Join (Free!) | Login  

     Popular! Books, Stories, Articles, Poetry
   Services MarketPlace (Free to post!)
Where Authors and Readers come together!


Featured Authors:  Dave Cole, iStan Law (aka Stanislaw Kapuscinski), iKaren Wilson, iJay Dubya, iPeggy Schmuldt, iKathryn Carrington, iHelen Davis, i

  Home > Architecture > Articles Popular: Books, Stories, Articles, Poetry     

Barie Fez-Barringten

· Become a Fan
· Contact me
· Success story
· Books
· Articles
· Poetry
· Stories
· Blog
· 81 Titles
· 7 Reviews
· Save to My Library
· Share with Friends!
Member Since: Mar, 2006

Barie Fez-Barringten, click here to update your pages on AuthorsDen.

   Recent articles by
Barie Fez-Barringten

Metaphors, architecture and music
Relations between metaphors, creative thinking and 3D structures ©
The Six Principles of Art’s & Architecture’s Technical and Conceptual M
Architecture is an art because, as art, it too, makes metaphors
Linguistic, psychological, and cognitive sciences:architecture:metaphors
Metaphoric axioms for micro disciplinary architecture
Metaphor issues of architecture is art stasis
Communication, metaphor & architecture ©
Interior Architecture/ Interior Design
           >> View all

Metaphor cognition architecture axioms
By Barie Fez-Barringten   
Rated "G" by the Author.
Last edited: Saturday, June 14, 2014
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Share    Print   Save    Become a Fan

      View this Article

Nineteen dominant, sub-dominant and tertiary axioms are described in Andrew Ortony’s compendium entitled, Metaphor and Thought (Ortony, A (1993) which references the results of scientific method applied to metaphor in cognitive sciences, education, linguistics, psychology, learning sciences and philosophy.

The key categories which underpin this work are as follows:

· Metaphor and meaning
· Metaphor and representation
· Metaphor and understanding
· Metaphor and science
· Metaphor and education

Metaphor cognition architecture axioms


Architecture’s New Paradigm

               There is a shift in architectural paradigms from one set of forms to another - from existential shelter to “meaning” and “significance”. As well as functioning, it is important for today’s built environment to mean something. For the architect, cognition lies in the technical and conceptual metaphor and is part of a continuous inductive process which adds new information. This process facilitates the creation and perception of the work as something contemporary and relevant. What makes our present comparison about metaphor unique is the important distinction that it draws between conceptual metaphors (or metaphorical concepts) on the one hand and linguistic metaphors on the other (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980, based on the 1967 lecture series: Architecture as the Making of Metaphors [see Background]). The former concepts, for example, refer to “love is war” and “love is journey”, while the latter, according to Weiss, are “linguistic" and are exemplified by his example: “Richard the Lionhearted”. Metaphorical language, consisting of specific linguistic expressions, is but a surface manifestation and realization of conceptual metaphor.

                     Conceptual metaphors are systematic mappings made across conceptual domains: one, the domain of experience and two, the target domain, architecture. [F] The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, as outlined by Ning Yu, states that architecture can be the making of conceptual not literal metaphors. This occurs where the metaphor or extension of meaning from one object to another is not in the words themselves. For example, the word building conveys not just the image itself but the mental image it conjures. The words - or in the case of architecture - the shapes, forms, materials, etc. –help us to perform mapping (or cognition) from one conventional image to another at a conceptual level. Whilst the link between the metaphor of architecture and metaphor is conceptual, many of its applications borrow readily from linguistics. Cognitively, as the work is perceived, the reader learns the metaphor and connects it to the familiar. Architectural metaphor is cognitively a kind of “body language”, which makes is presence felt through poetry, music, ballet, etc. but whilst it does this, it does so inaudibly as something implicitly understood but not said. We find works which “welcome”, “open up”, “close”, “reject”, “turn-in”, “introvert”, “explode”, “shout”, “play” etc. Cognitively, works of architecture as metaphors may be more onomatopoetic – a full sentence which is grasped intuitively as analogy rather than as something overt. It may be sensed but never understood; used but never seen; ignored, condemned, obliterated, preserved or worshipped as an icon or as a landmark. As a landmark it stands as a statement and an artifact, which people have created in a particular location at a given moment in time and space. It defines a context and as a metaphor communicates its past in terms of itself. Conceptually, it converses about the things it marks in terms of its design, its age or method of construction. Linguistic, conceptual and architectural metaphor all make the strange familiar, but it is the architectural and artistic that identifies our position in society and is emblematic of who we are. We are not the metaphor but our experience of it is as real as anything we know. As we perceive it, the metaphor is our reality. It contains our identity, signs and signals. Its vocabulary, symbols and characters are symbiotic. The metaphor itself is symbiotic and our relationship to it can therefore be considered as symbiosis. The metaphor stands for change; it is transformational. It works internally between its elements and upon us as we shape it. It is in the process of completion, in which user and audience participate, that the metaphor is created. The word metaphor has come down to us from the original Greek (through Latin), where it described a “transfer” and it is no wonder that linguistics plays such an important role in our attempts to understand human cognition. Language is the principal vehicle of cognition but not it only vehicle.

                         Conceptual metaphors are based on the idea that form-function correspondences are derived from embodied experience and language. It may seem facile to say that we are the sum of all that has gone before but there is compelling evidence to support the claim that what works for linguistics works for architecture, too. For any one work there are always two metaphors: 1) The concept and 2) The manifestation of the concept. For example, “Richard the Lionhearted” is a manifestation of the concept of bravery but what links Richard to the lion is understood without being visualized (Weiss,P) . When we hear the voices of singers, the sounds of musicians, the tones of speakers and the quality of a manifest metaphor, we encounter the presence of other human beings. The cognitive essence of this presence establishes our identity and we make the reality our own. We shape it in our mind’s eye.

Axioms {3}

                Axioms (shown in Roman numerals) are self-evident principles that I have distilled from Ortony’s Metaphor and Thought (Ortony, A(1993) and accept as true without proof as the basis for future arguments; as postulates or inferences including their warrants (which I have footnoted as 1._._ throughout).These axioms are in themselves clarification, enlightenment and illumination which remove ambiguity where the derivative reference (Ortony) has many applications. The axioms define properties for the domain of a specific theory which evolved out of the stasis defending architecture as an art and are in that sense a "postulate” and an "assumption”. Consequently, I have presumed to axiomatize a system of knowledge to show that these claims can be supported by a small, well-understood set of truths. Kurt Psilander in his article, Axiomatic Design in Customizing Homebuilding, published in Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 2002, vol. 9, issue 4, page 318-324, wrote: “The developer would find a tool very useful that systematically and reliably analyses customer taste in terms of functional requirements (FRs). Such a tool increases the reliability of the procedure the entrepreneur applies to chisel out a concrete project description based on a vision of the tastes of a specific group of customers. It also ensures that future agents do not distort the developer's specified FRs when design parameters are selected for the realization of the project. “Axiomatic design is one method to support such a procedure. This tool was developed for the manufacturing industry but is applied here in the housing sector.” Aside from architect’s axioms such as “form follows function”; “follow manufacturers’ requirements”, “local codes and ordinances”, “AIA [The American Institute of Architects] standards for professional practice”, architectural axioms are few and far between. The Five Axiomatic Groups 1. Metaphor and Meaning group

Axiom I.

