Dittmar_t 15/03/2010 23:25

Gunter A. Dittmar
Architecture as Dwelling and Building
1998_2

Design as Ontological Act

1 Ithas been almost fifty years since Martin Heidegger presented his seminal lecture, "Building
Dwelling Thinking" 1 to a group of leading architects in Darmstadt, Germany. Although the
essay has meanwhile become famous within architectural circles, and is often cited by authors
and architects as relevant to their work, it is curious that it has had very little impact on either
the practice, or the theory of architecture.
Why is this the case?
The answer is at once simple and complex. It is the thesis of this paper, that the reason for
this situation is that the world view and paradigm which underlies and informs architecture’s
mode of thought, and even more so its mode of operation, is anathetical to the notions
delineated in Heidegger’s essay, and, thus, makes these practically impossible to incorporate.
Furthermore, that this paradigm is in conflict with the nature of architecture and, thus, is
responsible for the increasing difficulties architecture faces concerning its social relevance,
and its identity and legitimacy as a discipline. And, finally, that this condition is the result of a
serious failure of architectural theory which, rather than concentrating on what architecture is,
focuses on what form it should take.

2 The roots of these developments can be traced back several centuries. Beginning with the
Renaissance, the beginning of modern time, and culminating in the Twentieth Century, our
world view has been undergoing a major shift: from a focus on the subject and its destiny to
the emphasis and investigation of the object and object world ; from the exploration of
meaning to the search for truth; from metaphysics to physics.
The consequences of this shift in world view were profound. It radically changed the way we
see, analyze and try to understand our world. It gave birth to modern science, and derived
from it, technology and modern engineering. But, more important, it gave rise to a powerful
mode of thinking without which neither would have been possible. As the paradigmatic mode
of thought of the Twentieth Century it underlies almost everything we do, the way we think,
and how we approach a problem, to such a degree that it has become second nature to us
and we are not even aware of this anymore.

3 Known as scientific method, or more commonly as reductive problem-solving, it was most

clearly formalized first in the Seventeenth Century by René Descartes, the father of modern
philosophy, in his "Discourse on Method" 2 . Among its fundamental premises, besides his
famous dictum "cogito, ergo sum", were the following:

· our world and its order is knowable, and to acquire this knowledge is to gain
control over it.

· to arrive at true knowledge with certainty demands total objectivity, i.e. the
divorce of one’s personality and, thus, the potential for preconceptions, from any
investigation; or, to say it differently, it requires the complete elimination of the
subject.

· the manner in which to solve any problem, or in Descartes’ words "difficulties",

was to divide it into as many parts as possible, and then proceed solving the
problem by beginning with the simplest and easiest and then advance gradually
and in logical order to the more complex, composite ones; in purely
methodological terms, it is now commonly known and used as the process of

http://www.tu-cottbus.de/theoriederarchitektur/Wolke/eng/Subjects/982/Dittmar/dittmar_t.html Page 1 of 7
Dittmar_t 15/03/2010 23:25

analysis/synthesis: breaking a problem down into its parts and then synthesizing
these into a whole.

4 Beyond its methodological significance, though related to it, Descartes’ philosophy continued
and reenforced the dualism that underlies much of Western philosophy and thought,
exemplified by such distinctions as, for instance, individual/world, culture/nature,
subject/object, mind/body, matter/spirit, truth/meaning, part/whole, et al., but also by the
division, specialization and proliferation of disciplines and subdisciplines to address the
complex multiplicity of our world.

5 Architecture and architectural theory could not but be affected by this change in world view,
the subject/object split and the subsequent shift of emphasis to the object and object world.
Ever since, beginning with the Renaissance and continuing up to our present time,
architecture has concentrated on - and attempted to define itself - through the object of its
investigations - the building; what form it should take and why! It has done so regardless of
the time period, style or prevailing ideology that conditions or conditioned its particular
expression.
The subject, the question of our being, and the subject matter of architecture, the question of
our place in the world, which had formed the basis of architecture’s explorations for
thousands of years from Stonehenge to the pyramids and the Gothic cathedrals, is addressed,
if at all, only indirectly, i.e. it is subsumed within the object, the building, its form, and its
properties.

6 Heidegger, in his essay, attempts to recover and re-assert some of this world and world
view. More specifically, by etymologically tracing the roots of the terms ‘to build’ and ‘to dwell’,
he uncovers not only their original meaning, but more important, he is able to determine what
their real nature is, and the role they play for our being, and our being in the world. He, thus,
arrives at the following conclusions and definitions:

· that building is really about dwelling

· that dwelling is about the initiation and exploration of our being, the manner we
humans are as mortals on this earth

· that the question of building, the issue of our dwelling, and the issue of our
being, are inexorably linked and cannot be separated without doing harm to
each one of them.

