2.

FROM BUILDING TO THOUTH: POETICALLY MAN DWELLS

Heideggers pursuit of the question of being pointed out importance of man's relation to
space as an ontological issue. "His project was therefore an attempt to return humankind to some
form of authentic existence. Heidegger begins his research of the question of being by making a
distinction between settlement and dwelling, and then discovers direct links between the issue of
being and architectural space. The world is not in space, but space is in the world|1|.
Tracing the etymology of the word bauen, Heidegger reveals original closeness of
notions of being and dwelling. Notion of dwelling implies building, but building in a sense of
preserving and nurturing, not making anything. Here, the genuine building, as Heidegger says,
that is dwelling, contains two modes of building: building as cultivating and building as the
raising up edifices. "To be a human being means to be on the earth as a mortal. It means to dwell.
The old word bauen, which says that man is insofar as he dwells, this word barren however also
means at the same time to cherish and protect, to preserve and care for, specifically to till the soil,
to cultivate the vine" |2|.
Process of building, characterized as a distinctive letting-dwell, is a producing that brings
something forth, and that points out the inseparability of men and space. Man's relation to
location and space is based on dwelling. "The relationship between man and space is none other
than dwelling, strictly thought and spoken" (Heidegger, 1971: 157). Space and a man are not on
separate sides, facing each other. Space is "neither an external object nor an inner experience"
(Heidegger, 1971: 156). When Heidegger says a man he talks about a human being who exists in
a human manner, who dwells, who occupies space and thinks in spatial categories. Space belongs
to the nature of our thinking, thinking is spatial and dwelling is cognitive. This existential
perspective about spatial dimension of man's existence enables us exploring dwelling issues
beyond functional and utilitarian necessities of a house towards a certain state of mind that
constructs the notion of home.
Modernistic legacy of zoning spaces according to daily activities of urban life, left us formulated
typologies, which are being constantly dissolved in last two or three decades through
contemporary architectural practice and research projects. Modernist slogan form follows
function implied universal needs and activities that were satisfied by appropriate function and
thereby appropriate space typology. This stance constructed certain fixed types of architectural
forms according to event in space. It was desirable that building inform us about the inside event
through its aesthetic image and to indicate function by its form. In this manner, modern
architectural theory left us some kind of solid and fixed typologies where models of

accommodation of activities in space where established. If we saw dwelling in terms of function,

it is no surprise that elements of apartment space first entered the standardization. Growing
industrial society needed large number of residential units in short time. In order to achieve this
goal human needs were standardized, and according to them were set up models of activities and
space organization. As a result of this process of solidification and fixation of typologies during
the last century, we gain standard solutions for standard problems using standard unified
architectural elements in housing typologies, and defined relations among parts within solid
structures in society institutions and behavior. Architectural concepts were formulated
"appropriate to time that required uniformity, standardization, collectivity", and "although
different by their position, size and structure", architectural structures "were of uniform
architectural pattern and recognizable architectural vocabulary" (Milainovi Mari, 2012: 35).|3|
We cannot lose sight of the utilitarian aspect of the residential space seen through space
organization, light, infrastructure, size or equipment, however, but it is the emotional relationship
of the user and space that makes the home. Complex structure of symbols, dreams, ideals and
aspiration that a man projects as a part of his socio-cultural identity is inscribed in the material of
a home. Since there is no simple algorithm of translation of immaterial ideas to the material
elements of space, interpretation of philosophical speculations of immaterial/material relationship
can open new ways for dealing with complex man and space relationship. Radical layering of
architectural (like every other postmodern) theory emerged after modernism. Diversity of
contemporary cultural and social context intensified ambivalence of man and space relationship,
and "the domain of architecture (had already) become a privileged field where postmodernism as
new aesthetic production was most visible" (Blagojevi, 2011: 23). Interpreting material artifacts
of space, architectural critics and theoreticians contemplated how those artifacts make space in
our minds for the wides rang of ideas form political to aesthetic, but recognizing that "the nascent
postmodernism produced certain alternate concepts of space, urbanity, everyday, citizen, and the
like" (Blagojevi, 2011: 24).|4|. New ways of transmitting/translating modes of thinking
(reasoning styles) into modes of doing (creative strategies) in architectural theory and practice
were examined since deconstruction to the present day. Although in constant flux, the
relathionship between thinking and doing in architecture is an inexhaustible topic, since "The real
dwelling plight lies in this, that mortals ever search anew for the nature of dwelling, that they
must ever learn to dwell." (Heidegger, 1971)