                   In making a habitable conceptual metaphor, after assimilating the program, the first step in the design process is to develop a “parte” (a communication directed to the merits or outcome of the design process). This is the resolution of the argument supported by claims, inferences, evidence and warrants. It is a “top-down” approach later followed by designs which meet the parte. The parte may follow the design process and be presented to sell the product. Of course, this parte would have to converse with the parte of the street, neighborhood and township and with all matters, social, political and legal, that pertain to them.(Zarefsky,D.) The generative metaphor is “seeing” as the “meta-pherein” or “carrying –over” of frames or perspectives and runs from one domain of experience to another. You build one thing in terms of another where the “other” is the model and what you build is the application. It is the “ideal” of the proposed design. While architects may initially state an ideal, it most likely evolves and even radically changes by the time the design process comes to fruition in the building. Once achieved, the “parte” (concept/gestalt) manifests itself and can be articulated. (Ortony, A. (1993) .

Axiom II.

                      Peculiarization, personalization and authentication are required for a metaphor to exist. This too, is the way the user metaphorizes the using process; the user and the work empathize. Intrinsic to the art of making metaphors for the architect, the metaphor must “read” the cultural, social and suitability of its proposed context. They are technê-driven engineering - a building without architectural concerns. (Reddy. M J(1993) Practically, such a work is a technê-driven design where craft-like knowledge is called a technê. It is most useful when the knowledge is pragmatically applied, rather than theoretically or aesthetically applied. It is the rational method involved in producing an object or accomplishing a design where technê is actually a system of practical knowledge. As a craft or art, technê is the practice of design which is informed by knowledge of forms such as the craft of managing a firm of architects where even “virtue” is a kind of technê of management and design practice, one that is based on an understanding of the profession, business and market.

Axiom III.

                           A conduit is a minor framework which overlooks words as containers and allows ideas and feelings to flow, unfettered and completely disembodied, into a kind of ambient space between people. Regardless of the details, the overall concept is “transferred“ one to the other, irrespective of sub-dominant and tertiary design elements. (Reddy. M J (1993) The geometry of urban blocks and the location of building masses that reflect one another is a scheme to define the volume and mass of the block and the experience of city streets (Vincent Scully). In New York City, the gridiron and its concomitant buildings and geometry, is a metaphor of city-wide proportions. The streets are defined by the 90 degree angles, planes, cubes and rectangles of the city plan. In this way the metaphor of the overall and individual building design - no matter where its location on the block - and no matter when or in what sequence the metaphoric constraint of appropriateness or zoning formulas, lead the ideas to flow from one architect to another. Furthermore, the reader is able to “appreciate” (intrinsically) the street, its geometry, limits and linearity as an idea which passes from the architect through the metaphor to the observer. (Reddy. M J(1993)

Axiom IV.

                Culture is a product of man-made things and architecture shapes this by allowing cognition to facilitate further cognition. Building shapes and forms tend to reflect a common geometry; they share common facilities; they adhere to specific code use designations which in turn influence the selection of applicable codes and they create clusters and community spaces which foster neighborhood and cultural identity.( Conrad, U)

Axiom V.

                  Each metaphorical mapping preserves image-schema structure.” In acting it is called a”handle, where a character’s peculiarity is remembered by one device (an accent, slang, twang, wiggle, walk, snort, etc). In architecture the same handle manifests itself in the building’s roof, cladding, silhouette, interior, lighting, gargoyles, entrance, moldings etc(Lakoff, G). If the facade of a building is designed in one order of architecture, you can assume the other parts are akin and expressed through every detail of the whole. An example of this is the superimposition of the image of an hour glass onto the image of a woman’s waist by virtue of their common shape. As before the metaphor is conceptual; it is not the works themselves, but the mental image they create. In this case metaphor is a mental image.

Axiom VI.

                      Since metaphor is the main mechanism through which we comprehend abstract concepts and perform abstract reasoning (Lakoff, G) what is built is first thought and conceived separately. Building as a form of thinking and conceiving is separate from it outward expression and what we see is the result of that process and not the manifestation of the metaphor.

Axiom VII.

                       The metaphor-building clarifies our place, status and value. As metaphor is the main mechanism through which we comprehend abstract concepts and abstract reasoning, so works of architecture inform our social, psychological and political condition. Axiom VIII. Much subject matter, from the most mundane to the most abstruse scientific theories, can only be comprehended via metaphor. The metaphor is encapsulated with knowledge about the state of contemporary technology, scientific advancement, social taste and community importance (Lakoff, G) .

Axiom IX.

                        Architects process and what is assembled may or may not correlate to what we perceive. What we see is not necessarily what we think or believe we have seen. As with thought, poetry, song, etc. architecture is both precise around the technique but vague about the cultural, psychic and social bridges. Yet architecture is rich with icons, classic silhouettes, orders of architecture, styles and periods. Metaphor is fundamentally conceptual not linguistic in nature. It is the difference between the thing itself and what we perceive (Lakoff, G).

Axiom X.

                      Metaphorical language (in this case a building) is a surface manifestation of conceptual (program, design and contact documents) metaphor. The built metaphor is the residue, detritus, product and periphery of the deep and complex reality of the process of creating a building. It is analogous with driving a car. It is not necessary to know mechanical engineering to do it any more than it is essential to understand architecture to use a building. What we design and what we read is not the metaphor itself but a surface manifestation of the concept metaphor. How well we know this depends on how well we are able to discern metaphorical language(Lakoff, G) .

Axiom XI.

                  Though much of our conceptual system is metaphorical; a significant part of it is non-metaphorical. Metaphorical understanding is grounded in non-metaphorical understanding. Our primary experiences are rooted in the laws of the physical world (gravity, plasticity, liquid, climate etc.). These elements contribute to our metaphorical understanding often through the conceptual commonality of being able to accept that which appears at first sight to be strange(Lakoff, G) .

Axiom XII.

                   Metaphor allows us to understand a relatively abstract or inherently unstructured subject matter in terms of a more concrete, or at least, more highly structured subject matter. (Lakoff, G) The whole of the conceptual metaphor is designed in such a way as to clarify, orient and provide “concrete” reification of all the design parameters into a “highly structured’ work; a work which orders all these diverse and disjointed systems and operations into a highly efficient “mechanism”. A structured building is a structured subject offering access to relatively abstract and unstructured subject matter. Hence architects translate their architectural conception from philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc. into two dimensional scaled drawings which in turn become full-scale multidimensional structures composed of conventional materials and building elements (doors, windows, stairs, etc) .