7 How much of this understanding of building and dwelling has been lost, or become altered
during the ascendance of the techno-scientific world view and paradigm, becomes clear if one
examines current architectural practice in light of Heidegger’s tenets :

· building, the creative, material act through which dwelling comes into being,
has been reduced to engineering and construction: the calculation, technical
production and assembly of buildings.

· dwelling, the issue, has been replaced by dwellings, i.e. housing as a

commodity, or, more generally, by buildings as inhabitable, functional shelter.

· being, the ultimate question, as well as its complex totality, have been reduced
to, and substituted by, such conceptual components as function, space, comfort
and aesthetics as the major ingredients of buildings.

· as a consequence, building and dwelling have become separated into distinct,

if related, entities and disciplines: the design, the engineering, and the
construction of buildings.

8 As
already mentioned before, for architecture these developments begin with the
Renaissance. The (re-)discovery of Vitruvius, combined with the intellectual curiosity and

http://www.tu-cottbus.de/theoriederarchitektur/Wolke/eng/Subjects/982/Dittmar/dittmar_t.html Page 2 of 7
Dittmar_t 15/03/2010 23:25

scholarly pursuit so characteristic for the age, also led to an explosion of architectural theory
and theoretical treatises. Many of these treatises were based on Vitruvius’ "The Ten Books on
Architecture"3 as a model, including even its title. The most famous and most enduring
aspect, however, the so-called "Vitruvian Triad" of utilitas, firmitas and venustas (commodity,
firmness and delight, or in its modern version, function, technology and form) are actually the
result of a misreading of Vitruvius. For, while Vitruvius makes reference to these categories,
he mentions them in his book almost like an afterthought and uses them akin to attributes or
properties. 4 It is the Renaissance that elevates them to distinct, autonomous entities; the
fundamental, conceptual components that not only constitute the ideal building, but have
come to stand for a definition of architecture in general.

9 For centuries, up to this day, architecture has struggled to bring the different, inherently
conflicting, demands posed by the three categories of function, technology and aesthetics into
a harmonious balance and integrate them into a coherent whole. With limited success. For to
do so requires either a compromise, or the suppression or clear subordination of at least one,
more often though two, of the components to the dominant remaining one(s). Typically, the
component that prevails over the other two is that of aesthetics. One reason is that beauty,
due to its self-sufficient, autonomous nature, does not easily bend to compromise or
subordination. Another is the commonly held belief - again a product of the Renaissance
when architecture emancipated from a craft to an art - that what distinguishes architecture
from mere building, i.e. construction and engineering, is the element of aesthetics.

10 Ifand when an equilibrium between the three components of function, technology and
aesthetics is established, it tends to be short-lived, for it is inherently instable due the
contradictory nature of the components. One has to look only at the three architectural
movements of our own century - Modernism, Post-Modernism and Deconstructivism - for
examples.
Modernism attempted to solve the issue of aesthetics from within the components of function
and technology (function + technology = beauty). The models were nature as revealed through
science, and the machine. The result was what Modernism had aspired to as its ideal:
architecture as aesthetic engineering. Inspite of its lofty, social and utopian goals to help bring
about a new society and new world, Modernism produced mostly, especially in lesser hands,
an abstract, empty and often inhumane architecture, or after W.W.II, an exaggerated,
monumental formalism.
Post-Modernism criticized Modernism for its disregard of both, beauty (primarily its lack of
decoration) and meaning. It attempted to correct Modernism’s "mistake" by factoring the
component of aesthetics - and as part of it, meaning - back into the equation. It did so not by
trying to integrate it with the other two components of the Triad, but by a compromise that
acknowledged the incompatibility of aesthetics with function and technology, and by dealing
with it separately as an added element. Known as the "architecture of the decorated shed"
since Robert Venturi so aptly defined it, it combines function and technology into "building",
essentially functional/technological shelter, and then treats aesthetics as decorative appliqué
(building + decoration) 5 . Though Post-Modernism produced, perhaps, a richer and more
varied architecture, in most instances it turned out to be little more than historicist and eclectic
scenography, and its meaning stayed both, literally and figuratively, on a superficial level.
Deconstructivism, as the name already indicates, is partially inspired by the early Modernist
movement of Russian Constructivism. However, its real roots are in the literary and
philosophical movement and theory of Deconstruction. Deconstruction attempts to "de-
construct" and "de-center" the "logo-centric" thought and order that it contends we have
imposed on our world, be it philosophical, social, political cultural, scientific, technological or
physical etc., which prevent us from confronting the true reality of our world, i.e. its
heterogenetic diversity. The claim is that, through our centralized, hierarchically ordered
structures, we impose univalent meaning and, thus, suppress the multiplicity of potentially
other, equally valid, interpretations.

