the political power of a ruling regime will be addressed in
depth in the next section. Two generic architectural aspects - form and space - will be
discussed in detail through a series of prominent building examples and contexts to demonstrate
the relationship with politics.



Form: the relationship of politics and architecture
Architectural form attributes, such as visual and relational properties, are key components which
may express political authority of the ruling body (Crinson 2003; Sonne 2003). Both of these
attributes will be discussed below in turn.
Visual properties refer to the external appearance of form that can be recognised from a
distance or from a certain angle involving the physical dimension of form such as scale and
faade (Wong 1993).
Scale is capable of drawing attention to the buildings significance by emphasising its
height, length, width and depth. Built forms presented as large or tall, that are vertical in height
or horizontally massive compared to human proportions and other surroundings, with significant
visibility and dramatic sculptural effect may symbolise the ruling bodys authority (King 2004;
Coaldrake 1996). According to most architectural scholars, there are five main reasons for this
need, which are: to signify dominancy and control; to evoke feelings of impressiveness in order
to be remembered by its audience; to assert identity in the world; to lend visual prestige and
symbolise dignity of the patron; to reinforce the patrons immediate authority and to project their
influence in society (King 2004; Sudjic 2005; Crinson 2003). Examples of such structures is the
101 Taipei Tower built in Taiwan that soared 1,670 feet above ground and the Ulm Cathedral in
Germany, built in 1890 as the tallest cathedral in the world with a steeple measuring 161, 530
meters high.
Faades with heterogeneous elements and a distinct focal point are also capable of
conveying meaning and may symbolise the status of the building patron in society (Sonne 2003;
Fitzherbert 1999; Ewen 1984). This is because a heterogeneous faade consists of a combination
of vertical and horizontal figures such as openings and sculptural details in various shapes and
sizes placed at multiple orientation and distances. These figures which are symmetrically
arranged according to formal ordering principles will produce a dominant appearance due to its
articulated composition. As a result, it captures the viewers attention, through perceptual arousal
(Weber 1995; Sonne 2003). An example is Catherine the Greats Palace in Tsarskoye Selo,
Russia, designed by Bartolomeo Rastrelli in 1752 for Catherine Alekseyevna, the wife of Emperor
Peter I (Whittake 2003). This palace projects an impressive play of faade elements and
picturesque decoration in the style of the Russian Baroque which signifies the ruling power of the
Russian monarchy during the 17th century (Michael 2005). The faade is richly decorated with
floral finials, embellishments and sculptural elements arranged in hierarchical organisation at the
roof, body and base section.
A faade with a distinct focal point ideally projects a strong central focus, enhancing the
overall perceptual stability. This arrangement provides symmetrical axis and order while adding
an element of interest to the bland monotonous faade. As stated by Molnar (1981:89), when
differentiation exists in the centre of the faade it automatically attracts the viewers eye. This is
mostly seen in government buildings such as the Zeppelinfeld built in Nuremberg in 1936 by
Albert Speer (Sudjic 2005). Even though this building expresses a bland concrete faade with
colossal columns stone veneers and few decorative elements, there is still composition of
hierarchical order in its arrangement at all levels. For instance, the faade presents a distinct
focal point, which influences the whole composition. This central fulcrum, which is presented by a
protruding portico with a large swastika emblem placed on top of it, breaks the horizontality of
the colossal columns. The distinct centre not only gives perceptual weight within the overall