Axiom XIII.

                   Sifting through the program the architect seeks the “commonality” between the reality and experience to make the metaphor. Mapping is only possible when makers know the “commonplace” and the commonality - characteristics which are common to both. In other words, terms that both the source and the target have in common allow the mapping to take place(Lakoff, G) . The architect’s design agenda and the user’s requirements illustrate both their commonalities and differences. As the architect structures his program, design and specifications, he simultaneously structures the metaphor of his work of architecture. Architecture consists of program specifics where the conditions, operations, goals and ideals are from hitherto unrelated and distant contexts but are themselves metaphors “mapped across conceptual domains”. As maps are the result of cartographers placing existing knowledge into graphic form for the purpose of reading and comprehension by others, so “mapping” in this context is where the metaphor is conveyed from one source to another. The cartographer seeks lines, symbols and shading to articulate the world. The reader, hitherto unfamiliar with the contents of the map, finds the essence common to both the reality and the rendition so that the metaphor can be repeated and become part of the reader’s new vocabulary.

                  Each mapping (where mapping is the systematic set of correspondences) is that which exists between constituent elements of the source and the target domain. Many elements of target concepts come from source domains and are not pre-existing. To know a conceptual metaphor is to know the set of mappings that applies to a given source-target pairing. The same idea of mapping between source and target is used to describe analogical reasoning and inferences. For example, reception area to receive people, doors and door frames, columns as vertical supports, parking spaces for cars, iron and stained glass design patterns, and typical design details appropriated for a given building system(Lakoff, G) . Aside from articulating a program, architects carry-over their experiences with materials, physics, art, culture, building codes, structures, plasticity, etc. to form a metaphor. Identifying conditions, operations, ideals and goals are combined to form plans, sections and elevations which are then translated in to contract documents. Later the contractors map this metaphor based on their schemes of cost, schedule and quality control into schedules and control documents. It is not until equipment, laborers and materials are brought to the site that the metaphor starts to form. Once formed the only evidence for the user (reader) are the thousands of cues from every angle, outside and inside to enable use and understanding. An informed user can read the building’s history from its inception to opening day. Mappings are not arbitrary, but grounded in the body and in every day experience and knowledge. Mapping and making metaphors are synonymous. The person and not the work make the metaphor. Without the body and the experience of either the author or the reader, nothing is being made. As language, craft, and skills are learned by exercise, repetition and every day application, so are mappings. Mappings are not subject to individual judgment or preference: but as a result of making, seeking and finding commonality by practice(Lakoff, G) . A conceptual system contains thousands of conventional metaphorical mappings which form a highly structured subsystem of the whole. Over the years, society, cultures, families and individuals experience and store a plethora of mapping routines which are part of society’s vocabulary. As a potential user, when encountering a new building-type, such as a hi-tech manufacturing center, we call upon this subsystem to try conceptualize what is in front of us. (Lakoff, G) The scale of habitable metaphors is based on the intrinsic relation between the human form and its surroundings as measured, proportioned and sensed. It is dramatically represented by Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man, which is based on the correlations of ideal human proportions with geometry as described by the ancient Roman architect Vitruvius. Architecture as a surrogate is accepted at face value. As a surrogate (a work of architecture) is "a replacement that is used as a means for transmitting benefits from a context in which its user may not be a part”. Architecture’s metaphors bridge from the program, designs and contactors, a shelter and trusted habitat. The user enters, occupies and formulates the habitat without ever having articulated any of its characteristics. Yet it works. “It makes sense, therefore, to speak of two sides to a surrogate, the user side and the context side (from which the user is absent or unable to function).” Each of us uses others to achieve a benefit for ourselves. None of us is just a person, a lived body or just an organism. We are all three and more. We are singulars who own and express ourselves in and through them. As Weiss says, we cannot separate these three from each other, so it follows that we may find it impossible to separate ourselves from external metaphors. Inferences that are not yet warranted can be real even before we have the evidence(Lakoff, G) . Metaphors, like architecture, are accepted at face-value. Accustomed to surrogates, architecture is made by assuming these connections are real and have benefit. Until they are built and used we trust that they will benefit the end user. In assembling the ambulatory, we assume the occupancy, frequency and destination of the user. We each are surrogates to one another yet fitted into one message. When this passage had been used or ‘read’ it becomes a conduit like other passages, corridors and links. Like a linguistic metaphor, the building stands, like a great, stone dagger, emphatic against the sky. The stairs, the exits, the space calls, give emphasis and are strongly expressive.

Axiom XIV.

               Elegant architectural metaphors are those in which the big idea and the smallest of details echo and reinforce each another. Contemporary architects wrap their parte in “green”, “myths” and “eclectic images”; their predecessors from the Bauhaus exuded asymmetry, tension and dissonance and the architecture of the classical period and the renaissance insisted on unity, symmetry and balance. The architect’s parte and the user’s grasp of cliché parte were expected and easy “fill-in” proving the learned mappings, learned inference trail and familiarity with bridging. People ascertain the deep metaphor that underlies one or more surface metaphor in terms of an implicit analogy. A unique building metaphor may be reckoned by its apparent similarity to another from a previous experience. A grain silo, a gas holder and an oil storage tank all have marked similarities implicit in their shapes, appurtenances and locations (Nigro, G.(1993). We see the architectural metaphor, we read its extent, we synapse, analogise and metaphorize absorbing its information, contextualizing - and as much as possible- resurrecting its reasons for creation (Nigro, G.(1993) . The architectural metaphor only speaks through its apparent shape, form, volume, space, material, etc. that the concepts which underlie each are known to the user as they would to a painting, poem, or concerto. Architecture is often more suggestive and trusting rather than pedantic; it leads and directs circulation and use- recognition, while abstracting shapes and forms hitherto unknown but ergonometric (Nigro, G.(1993) . Furthermore, as observation, analysis and use fill in the gaps, users inference the locations of concealed rooms, passages and supports; the user infers from a typology of the genre a warehouse of expectations and similes to this metaphor from others. In this way there are the perceived and the representations they perceive, which represents when explored and inert, what we call beautiful, pleasurable and wonderful. For example, in any culture, upon entering a traditional church we anticipate finding a certain vocabulary: vestibule, baptistery, pews, chancel; choir; transepts, chapels, statuary, altar, apse, sacristy, aisles and side altars. Metaphors are cognitions. While architecture is the making of metaphors and architects are the makers of metaphors, their works, though metaphoric, are not themselves the metaphors. They are but “shadows” of the metaphor which exists elsewhere in the minds of both the creator and the user. It is in the creator and user that this commonality may be found (Nigro, G.(1993). If I were to design my own house or decorate my own room, there will likely be that commonality. Similarly, if an architect is selected from a particular neighborhood his metaphor may be sympathetic to the culture of that area. Architects make possible a spatial representation in which local subspaces can be mapped into points of higher-order hyper-spaces and vice versa because they have a common set of dimensions (Nigro, G.(1993). Architects organize broad categories of operation and their subsets on the basis of how they differ from each other. These subsets warrant separate groups because they adhere to common operational considerations, functional conditions and models.