11 In
character with these tenets, Deconstructivism aims to "de-construct" the anthropocentric,
and thus by definition logo-centric, world view and structures that, it maintains, still control
architecture. Of the Vitruvian Triad of components, it is especially critical of the notion of
function and dismisses it as an artificial construct. But it also attempts to displace technology,
perhaps the most logo-centric of all logo-centric systems, from its prominent role in
architecture by subsuming it within the element of aesthetics, thereby reducing the Vitruvian

http://www.tu-cottbus.de/theoriederarchitektur/Wolke/eng/Subjects/982/Dittmar/dittmar_t.html Page 3 of 7
Dittmar_t 15/03/2010 23:25

Triad to just this one component. Above all, though, Deconstructivism challenges and aims to
de-construct architecture’s aesthetic conventions, particularly its orthogonal, formal order and
expression, and its quest for a harmonious whole from clearly defined parts as manifestations
of its logo-centric and anthropocentric nature. Deconstructivism, thus, is essentially in search
of a new aesthetic. Characteristic for its architecture is the avoidance of Cartesian order and
geometry, the fragmentation of form, the lack of any perceivable center, and the use of
components in contradictory and/or ambiguous relationships.

12 There is no doubt that Deconstructivism has brought new energy to architecture and has
broken open and invigorated its aesthetics. Yet, contrary to its professed principles of diversity,
Deconstructivist architecture shows a remarkable uniformity of expression, i.e. it has become
little more than another stylistic movement. In the final analysis, it - like Modernism and Post-
Modernism before it - is still a product of the object-oriented world view and paradigm that
underlies and controls architecture. Furthermore, all three of the movements reduce
architecture to something less than its totality: Modernism by abstracting human existence to
function and space, Post-Modernism by replacing architecture with skin-deep imagery and
decoration, and Deconstructivism by narrowing architecture to a mere issue of aesthetics,
works of art, to be explored and contemplated rather than inhabited.

13 Thisreductive, objectified approach does not stop at the theoretical and intellectual
underpinnings of architecture, it naturally also extends to, and conditions, architecture’s mode
of operation - its practice - and the methodology used to produce works of architecture. Since
under this paradigm architecture is equated with the design and construction of edifices -
functional, technological and aesthetic, architectural objects - it seems logical that the process
used to create these objects - design - is analogous to that of construction, i.e. it is essentially
a process of assembly and composition; of selecting appropriate components to meet the
needs and demands of a particular project and finding arrangements which make it possible
to synthesize its various parts into a coherent whole. Or to state it in more methodological
terms: design is commonly approached as a creative process of solving a functional,
technological, spatial and formal problem, akin to a complex, open-ended, three-dimensional
jigsaw puzzle.

14 Contrary to common belief, the majority of designs are not "new creations". Rather they are
derived from previous answers, a "library" of similar, architectural precedents and already
established building types. These then serve as models for the new project. They are more or
less adapted and modified to accommodate the particular circumstances of the project at
hand, and their architectural expression shaped by the prevailing aesthetic ideology and/or the
personal preference and style of the respective designer.
This notion and methodology of design as the assembly of answers from distinct components,
already implicit in the Vitruvian Triad, is re-enforced by the division of labor and the
specialization architecture has undergone. When first construction, and later engineering,
became separate disciplines, architecture began to lose control over the totality of the building
process. Architecture - design - became, more or less, divorced from building, with
architecture primarily responsible for the lay-out and form of the building, and engineering and
construction primarily responsible for its technical realization and production.

15 Incountries like the US where architecture does not enjoy a state-guaranteed monopoly,
the validity of architecture itself has come into serious question because of this development.
Since the general public believes architecture to be about the "construction of buildings", and
since it considers this to be the domain of engineers and builders, it cannot see any real
value or relevance for architects. The consequences are increasing competition by
engineering offices and builders for architectural commissions. About the only authority and
competence still conceded to architecture is in the area of aesthetics. But even there
aesthetics is misunderstood as "image-making" (one of the reasons why Post-Modern
architecture - "the architecture of the decorated shed" - became such a popular success). The
recent escape of avant-garde architecture like Deconstructivism into art and sculpture, while
understandable within the context of this development, is but a symptom rather than a real
solution to architecture’s problems.