composition but it also indirectly heightens the audiences emotion towards the ruling regime
(Curtis 1987; Sudjic 2005).
Architectural form also depends on relational properties, such as position, to determine
its overall relationship with the other elements surrounding it (Wong 1993). Relational properties
can also help to symbolise the political authority and ideology of the buildings patron.
Position is defined as the location of the form relative to the ground plane and its
environment or the visual field from where it is viewed. Positioning of form can convey various
meaning to the audience depending on how it is interpreted. The positioning of buildings is an
important element used throughout history to project the idea of authority. Examples can be
seen in buildings owned and erected by the state or individual rulers. There are two important
aspects to highlight when discussing the buildings position. These are: the location of the
building form, and the approach towards the building form (Wong 1993; King 2004).
Location of building form is defined by its placement on the existing site. This is
important as the position of the building form can give a visual impact to the audience. For
example, if the building is located on a higher ground level at the top of the hill or in the middle
of an open lake, it will be prominent and may convey that the buildings creator intends it to be
noticeable and recognised. It may therefore signify domination and importance (Ching 1995). If
the form, on the contrary, is situated on lower ground, hidden or sheltered, it may not be
intended to be noticeable by others. If the positioning of the form is stretched out, or stands out
as a distinctive and prominent object in an open space, it will result in a broad face feature to the
site (Ching 1995). The built form therefore represents the idea of dominancy as it overpowers
the sorrounding context.
For instance, the Government House of India in New Delhi, formerly known as the
Viceroy's House built during the British rule was designed by Edwin Lutyen in 1929 to mark
Indias new capital city when it was transferred from Calcutta to New Delhi. In order to project
the dominancy of the imperialist and to suit their political needs, the Viceroys House was
strategically place on top of Raisina hill. Its massive building structure covered an area of 18,580
square meters. The building also become the terminus point for a long axial path measuring
about 2 km from the India Gate at the opposite end. This kind of design not only gives a
sense of grandeur from afar, it also can be symbolic of the colonial subjugation over its new
territory (Jyoti 1992:98).
The approach towards the building sets the scene. If the building form is intended to be
an important imposing landmark, a direct approach along a straight axial path may be adopted.
If the building is to be hidden and mysterious, its approach may be oblique or spiral and
redirected one or more times to prolong the sequence of the approach (Ching 1995).
Another example of grandeur is the Versailles Palace in Paris designed for King Louis XIV
by Jules Hardouin Mansart, the king's principal architect, who extended the original building form
from a small hunting lodge to a grand and massive palace to house the royal court. His main
intentions were firstly to make this palace an important landmark, which signifies the ruling
power of the French nobilities, and secondly to make the Versailles Palace the central
administration for France, so that all power in France emanated from this centre. In relation to
this, the main palace is located on a higher ground level facing a large open garden where a
series of avenues from the surrounding site radiate from it. This kind of design not only
emphasises the building setting as a dominant structure in its own landscape, but it also displays
the absolute ruling power of King Louis (Duindam 2003).
Having discussed form as one of the two key generic aspects that have been shown to
represent political agendas, the second attribute of architecture space and its potential
relationship with politics will be elaborated next.