Axiom XV.

               Shelter and its controlled creation contain sensual, graphic and strategic information. The need for shelter is met by real deeds. The building and not its metaphor is direct. The metaphor is indirect being the “sticks and stones” of its manifestation. Whilst the metaphor may be explained with language, it would not encapsulate the building’s shelter metaphor. The shelter prototype and its realization is itself indirect since its referent is obscured by its context. 1.6.1 There is a difference between the indirect uses of metaphor verses the direct use of language to explain the world. The distinctions and relationships between micro and macro metaphors and the way they can inform one another are akin to the role design plays to the program or a connector reflects the concept of articulation as a design concept (Sadock, J. M (1993) . This articulation describes an attachment between two separable parts in the sense of "divide (vocal sounds) into distinct and significant parts" or where an architect parses the program and reifies words to graphic representations bringing together disparate and seemingly unrelated parts to make a whole.

Axiom XVI.

                     The two domains of the building and its context may have analogies that relate to both. The site and the building will absorb a high amount of pedestrian traffic. Both are ambulatories and both guide and protect the pedestrian. Like a building metaphor’s common elements with an uncommon application, the common connects to the unfamiliar and the architect is able to find a way to bring them together in a way that enables the user to discover their relevance. The neighborhood’s walkways and the access to and through the building are analogous. As a child, Kressge 5 and 10 were built as huge, wide diagonal corridors connecting Westchester Avenue with Southern Boulevard thus saving many steps, time and distance but providing a wonderful weather-free comfort- zone cutting through this South Bronx, New York City block. At the intersection of these streets there were shops, which because of the new ambulatory link, where now conjoined. From being two neighborhoods they effectively became one domain linked by the corridor (a bit like adding a crossbar to make an “A”). Alleys in big cities and Munich subway shopping malls are also examples of these design analogies, called galleries, alleys, mews, etc. Metaphors work by “reference to analogies that are known to relate to the two domains” ( Rumelhart, D. E (1993) .; .

Axiom XVII.

                  A work of architecture has congruence if the whole and the parts share the same architectural vocabulary with respect to its building systems, materials and design philosophy. In a building with dominant 90 degree, cubes and squares we do not expect (although they are sometimes there) to find plastic, curved and circular elements. On the other hand, if we can reason these differences, we would still question this disparity and incongruity were it to appear in the final work .For this reason we have design juries and inspections that reject elements which are out of kilter with the design and construction of the part or the whole. Buildings designed to be seen from the highway or visited for a fleeting moment, conform to a different set of values than those such as a home, terminal, office, etc., which may be more elaborate and scaled for scrutiny. A built metaphor with all of its metaphorical baggage calls to mind another meaning and corresponding set of truths. The metaphor is not part of the building but is made from those meanings. The meanings of one and the meanings of another may be similar so that the other comes to mind. “A problem of the metaphor concerns the relations between the word and sentence meaning, on the one hand, and the speaker’s meaning or utterance meaning, on the other ( Searle, J. R (1993). “Whenever we talk about the metaphorical meaning of a word, expression or sentence, we are talking about what a speaker might utter it to mean, in a way that departs from what the word, expression or sentence actually means.” The design program, building codes, manufacturers’ recommendations are compared with the final design to test for the meaning and compliance of the work. The complaint against Frank Lloyd Wright’s Guggenheim Museum was that the inferior quality of the concrete resulted in an uneven and mottled surface finish. The design and the expression are often incongruous and out of the architect’s control. “What are the principles which relate literal… meaning to metaphorical… meaning where one is comprehensive, complete and coordinated while the other is merely an incomplete scanty indication of a non-specific? How does one thing remind us of another? The basic principle of an expression with its literal meaning and corresponding truth-conditions can, in various ways that are specific to the metaphor, call to mind another meaning and corresponding set of truths” ( Searle, J. R (1993). Unlike a legal brief, a specification or an engineering document, a work of architecture with all its metaphors tolerates a variety of interpretations, innuendo and diverse translation.

Axiom XVIII.

                Building style and decoration are often adaptations of a former and existing building emphasizing economic and financial status, quest for status, adaptations to local common ground of knowledge, beliefs and attitudes. Choice of structural, building systems, building height and color are often in the vernacular and determined by function (office, residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) and zone and/or neighborhood fashion.


                  Section on “Metaphor and Representation”:

            Explaining tropes (turn, twist, conceptual guises and figurations). “Human cognition is fundamentally shaped by various processes of figuration. “The ease with which many figurative… utterances are comprehended are as often attributed to the constraining influence of the context.” Included in this are the common ground of knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes recognized as being shared by speakers and listeners (architects, users, clients and public). One can say one’s speech is affected; affected by peer pressure and the urge to communicate and adapt (Gibbs, Jr., R. W(1993) . Medieval German, French and Italian cities are replete with merchant buildings whose roofs have been configured, elongated and attenuated to be higher than others. The Germany city of Trier, on the Mosel, is a case in point. Similarly, the roofs on Manhattan’s skyline are an eclectic collation of referent figures from one or other European city or building.

Axiom XIX.

                   A habitable metaphor is not meant for the user to fully, continuously and forever recall all that went into its production. The fact that the roof silhouette may emulate a belvedere in Florence, the windows, a palace in Siena or the stucco, a Tyrolean chalet, is lost over time. Even the design principles so astutely applied by the likes of Paul Rudolf, Richard Meier, or Marcel Breuer, may be unnoticed in favor of other internal foci. These many design considerations may be the metaphor that gave the project its gestalt that enabled the preparation of the documents that in turn were faithful interpreted by skilled contactors and craftsman. Yet at each turn, it is the affect of metaphor and not necessarily its specifics that make a good design, a great work of architecture or a working metaphor.

3. Section on Metaphor and Understanding

                       A metaphor involves a non-literal use of language.”A non-literal use of language refers to what is said is for “affect” and not for “content”. At each moment in its use the metaphor may mean different things, not least to its author (Fraser, B.) .

Axiom XX.