16 So, what is the answer? How can architecture overcome this seemingly vitious circle?

http://www.tu-cottbus.de/theoriederarchitektur/Wolke/eng/Subjects/982/Dittmar/dittmar_t.html Page 4 of 7
Dittmar_t 15/03/2010 23:25

Heidegger, in his essay, addresses the cause of architecture’s difficulties, which are centuries
old, head on and in the most fundamental way when he probes and attempts to define the
nature of our dwelling and the nature of building, and when he points out that both are means
to affirm and explore the identity of our being. Though he barely mentions the term
architecture, his essay is clearly a call for an alternate view, definition and approach to
architecture. But he goes further. He outlines the basic structure for such an approach by
defining the constituent parameters of our existence and our dwelling - the fourfold of the
earth, the sky, the mortals and the divinities - which architecture must engage if it wants to be
true to its nature and its calling.
Architecture, in this sense, locates us within the larger order of our world by "carving out a
place for our being" from the vast and shapeless continuity of time and space and giving it
symbolic and physical presence. At its best, architecture connects our inner with our outer
world and brings them - at least temporarily - into congruence, thereby revealing to us some
of the mystery of both.
Buildings, thus, are more than inhabitable structures that protect us from the elements, let in
light, and provide privacy and space for our activities, though these are demands they also
have to satisfy. Buildings are not ends in themselves, but mediating objects through which we
create a world for ourselves and enter into a dialogue with the world around us by defining
and articulating our relationship to our fellow beings, nature and its phenomena, and "the
world beyond". As such they involve the totality of our existence and our being, not a
reductive, objectified notion of it. The earth that grounds us and all things, and provides the
material for our building; the sky, the origin of space; the sun that animates all life and gives
us the measure of time; the diurnal rhythm of night and day, light and dark; the dynamic cycle
of the seasons and the climate; these are the primary components of architecture, not their
derivatives of function, space, structure and form.

17 At the very end of his essay Heidegger makes what is, perhaps, its most important point
when he observes that, due to our human condition, our homelessness in this world, "[t]he
real dwelling plight lies in this, that mortals ever search anew for the nature of dwelling, that
they must ever learn to dwell "6 . It is a point that is rarely noted, possibly because it is not
understood, or dismissed as eloquent rhetoric. What it essentially says, is that, as a result of
our consciousness, as humans we are at once a part of the world and yet apart from it, and
that, therefore, we never quite feel at home in the world; that our dwelling is and remains an
un-ending quest and open question. Or, to say it differently, it is a question that poses itself
anew for every time period, culture and society; that we all, individually and collectively,
confront and have to solve within the understanding, opportunities and available means of our
time: to discover and define an identity and a place for ourselves in the world; who we are,
what we are, and where we belong within the larger order of our universe? Every work of
architecture shares in this quest and addresses aspects of these questions from within its
particular vantage point.

18 For architecture this search is fundamental to its nature as a discipline. If our dwelling - and,
thus, architecture - is a continuing, open-ended question, then design, the process through
which a work of architecture comes into being, is first and foremost a discourse and a form of
inquiry. It is not the assembly of building components, of "anwers" to limited, superficial
questions derived from previous solutions; or the composition of abstract geometry and form
to be subsequently "translated" into a building.
The meaning of a work of architecture - and its logic - comes from "within" rather than
"without" (i.e. it is not "imported" from previous precedents, normative theories, or aesthetic
ideologies). As the nature of the work emerges and its understanding becomes clearer, so
does its form as the manifestation of this understanding. Design is, therefore, an evolutionary
learning process, a process of exploration, discovery, understanding and interpretation, i.e. it
is fundamentally a hermeneutic process. Furthermore, since its subject is the question of our
being and our dwelling in this world, design is more than a process of solving functional,
spatial, technological and formal problems: it is inherently a phenomenological and ontological
process.
But design as the guardian of the issue of dwelling cannot exist without the material act of
building. As already mentioned, through architecture - and, thus, through design - we enter
into a dialogue and a discourse with the world around us. Through the shaping of the earth
and organizing its material into a spatial and tectonic framework we engage the forces and
phenomena of nature, reveal its order, and make this order part of our own. It is evident that

http://www.tu-cottbus.de/theoriederarchitektur/Wolke/eng/Subjects/982/Dittmar/dittmar_t.html Page 5 of 7
Dittmar_t 15/03/2010 23:25

building cannot be reduced to just "construction", nor separated from the question of dwelling,
and, thus, the process of design, without subverting both. Trying to understand and bring forth
the essence and meaning of a work is synonymous with the exploration of its material form
and order and, thus, the inquiry into the formal, phenomenal and tectonic nature of building.