Space: the relationship of politics and architecture
The embodiment of a ruling bodys authority is also expressed in the arrangement and
organisation of internal spatial layout (Sudjic 2005; Coaldrake 1996). There are four types of
spatial organisation that are commonly found in built form, which are capable of portraying the
concept of power. These are: spatial hierarchy; spatial structuring; spatial density; and spatial
division (Weber 1995; Dovey 1999).These four aspects will be discussed below in turn.
Spatial hierarchy is defined as the arrangement of architectural primary and ancillary
spaces in a hierarchical order (Weber 1995).There are four types of hierarchy spatial
organization: single spatial appendix; group or series; symmetrical; and asymmetrical
arrangements (Weber 1995).
However, if the arrangement of the ancillary spaces is around the primary space, or if
there is distinct spatial segregation existing between the primary and ancillary space, where the
primary space is enhanced by boundaries created by different floor pattern, ceiling surfaces, wall
texture and structural materials and if the placement of the primary space is symmetrically
located in the main center of the whole spatial layout, then perceptual dominance may exist in
this spatial organisation.
Such arrangement of spaces is common in religious building like churches and mosques,
where emphasis is focused at the central space to embody feelings of spirituality. Such design is
also widely applied in other built forms, which cater for the needs of the ruling authority like
administrative buildings and palaces (Conway & Roenisch 1994:98). An example is the Forbidden
City in Beijing that housed the 24 emperors of the Ming (1368-1644) and Qing (1644-1911)
dynasties. The interior spaces of this palace are based on subordinate organisation, where
ancillary spaces surrounding the primary space form one large assemblage that focuses at a main
centre (Dovey 1999).The main center of the palace, the focal point is marked by a defining
object which is the emperors throne on a raised platform. Here it also terminates the long
central axis to symbolise the imperial power of the ruling emperor.
The interior hall measuring 40 meters high, 70 meters in width and 40 meters in length is
heavily decorated with carved dragon sculpture and is surrounded by two bronze cranes, an
elephant-shaped incense burner and tripods in the shape of mythical beasts. Due to the
monumental scale, an overpowering sense of awe to enhance the superiority of the ruler is
created. Lasswell states (1979:65) that creating a sense of awe by displaying spectacular, heroic
projects and dominant built form is a political strategy for those in power to attract followers,
besides advancing their superiority and leadership in society.
Spatial structuring in syntax form may also portray how power relations are embedded in
spatial programs (Dovey 1999). These syntax describe how level of control occurs in building
layout based on the placement of the spatial segments. The deeper a segment is positioned from
the external entry, and the more transverse points are needed to penetrate the segments, the
higher level of control exists. According to Hillier and Hanson (1988:72) a building plan can be
translated into a structural diagram known as the syntactic structures. There are three basic
types of syntactic structure to describe the building space. These are: linear syntax; these are
segments that are arranged in a series of sequences; ringy syntax; these are segments that are
related with each other in a set of systems through various choice of pathways ; fanned syntax;
these are various segments that are branched from a single segment that had full control and
access on other segments.
The linear and fanned syntax have a higher degree of control compared to the ringy
syntax. This is possible as these two syntactic structures give access to other segments from a
single segment of control. The ringy syntax, on the other hand, has loose control of the
segments, since there are various sets of pathways linked to each segment. These points explain
that the deeper the segment is, the higher visibility of surveillance present. This develops a
certain kind of authority and power. Based on this explanation, it shows that the position and
placement of the segment may signify status in society. An inhabitant who has higher-ranking
status or position is normally placed in the deeper cell segment whereas shallower segments are
for the public domain and user. This situation is prominently seen in the planning layout for
palaces and administrative buildings. An example is the Versailles Palace planning layout, which
presents the linear syntax structure. The articulation of the palace spatial segments is based on
an axial pathway, where visitors need to pass through series of spaces such as Venus, Mars and
Apollo before proceeding to the King Louis XIV throne room that is located at the deeper end of
the linear arrangement. This kind of arrangement allows all acts within the palace to be
monitored and controlled under the surveillance of the kings quarters and his royal court. The
arrangement of these segments in a linear layout reflects the exercise of autocratic power by the
ruling authority for their political purposes. The spatial arrangement of primary and ancillary
spaces is important in defining the status and authority of the patron.
Spatial density may also symbolise the political power and status of a ruling regime. This
is possible when enclosed space is portrayed in exaggerated height and depth with outstanding
figural characters producing a higher sense of awe due to its maximum spatial quality. This helps
to draw individual attention and creates psychological impact on the audience. Sudjic (2005:29)
states that monumental space with prominent qualities expresses individual egotism in its most
naked form: edifice complex. An example was the Berlin Chancellery building, built by Albert
Speer for Hitler in 1938. This building, which functioned as the German Reich headquarters,
presents a dominant inner space, grand halls and salons to make an impression on people. A
series of rooms including Hitler's reception gallery were 725 feet (220 meters) in length, and
decorated with a rich variety of materials and colors. The reception gallery itself was 480 feet
(145 meters) long. Hitler's own office also was 400 square meters in size. The Chancellery
building had a stern, authoritarian look even in its interior appearance (Speer 1970:98). This
shows that the Berlin Chancellery was a court, designed in monumental space, with flamboyant
taste, for the purpose of defining the victory of Hitlers Nazi regime and his assumption of
absolute power.
Spatial division also has the capability to demonstrate social distinction and authority of
the building patron. This is possible as distinct spatial division elements such as arches, columns,
vaults and beams in sheer size with lavish decorative elements not only articulate the spatial
layout, but also create perceptual dominance within the self-contained space (Sudjic 2005;
Weber 1995). An example can be seen in palaces and aristocratic dwellings such as the Versailles
Palace built by King Louis the XIV during the Baroque period around the 16th century. The Hall of
Mirrors shows an example of soaring, massive size columns placed along a ceremonial axis
before entering the throne room. The bold interior layout, colonnades, domes, light-and-shade
(chiaroscuro), 'painterly' colored effects, with play of volume and void in a monumental space,
reflects rich interior design. Owing to the expressive use of distinct design elements, the
Versailles Palace presents the authority of an absolute king.