                 In an attempt to make the strange familiar matching, copying and emulating the design of other buildings or adapting the design of one to modern usage is not unusual. In the Tyrol, offices are often housed in large chalets, which look to all intents and purposes not dissimilar from the typical domestic residences of the region (complete with overhanging gables, ornamentation, iron work and window boxes). The new building is made in the guise of the vernacular. There is no attempt to hide the emulation. Users will easily transfer their experience from the familiar old to the emulated new. Appreciation is when a metaphor as an abbreviated simile (a figure of speech in which two unlike things are explicitly compared, as in “she is like a rose.”) is designed to appreciate similarities and analogies. In psychology “appreciation” (Herbert, 1898) was a general term for those mental processes whereby an attached experience is brought into relation with an already acquired and established conceptual system (ergo, encoding, mapping, categorizing, inference, assimilation and accommodation, attribution, etc.). “In principle, three steps, recognition, reconstruction, and interpretation, must be taken in understating metaphors, although in the simplest instance the processing may occur so rapidly that all three blend into a single mental act” (Miller, G. A.(1993). A metaphor may be regarded as a compressed simile, the comparison implied in the former being explicit in the latter; where the making of the comparison explicit is the work of the designer and reader. Like the writer, sculptor and musician, the work of the architect in making metaphors is to reify amorphic matter, ideas and principles into habitable reality. When we face a new metaphor (building) a new context with its own vocabulary is presented, one which the creator must find and connect and the other which the reader must read and transfer from previous experience.

Axiom XXI.

                     Buildings in one group often have more known versions than others. In one city exposed wide flanged steel structures may be preferred to the reinforced concrete in another (Miller, G. A.(1993). In Dubai and Qatar, high-rise, multi-storey and iconic buildings are synonymous and known to represent commercial buildings. Iconic is the trigger for all the rest. High and rise used together recalls how the elevator and quest for maximized real estate earnings encouraged the development of taller buildings on zoned building plots. Prototype theory is a mode of graded categorization in cognitive science, where some members of a category are more central than others (Keysar, B) . For example, when asked to give an example of furniture, "chair" is more frequently cited than, say, "stool". If I asked a New Yorker to give an example of an office building and they answered the Empire State Building, it would be because of its height and reputation, In fact the office building has come to be a metaphor for the city. New York is an office building city and even a subliminal image Manhattan would suffice to evoke New York. “Metaphors are generally used to describe something new by reference to something familiar (Black, 1962b), not just in conversation, but in such diverse areas as science and psychotherapy (Keysar, B) . Metaphors are not just nice, they are necessary. They are necessary for casting abstract concepts in terms of the apprehensible, as we do, for example, when we metaphorically extend spatial concepts and spatial terms to the realms of temporal concepts and temporal terms.” Most designers of shelters are predisposed to the geometry of the rectangle and its variations (with the exception of amorphic and ergonometric design) and present the completed design as its offspring and/or compounded variations. The built variation certainly refers to its base and vice versa. Most building types, from classical orders of Egypt, Greece and Rome to the skewed iconic towers of the Emirates, hark back to their essence as a kind of rectangle.

Axiom XXII.

                     Without having an apriori parte a design may evolve until a final design is achieved which is no more representative as a whole from any other building of its type(Keysar, B) . The Arab desire to “evoke the tent” and the notion of “home-sweet-home” map basics that reinforce the “fully comprehensible” to the creation of the clichéd “vernacular ideal/dream home”, respectively. Following engineering, building and code conventions, it is no wonder that most buildings of one type are similar to others. Architects choose building elements from catalogs and in the most metaphoric circumstances designs elements from scratch (e.g. Frank Lloyd Wright, John Rennie Mackintosh, Gerrit Rietveld etc.). Metaphor buildings may or may not be composed of element metaphors, and buildings, which are analogies, may or may not have elements designed metaphorically. However, it is less likely that an analogous design will contain metaphorical elements. Architects and clients begin their conversation by finding both the abstract and commonplace to condition, model, propose and describe the operations. The decision to select existing commonplace designs and choosing special designs is determined by which can be analogous and which do not exist.

4. Section on Metaphor and Science

                     Much of architectural metaphor is a matter of mapping, diagramming and combining to give validity to the idea of using and matching unlike materials, shapes, & systems. In this way any one of the metaphors and the whole system of bridging and carrying over is metaphoric (Gentner, D). Metaphor is reasoning by abstraction whereas analogy focuses on specific comparisons. “In processing analogy, people implicitly focus on certain kinds of commonalities and ignore others” An analogy is a kind of highly selective similarity where we focus on certain commonalities and ignore others. The commonality is not that they are both built out of bricks but that they both take in resources to operate and to generate their products (Gentner, D). On the architect’s side: “The central idea is that an analogy is a mapping of knowledge from one domain (the base) into another (the target) such that a system of relations that holds among the base objects also holds among the target objects.” On the user’s side in interpreting an analogy, people seek to put objects of the base in one-to-one correspondence with the objects of the targets as to obtain the maximum structural match. “The corresponding objects in the base and target need not resemble each other; rather object correspondences are determined by the like roles in the matching relational structures” (Gentner, D). “Thus, an analogy is a way of aligning and focusing on rational commonalities independently of the objects in which those relationships are embedded.” “Central to the mapping process is the principle of “systemization": people prefer to map systems of predicates favored by higher-order relations with inferential import (for example, the Arab tent), rather than to map isolated predicates. The “systemization” principle reflects a tacit preference for coherence and inferential power in interpreting analogy.” “No extraneous associations: only commonalities strengthen an analogy. Further relations and associations between the base and target - for example, thematic consecutions - do not contribute to the analogy” (Gentner, D).

Axiom XXIII.

                   More often than not designers are influenced by the existence of similar types than the need to invent them from scratch. Rather than deriving a new model, designers use prototypes and translate concepts into two dimensional graphics which ultimately imply a multidimensional future reality. It is the commonplace and not the abstract necessity that communicates more readily. The architect is challenged to imbue in the design a more subtle analogy then the obvious. For example, “interaction view” of metaphor where metaphors work by applying to the principle (literal) subject of the metaphor a system of “associated implications” characteristic of the metaphorical secondary subject. These implications are typically provided by the received “commonplaces” (Zarefsky,D.) which are alluded to by the secondary subject: “The success of the metaphor rests on its success in conveying to the listener (reader) some quieter defined respects of similarity or analogy between the principle and secondary subject.” Metaphors simply impart their commonplace) (Boyd, R).

Axiom XXIV.