19 Such a view of architecture and design runs counter to the current design ethic and, by
implication, challenges the object-oriented, techno-scientific paradigm that is responsible for
it. It would be foolish to think that we can turn back the clock and change this paradigm, e.g.
undo the process of specialization and re-integrate architecture with construction and
engineering. But we do not have to be captive to this paradigm. We do not have to accept
that architecture becomes reduced to " form-making" and/or functional/technical
problemsolving. We can change the way we think about and approach design. Within its own
domain architecture - design - can still pursue the question of our being, building and dwelling
in its totality and still collaborate with the other two disciplines. The only thing that stops us is
our own mind-set.

20 "Building Dwelling Thinking" is often criticized and dismissed as an anachronism, a throw-

back to a long gone past. (Evidence typically cited for this is Heidegger’s poetic description of
a two hundred year old Black Forest farmhouse as an ideal example of dwelling through the
gathering and embodiment of the four-fold, even though he specifically states that this in no
way should be interpreted as a model for the present.) Yet, in a world dominated by the
viewpoint of science and technology, architecture increasingly has difficulties to demonstrate
its value and relevance to society and to establish a true identity as a legitimate discipline all
its own. The problem that architecture faces is not how best to accommodate itself within the
techno-scientific world view and paradigm of thought. Regardless whether it veers towards
science and engineering or towards art, or attempts to find a compromise, it is destined to
further lose its identity and its very existence is in question. The problem, as Heidegger points
out, is first and foremost for architecture to understand its very own nature. Thus, Heidegger’s
essay by implication not only calls for an alternate view and approach to architecture it also
shines a bright light on the serious failure of architectural theory.

21 Current architectural theory has become little more than sophisticated criticism. It focuses on
architectural problems rather than the problem of architecture; theories rather than theory.
While it is good at diagnosing the pathology of architecture’s deficiencies, whether of a social,
cultural, technological, or aesthetic nature, it is blind to the fact that these are essentially the
consequences of the underlying paradigm that controls architecture’s thought and practice.
Meanwhile, while it is criticizing what is wrong with architecture, often looking to other
disciplines for guidance, from philosophy to sociology, cultural and literary criticism and art, it
has abrogated it’s obligation to help architecture find its own identity and definition as a
discipline by exploring what architecture is, instead of what form it should take, i.e. what its
nature is, its role, its meaning and its place within the rest of human endeavor. Only if
architectural theory begins to pursue these issues will architecture, rather than constantly be
meandering between art, social science, engineering and the humanities, finally begin to
develop its own center and core, and be able to go forward. Heidegger’s essay, rather than an
anachronism, could actually help begin to point the way to the future.

NOTES:

1lecture given on August 5, 1951 as part of "Darmstädter Gespräch II" (Darmstadt

Symposium) on the topic "Mensch und Raum" (Man and Space); first published in the
proceedings (Darmstadt: Neue Darmstädter Verlagsanstalt, 1952); English publication, trans.,
by Albert Hofstadter in Martin Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought (New York, Harper &
Row, 1975)

2Donald A. Cress, trans., René Descartes, Discourse on Method and Meditations on First
Philosophy (Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing Company, second edition, 1986); Discourse on
Method originally published in 1637

3Morris Hicky Morgan, trans., Vitruvius, The Ten Books on Architecture (New York, Dover
Publications Inc.,1960)

http://www.tu-cottbus.de/theoriederarchitektur/Wolke/eng/Subjects/982/Dittmar/dittmar_t.html Page 6 of 7
Dittmar_t 15/03/2010 23:25

4 cf. Vitruvius, Book I, Chapter III. 2, "The Departments of Architecture"

5cf. Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown, Steven Izenour, Learning from Las Vegas , in
particular the definition on p. 87 (Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1985; revised edition)

6 "Building Dwelling Thinking", Poetry, Language, Thought , p. 161(the italics are Heidegger’s)

http://www.tu-cottbus.de/theoriederarchitektur/Wolke/eng/Subjects/982/Dittmar/dittmar_t.html Page 7 of 7