Conclusion: the relationship of architectural form and space as symbol of
political ideology and authority
From this review, it is apparent that architecture is a form of sign which may convey
messages, when sign-users invest them with meaning with reference to a recognised code.
From this, it can be said that architecture may symbolise the political ideology of a particular
group or ruling body, as the symbols of authority are institutionally embedded in built form
design elements form and space. This review also highlights built form as exemplars on the
relationship of architecture and politics. To recapitulate:
Form is an important property in architecture, due to its ability to develop a dialectic
relationship between itself and the perceiver. Form also carries intrinsic meaning and has the
capacity to arouse strong perceptual interest for its audience in order to communicate across
cultures. It also has the ability to symbolise certain ideas, values and beliefs due to its existing
properties and function which can be recognised in code form by the audience. Therefore, form
is commonly used to express the authority of the ruling body. This occurs when:
Form is presented in monumental and dominant scale, which dominates other
existing structure and its physical context.
Form is portrayed in symmetrical composition or hierarchical organisation with a
dominant focal point and richly decorated faade with embellishments that show an interplay of
color, texture and materials.
Form is placed in a dominant context, such as higher ground level in order for it
to stand as a distinct structure in an open site.

Space also is an important property which may also symbolise the political ideology of
the ruling body due to its elemental properties. As stated by Lefebvre (1991:99), architectural
space does not simply meant to serve their own purposes, but is also part of the dominant
discourse of power and domination in society. Spatial organisation symbolises the concept of
power and authority. This occurs when:
Spaces are portrayed in exaggerated height, width and depth with monumental
scale structures which produces maximum spatial quality.
Spaces are arranged in segments, in a symmetrical and hierarchical manner
along an axial path based on linear and fanned syntax structures, to form a single and dominant
focal point.
Spatial organisation is from a single entrance with no transverse point, which
results in constricted and restricted movement within space segments. This forms high visibility
of surveillance within the spatial organisation, hence expressing patterns of authority and control.
Perceptual dominance is given to the primary space, which is centrally positioned
in the middle of the entire spatial organisation surrounded by ancillary space.
Spaces are articulated and decorated with a rich variety of materials, surface
texture, embellishments and interplay of painterly colored effects.

An overview of the relationship between political ideology and architecture form and
space - has been provided. The above essay is important as it focus on architecture as a form of
communication and how the architectural design characteristics form and space symbolise
political power. This is important, as built form in the present context has also become part of
the ruling authoritys political agenda particularly in the newly independent countries.



References

Conway , H. and Roenish, R. 1994. Understanding Architecture : An Introduction to Architecture
and Architectural History. London : Routledge.

Leucking, Stephen . 2002. Principles of Three Dimensional Design, Objects, Space and Meaning.
New Jersey : Pearson Education.

Rapoport, Amos . 1990. The Meaning Of The Built Environment : A Non Verbal Communication
Approach. Tucson : University of Arizona Press.

Matravers, Derek .1998. Art and Emotion. Oxford : Clarendon Press

Eco, Umberto. 1997. Function and Sign: The Semiotics of Architecture In Rethinking
Architecture :A Reader In Cultural Theory. Edited by Neil, Leach . New York : Routledge.


Vitruvius. 1991 Ten Books On Architecture. Edited by Ingrid D. Roland and Thomas Noble Howe.
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Morris, Richard .1998. The Architecture of Arthurian Enthusiasm: Castle Symbolism in The
Reigns of Edward I and His Successor. In Armies , Chivalry and Warfare in Medieval Britain and
France. Edited by Matthew Strickland . Stamford, England : Paul Watkins.

Preziosi, Donald .1979. Architecture, Language And Meaning : The Origins of The Built World And
Its Semiotic Organization . Mouton: The Hague.

Whyte, William .2006. How Do Buildings Mean? Some Issues On The Interpretation In The
History Of Architecture. History and Theory Journal 45 :153-177.

Broadbent, Geoffrey. 1980. Signs, Symbol and Architecture. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Hersberger, Robert. G. 1988. A Study of Meaning and Architecture. In Environmental
Aesthetics: Theory, Research and Application. Edited by Jack L. Nasar. England : Cambridge
University Press.

Jencks, Charles 1997. Theories and Manifestoes Of Contemporary Architecture. West Sussex :
Academy Editions.

Boffrand, Germain. 1972. Livre de Architecture. In High Victorian Gothic : A Study in
Associationism. Edited by George L , Hersey. Baltimore and London : John Hopkins University
Press.

Arnheim, Rudolph. 1977. The Dynamics of Architectural Form. In Mary Duke Biddle Lectures At
Cooper Union. Los Angeles : Berkeley.

Jencks, Charles .1980. The Architectural Sign. In Signs, Symbol and Architecture . Edited by
Broadbent, Geoffrey. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Goodman , N .1988. Reconceptions in Philosophy. Indianapolis : Hacket.

Mc Leod , Mary .1989. Architecture and Politics in the Reagen Era : From Postmodernism to
Deconstructivism. In Architecture Theory Since 1968 . Edited by Michael K. Hayes.
Massachussets: The MIT Press.

Sonne, Wolfgang . 2003. Representing The State: Capital City Planning In The Early 20
th
Century.
New York : Prestel.

Vale, J. Lawrence .1992. Architecture, Power and National Identity. New Haven , London : Yale
University Press.

Sudjic, Devan .2005. The Edifice Complex. Allen Lane : Penguin Books Ltd.

Dovey, Kim..1999. Framing Places : Mediating Power in Built Form. New York : Routledge.