                    Publically perceived architectural metaphors are all about names, titles, and the access that the work provides for the reader to learn and develop. At its best the vocabulary of the parts and whole of the work is an encyclopedia and cultural building block. The work incorporates (is imbued with) the current state of man’s culture and society which is an open book for the reader. The freedom of both the creator and reader to dub and show is all part of the learning experience of the metaphor. In the 1960s, I dubbed this popular architecture – “Pop Arch”. However objective, thorough and scientific the designer or the design tools, the work gets dubbed with information we may call style, personality and identity above and beyond the program and its basic design. It is additional information which is grafted into the form but is not necessarily overtly and expressly required. Dubbing (imbuing) may occur in the making of metaphors as a way in which the design itself is conceived and brought together. Dubbing may in fact be the process which created the work as an intuitive act. Imbuing is often what distinguishes the famous from the ordinary architect and the way the architect dubs is what critics calls the “art of architecture”. “Dubbing” (to invest with any name, character, dignity, or title; style; name; call) and “epistemic access” (relating to, or involving knowledge; cognitive).”When dubbing is abandoned the link between language and the world disappears” (Kuhn, T, S(1993); adding a sound track to a film is the best use of the word where the picture remains but the experience of the whole is changed. Now we have both picture and sound. Certain contemporary works of architecture are minimal and only by dubbing the program can functionally superficial non-minimal features be added. However, the architect’s artistry (way of design, proportioning, arranging spaces, selections of materials, buildings systems, etc.) can be dubbed to enhance an otherwise “plain vanilla” solution. Like fashion stylists, buildings, too, have stylists whose formal signatures are unmistakably peculiar them. You can recognize a Frank Lloyd Wright building from an Eero Saarinen; a le Corbusier from an I. M. Pei; a Bauhaus from a Beaux Artes; a Mies van der Rohe from a Louis Kahn and a Norman Foster from a Frank Gehry etc.

Axiom XXV.

                Structural engineers design from the top down so as to accumulate the additive loads to the consecutive lower members and ultimately the foundation which bears it all. Conceptual design and first impressions both begin with the general and go to the particular . Pylyshyn, Z. W) Explaining this approach as a “skyhook-skyscraper" construction of science from the roof down to the yet un-constructed foundations, describes the process of going from the general to the particular before looking in detail at specific evidence, referents, claims and resolutions. “The difference between literal and metaphorical description lies primarily in such pragmatic consideration as:

(1) the stability, referential specificity, and general acceptance of terms; and

(2) the perception, shared by those who use the terms, that the resulting description characterizes the world as it really is, rather than being a convenient way of talking about it, or a way of capturing superficial resemblances.” 1.16.8 Pylyshyn asserts: “Metaphor induces a (partial) equivalence between two known phenomena; a literal account describes the phenomenon in authentic terms in which it is seen.” (Pylyshyn, Z. W). As Pylyshyn explains: “… consider new concepts as being characterized in terms of old ones (plus logical conjunctives).” William J. Gordon points out that we make the strange familiar by talking about one thing in terms of another. Pylyshyn: "On the other hand, if it were possible to observe and to acquire new “knowledge” without the benefit of these concepts (conceptual schemata an underlying organizational pattern or structure; conceptual framework) which are the medium of thought where knowledge would not itself be conceptual or be expressed in the medium of thought, and therefore it would not be cognitively structured, integrated with other knowledge, or even comprehended. Hence, it would be intellectually inaccessible”. In other words we would not know that we know ( Pylyshyn, Z. W). This was the Greek ideal as evinced in Oedipus. Through suffering man learns and becomes aware. Therefore, when we observe that architecture makes metaphors we mean that we know that we know that works exist and we can read them. We learn the work. From using two and three dimensions, asymmetry and symmetry, spatial and volumetric design principles, the architect assembles metaphors by applying these sometimes diffuse and dissonant elements into something coherent (Pylyshyn, Z. W).| Section on Metaphor and Education

Axiom XXVI.

                     “Analogical transfer theory” concerns the role that the instructive metaphor plays in creating an analogy between a to-be-learned system, a target domain, and a familiar system, the metaphoric domain. Not unlike classical Gothic, modern architecture wants to express the truth about the building systems, materials, open lifestyles, use of light and air and bringing nature into the building’s environment, not to mention ridding buildings of the irrelevant and time-worn design clichés and principles professed by the Beaux Arts movement. For equipoise, “unity, symmetry and balance” were replaced by “asymmetrical tension” between, “dominant, sub-dominant and tertiary” forms as the influence of science and engineering was brought to bear on architectural design. A new metaphor was born. The Bauhaus found the metaphor in all the arts, the commonalties in making jewelry, furniture, architecture, interior design, decoration, lighting, industrial design, etc (Mayer, R. E) .

Axiom XXVII.

                   Metaphorical teaching strategies often lead to better and more memorable learning than do explicit strategies. This explains why city dwellers are “savvy” compared with their suburban counterparts; they actually learn from the metaphors that make up the context. Of course this is in addition to the social aspects of urbanity which is again influenced by the opportunities of urban metaphors: parks, playgrounds, main streets, broadways, avenues, sidewalks, plazas, downtown, markets, street vendors, etc. When visiting new cities in another country one is immediately confronted with metaphors which create similarities as interactive and comparative as we seek to find similarities and differences with what we already know in our home context. Visiting, sketching and writing about over seventy European cities, I noted the character and ambience of each and the differences between them. Each metaphor was of the past’s impact on the future with the unique design of crafts, building materials, and skills that were peculiar to their times but were not enjoyed in the present. In this context there are the locals who experience these metaphors all their lives and the visitor who is first learning the lesson they have to offer. Both experience these in different ways. The locals knows the place and comprehend both the old and the new knowledge domains, whereas to the visitor the very same metaphor may be interactive, creating the similarity under construction. The visitor may well acquire one of the constitutive or residual metaphors of the place at the same time; same metaphor, different experience. (Oshlag, R. S.) “Radically new knowledge results from a change in modes of representation of knowledge, whereas a comparative metaphor occurs within the existing representations which serve to render the comparison sensible. The comparative level of metaphor might allow for extensions of already existing knowledge, but would not provide a new form of understanding (Oshlag, R. S) . Axiom XXVIII. “Speech is a fleeting, temporarily linear means of communicating, coupled with the fact that, as human beings, we are limited in how much information we can maintain and process at any one time in active memory, means that as speakers we can always benefit from tools for efficiently bringing information into active memory, encoding it for communication, and recording it, as listeners, in some memorable fashion.” (Sticht,T.G.) Many architects can make metaphors to overcome cognitive limitations and resort to graphics rather than language to explain the metaphor. Metaphor as a design act serves as a graphic tool for overcoming cognitive limitations. Metaphors have a way of extending our capacity for communication . Architects, like most artists, use language beyond speech. Their genre and its practice give them the opportunity to develop new ways of seeing, ‘speaking’ and experiencing which lie beyond the norm. It also gives them the ability to learn and express thought outside of the confines of linguistics but in a form which is no less valuable or accessible. Architects both compose the program and reify its contents from words to diagrams and diagrams to two dimensional graphics and three dimensional models to reify and bring out in the user’s mind the fulfillment of unspoken and hidden needs.

                Needs which may or may not have been programmed and intended; the metaphor is the final resolution until it is built and used. Then it is subject to further tests of time, audience, markets, trends, fashions, social politics, demographic shifts, economics, and cultural changes. (Sticht,T.G.) Metaphor is the solution insofar as it encodes and captures the information; transferring chunks of experience from well known to less well known contexts. The “vividness thesis”, maintains that metaphors permit and impress a more memorable learning process owing to the greater imagery or concreteness or vividness of the “full-blooded experience” conjured up by the metaphorical vehicle. It also offers the “inexpressibility thesis”, which determines that certain aspects of experience are never encoded in language. One picture is worth a thousand words and how valuable are the arts as makers of who we are (Sticht,T.G.) The mnemonic (intended to assist the memory) function of metaphor as expressed in Ortony’s vividness thesis, also points to the value of metaphor as a tool for producing durable learning from unenduring speech. Conclusion When ancient civilizations created iconic buildings, the architect and artisans took their cue from the reigning elite. They converted these verbal instructions into habitable iconic cognitions, places to store and represent their wealth and places to defend their dominions. The referents were clearly monetarily valued as in “more is better” or “security and privacy”. With the introduction of civil codes, architecture became concerned about the health, safety and welfare of the general public. In certain modern pluralistic societies the free reign of ideas and opinions as to contexts and their meanings are diverse. Today’s architect not only reasons the technical but individually reasons the conceptual. It is to the architect that society turns to be informed about the shape and form of the context in which life will be played out. It is a public and private charge included in the contract for professional services but unspoken as professional life’s experience; to prove the relevant, meaningful and beneficial metaphors that edify, encourage and equip society as well as provide for its health, safety and welfare. So it is critical to realize, control and accept as commonplace that the role of the architect is to do much more than build but build masterfully.

References cited

Boyd, Richard; 1.14.0 Metaphor and theory change: What is” metaphor” a metaphor for?

Conrad, Ulrich; 1.3 In Programs and Manifestoes on 20th-Century Architecture about Glasarchitektur

Fraser, Bruce; 1.10.0 Interpretation of novel metaphors

Gentner, Dedre ; 1.13.0 The shift from metaphor to analogy in Western science by

Gibbs, Jr., Raymond W.; 1.9.0 Process and products in making sense of tropes Gordon, W.J.J.; The Metaphorcial Way:Synectics:Cambridge Press

Kuhn, Thomas S.; 1.15.0 Metaphor in science

Keysar, Boaz; 1.12.0 How metaphors work

Kriesberg, Irving: C..{C} Irving Kriesberg; the American painter was born in 1919. He studied painting in America at The Art Institute of Chicago and the University of Chicago from 1938-1941 and later in Mexico from 1942-1946. Kriesberg began his interest in art as a cartoonist in high school in Chicago. In the 1930's he spent many days sketching the work of the great masters Titian & Rembrandt when visiting The Art Institute of Chicago. In the late 1930's he came under the influence of modern art via School of Paris exhibit.

Lakoff, George; 1.4 The contemporary theory of metaphor

Mayer, Richard E.; 1.17.0 The instructive metaphor: Metaphoric aids to students’ understanding of science

Miller, George A.; 1.11.0 Images and models, similes and metaphors

Ortony,Andrew;1.0 Metaphor and Thought: Second Edition; 1993; Published by Cambridge University Press: School of Education and social Sciences and Institute for the learning Sciences: North Western University

Oshlag, Rebecca S.; 1.18.0 Metaphor and learning

Petrie, Hugh G; 1.18.0 Metaphor and learning

Pylyshyn, Zeon W.; 1.16.0 Metaphorical imprecision and the “top down” research strategy

Reddy. Michael J.; 1.2 The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language:.

Rumelhart, David E.; 1.7.0 Some problems with the emotion of literal meanings

Sadock, Jerrold M.; 1.6.0 Figurative speech and linguistics

Schon, Donald A. ; 1.1Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy:

Searle, John R.; 1.8.0 Metaphor

Thomas G. Sticht; 1.19.0 Educational uses of metaphor

Weiss,Paul; 1.4.11 "Surrogates," published by Indiana University Press; Empatics; and the Metaphorical Process pubished in Main Currents in Modern Thought 1971;

Zarefsky,David; “Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning, 2nd Edition; Northwestern University and published by The Teaching Company, 2005 of Chantilly, Virginia


                  The first lectures "Architecture as the Making of Metaphors" were organized and conducted by Barie Fez-Barringten near the Art and Architecture building at the Museum of Fine Arts Yale University 11/02/67 until 12/04/67. The guest speakers were: Paul Weiss, William J. Gordon, Christopher Tunnard, Vincent Scully, Turan Onat, Kent Bloomer, Peter Millard, Robert Venturi, Charles Moore, Forrest Wilson, and John Cage. Three major questions confront both the student and the practitioner of architecture: First, what is architecture? Second, why is architecture an art? Third, what is architecture’s organizing principle? Many answers to these questions have been provided by scholars and professionals, but seldom with enough rigors to satisfy close scrutiny. Nor have the questions been attached to proven and workable forms, so that the art could be developed beyond the limits of personal feelings. During the series of colloquia at Yale on art, Irving Kriesberg [1] had spoken about the characteristics of painting as a metaphor. It seemed at once that this observation was applicable to architecture, to the design of habitable forms. An appeal to Paul Weiss drew from him the suggestion that we turn to English language and literature in order to develop a comprehensive, specific, and therefore usable definition of metaphor. But it soon became evident that the term was being defined through examples without explaining the phenomenon of the metaphor; for our purposes it would be essential to have evidence of the practical utility of the idea embodies in the metaphor as well as obvious physical examples. Out of this concern grew the proposal for a lecture series wherein professional and scholars would not only bring forward the uses of metaphor but would also produce arguments against its use. Thus developed the symposium, which was presented by the Department of Architecture at Yale in the same year. 1967, with the intent to illuminate, in order to refine and develop, the idea because it makes metaphors; that a work of architecture is a metaphor because it too blends certain programmatic specifics with concerns implicit to its own medium. Those exploring these possibilities included Paul Weiss, William J.J. Gordon, Peter Millard, Robert Venturi and Charles Moore; the following statements are edited transcriptions of a small portion of the talks which were contributed to this discussion.

           The beginning was steeped in deductive reasoning since we could not find new information pertaining to metaphors. This included analyzing and explaining the syllogism:

1 Art {2} is the making of metaphors

2 Architecture is an art

3 Therefore architecture is the making of metaphors.

                Till now we did nothing to reason why art is the making of metaphors, why architecture is an art nor why architecture is an art. Since 1967, I proceeded to analyze the presumptions and find its many applications. This new information by Andrew Ortony first published in 1979, provides information to support inductive reasoning and to this end each axiom is its own warrant to the inferences of the above syllogism and the answer to question of why metaphor is the stasis to any of the syllogism’s claims and implications.

1. Irving Kriesberg; the American painter was born in 1919. He studied painting in America at The Art Institute of Chicago and the University of Chicago from 1938-1941 and later in Mexico from 1942-1946. Kriesberg began his interest in art as a cartoonist in high school in Chicago. In the 1930s he spent many days sketching the work of the great masters Titian & Rembrandt when visiting The Art Institute of Chicago. In the late 1930s he came under the influence of modern art via School of Paris exhibit.

2. Art is the intentional and skillful act and/or product applying a technique and differs from natural but pleasing behaviors and useful or decorative products in their intent and application of a developed technique and skill with that technique. Art is not limited to fields, prisons or institutions as science, government, security, architecture, engineering, administration, construction, design, decorating, sports, etc. On the other hand in each there are both natural and artistic where metaphors (conceptual and/technical) make the difference, art is something perfected and well done in that field. For example, the difference between an artistic copy and the original is the art of originality and authorship in that it documents a creative process lacking in the copy.

3 Axiom’s contextual forms Three levels of axioms matching three levels of disciplines:

1. Multidiscipline: Macro most general where the metaphors and axioms and metaphors used by the widest and diverse disciplines, users and societies. All of society, crossing culture, disciplines, professions, industrialist arts and fields as mathematics and interdisciplinary vocabulary.

2. Interdisciplinary: Between art fields Where as metaphors in general inhabit all these axioms drive a wide variety and aid in associations, interdisciplinary contributions and conversations about board fields not necessary involved with a particular project but if about a project about all context including city plan, land use, institutions, culture and site selection, site planning and potential neighborhood and institutional involvement.

3. Micro Discipline: Between architects all involved in making the built environment particularly on single projects in voting relevant arts, crafts, manufactures, engineers, sub-con tractors and contactors. As well as owners, users, neighbors, governments agencies, planning boards and town councils.

Researched Publications: Refereed and Peer-reviewed Journals: "monographs":

                Barie Fez-Barringten; Associate professor Global University

1. "Architecture the making of metaphors" Main Currents in Modern Thought/Center for Integrative Education; Sep.-Oct. 1971, Vol. 28 No.1, New Rochelle, New York.

2."Schools and metaphors" Main Currents in Modern Thought/Center for Integrative Education Sep.-Oct. 1971, Vol. 28 No.1, New Rochelle, New York.

3."User's metametaphoric phenomena of architecture and Music": “METU” (Middle East Technical University: Ankara, Turkey): May 1995" Journal of the Faculty of Architecture

4."Metametaphors and Mondrian: Neo-plasticism and its' influences in architecture" 1993 Available on since 2008

5. "The Metametaphor of architectural education", North Cypress, Turkish University. December, 1997

6."Mosques and metaphors" Unpublished,1993

7."The basis of the metaphor of Arabia" Unpublished, 1994

8."The conditions of Arabia in metaphor" Unpublished, 1994

9. "The metametaphor theorem" Architectural Scientific Journal, Vol. No. 8; 1994 Beirut Arab University.

10. "Arabia’s metaphoric images" Unpublished, 1995

11."The context of Arabia in metaphor" Unpublished, 1995

12. "A partial metaphoric vocabulary of Arabia" “Architecture: University of Technology in Datutop; February 1995 Finland

13."The Aesthetics of the Arab architectural metaphor" “International Journal for Housing Science and its applications” Coral Gables, Florida.1993

14."Multi-dimensional metaphoric thinking" Open House, September 1997: Vol. 22; No. 3, United Kingdom: Newcastle uponTyne

15."Teaching the techniques of making architectural metaphors in the twenty-first century.” Journal of King Abdul Aziz University Engg...Sciences; Jeddah: Code: BAR/223/0615:OCT.2.1421 H. 12TH EDITION; VOL. I and “Transactions” of Cardiff University, UK. April 2010

16. “Word Gram #9” Permafrost: Vol.31 Summer 2009 University of Alaska Fairbanks; ISSN: 0740-7890; page 197

17. "Metaphors and Architecture." October, MIT

18. “Metaphor as an inference from sign”; University of Syracuse Journal of Enterprise Architecture; November 2009: and nomnated architect of the year in speical issue of Journal of Enterprise Architecture.Explainging the unique relationship between enterprise and classic building architecture.

19. “Framing the art vs. architecture argument”; Brunel University (West London); BST: Vol. 9 no. 1: Body, Space & Technology Journal: Perspectives Section

20. “Urban Passion”: October 2010; Reconstruction & “Creation”; June 2010; by C. Fez-Barringten;;

21. “An architectural history of metaphors”: AI & Society: (Journal of human-centered and machine intelligence) Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Communication: Pub: Springer; London; AI & Society located in University of Brighton, UK; AI & Society. ISSN (Print) 1435-5655 - ISSN (Online) 0951-5666 : Published by Springer-Verlag;; 6 May 2010 Paper copy: AIS Vol. 26.1. Feb. 2011; Online ISSN 1435-5655; Print ISSN 0951-5666; DOI 10.1007/s00146-010-0280-8; : Volume 26, Issue 1 (2011), Page 103.

22. “Does Architecture Create Metaphors?; G.Malek; Cambridge; August 8,2009 Pgs 3-12 (4/24/2010)

23. “Imagery or Imagination”:the role of metaphor in architecture:Ami Ran (based on Architecture:the making of metaphors); :and Illustration:”A Metaphor of Passion”:Architecture oif Israel 82.AI;August2010pgs.83-87.

24. “The soverign built metaphor”: monograph converted to Power Point for presentation to Southwest Florida Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. 2011

25.“Architecture:the making of metaphors”:The Book;published : 2012 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street Newcastle upon Tyne NE6 2XX United Kingdom Edited by Edward Richard Hart, 0/2 249 Bearsden Road Glasgow G13 1DH UK 





Web Site: Metaphor cognition architecture axioms

Want to review or comment on this article?
Click here to login!

Need a FREE Reader Membership?
Click here for your Membership!

Books by
Barie Fez-Barringten

Second Coming


Twenty Years in Saudi Arabia (Introduction)

Holy Spirit and I by Christina Fez-Barringten

Buy Options
Barnes & Noble, more..

Where Christ is forbidden

Barnes & Noble, more..


Buy Options
Amazon, more..


Buy Options
Amazon, more..

Architecture:the making of metaphors

Buy Options
Amazon, Barnes & Noble, more..

Architecture:the making of metaphors by Barie Fez-Barringten

Architecture: The Making of Metaphors Author: Barie Fez-Barringten Date Of Publication: Feb 2012 Isbn13: 978-1-4438-3517-6 Isbn: 1-4438-3517-X ..  
Featured BookAds by Silver
Gold and Platinum Members

Precinct Police Station in Bedford Styvestant Brooklyn by Barie Fez-Barringten

Precinct Police Station in Bedford Stuyvesant Brooklyn By Barie Fez-Barringten:AIA/NCARB/Yale M.Arch68’ The below are most of my original drawings as presented to the Yale..  
Featured BookAds by Silver
Gold and Platinum Members

Authors alphabetically: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Featured Authors | New to AuthorsDen? | Add AuthorsDen to your Site
Share AD with your friends | Need Help? | About us

Problem with this page?   Report it to AuthorsDen
© AuthorsDen, Inc. All rights reserved.