3. Copyright of Blaine Neu
Washington State University
College of Engineering and Architecture
School of Architecture and Construction Management 2012
Master of Architecture: Thesis Publication
School Director
Gregory Kessler
Graduate Coordinator
Studio Instructor
Committee Chair
Paul Hirzel
Faculty Committee Member
Todd Beyreuther
Faculty Committee Member
Ayad Rahmani
4.
5. Upon moving to the Bellevue, Washington from Parker, Colorado, my main goal was to
attend Washington State University, suggested by a friend who attended the Architecture
program there years earlier. Architecture has always been my intended profession and I am
proud to have completed both my B.S. in Architectural Studies and Master of Architecture
at the university; Pullman is my home and will always be considered the place I grew the
most, becoming who I am today.
This Thesis is dedicated to my family and friends; all who are extremely special to me. I love
you all dearly. You all have helped me in so many ways it’s hard to put into words on paper.
blaineNEU
Autobiographical Sketch + Dedication
6.
7. screenEXPERIENCEarchitectural response to the screen
Society has quickly become oversaturated with the screen. This new screenSCAPE has been largely ignored
by designers as a true challenger to our physical spaces. Architects must not disregard the screen and it’s
influence on the spaces we take great care in creating. Instead, we must understand these influences and
find a balance between resisting the virtual world the screen permits us (returning the body to the importance
of our physical space and “place”) but while complying to the screens transient nature (that of its virtualization
of reality).
Image courtesy of 123RF LIMITED *
13. 13
theOBSERVATION
“Screens have become a pervasive part of daily experience.”1
The lives we live in are surrounded by them.
They bombard us with information throughout the day, often times without us being aware of it. It is improb-
able to go through the day without having looked into one, be it a cell phone or television, personal computer
monitor or laptop, portable music player or the endless other screens that not only surround us, but which
we now depend on. It is probable that you and the people around you have a screen in their pocket. We
own them. We need them.
Friedberg, A. The Virtual Window: from Alberti to Microsoft. (Spain: The MIT Press) 6.
Image courtesy of 123RF LIMITED
1
*
14. 14
rationalDATA
“The panic was palpable as the June 12 switch to digital television
loomed. With the nation’s over-the-air analog stations about to go offline,
3 million Americans were reportedly unprepared. Fast action was neces-
sary, said President Obama, so that no one missed news or emergency
information. Fear of going tubeless would have been hard to imagine in
the 19th century, when inventors first dreamed up devices to let people
“see by electricity.”
-Laura Fitzpatrick1
Laura Fitzpatrick, “A Brief History Of: Television*,” Time 173, no. 24 (1999), 18.1
This section explores the data trends of technology usage. On the following pages show the owner-
ship trends of Personal Computers, Television Sets, and Cell Phones. Note that the latest year for
surveys conducted was 2010. It can be assumed that the trends continue at an exponential rate.
Regardless, the data results from 2010 alone conclude the saturation of the screen in our current
culture.
15. 15
PERSONAL COMPUTER OWNERSHIP
U.S. Census Bureau. “Home Computers and Internet Use in the United States: August 2000.” Population Survey, September 2001. 1 2 3 4
Roy A. Allan, A History of the Personal Computer (London, Ontario, Canada: Allan Publishing, 2001), 9/8. 5
1984:
1989:
1998:
=
U.S. household owned
2010:
98%
42%
15%
8.2%
4
3
2
1
16. 16
TELEVISION OWNERSHIP
Nielsen Company. U.S. Homes Add Even More TV Sets in 2010. April 28, 2010. http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/u-s-homes-add-even-more-tv-sets-in-2010/ (accessed April 26, 2011).1 2 3 4
1975:
1990:
2000:
2010:
=
U.S. household owned
17%
24%
35%
57%
4
3
2
1
32%
11%
41%
24%
35%
41%
28%
55%
3 screens
2 screens
1 screen
1.57 per household
2.00 per household
2.43 per household
2.93 per household
17. 17
CELL PHONE OWNERSHIP
CTIA: The Wireless Association. History of Wireless Communications. February 2011. http://www.ctia.org/media/industry_info/index.cfm/AID/10388 (accessed April 26, 2011). 1 2
CTIA: The Wireless Association. History of Wireless Communications. February 2011. http://www.ctia.org/media/industry_info/index.cfm/AID/10392 (accessed April 26, 2011). 3 4
1975:
1995:
2000:
2010:
=
U.S. house-
hold
owned
91%
38%
13%
.1%
4
3
2
1
18. 18
rationalCONDITION
Aside from the saturation of the screen in our personal lives, urban conditions also reflect this new
screenSCAPE. From Times Square, New York, across the Atlantic to Piccadilly Circus in London,
England or from the Pacific, Shibuya Square in Tokyo, Japan, the screen is hypnotizing visitors. In
Times Square during December of 2009, a count by Philip Habib & Associates recorded 364,000
pedestrians in a 24-hour period.1
This figure ignores the visitors who flock there by vehicle. The screen
has power over people. Ask someone to think of Times Square and they will likely think of the massive
screens that saturate the space.
Times Square Alliance, “Pedestrian Counts,” Times Square: Crossroads of the World, http://timessquarenyc.org/facts/PedestrianCounts.html (accessed April 28, 2011).1
22. Architecture should “attempt to make what is originally a strange and alien environment
more our own, to transform space into place, so that instead of being cast into a strange
and alien world we are allowed to dwell.”
-Karsten Harries1
Kate Mondloch, Screens: viewing media installation art. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), 18.
Michael R. Curry, review of “Digital Sensations”, by Ken Hillis, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91, no. 4 (2001), 771.
Bermudez, Julio and Hermanson, Robert, “Tectonics After Virtuality: Re-turning to the Body” in
Proceedings of ACSA International Conference: Constructions of Tectonics for the Postindustrial World, (Copenhagen: ACSA Press, 2000), pp.66-71; p.67.
6
3 4
2
1
5 7
8
Ian Buchanan, “Non-Places: Space in the Age of Supermodernity”, Social Semiotics 9 no. 3 (1999), 396.
Anne Friedberg, The Virtual Window: from Alberti to Microsoft. (Spain: The MIT Press, 2009), 6.
Karsten Harries, The Ethical Function of Architecture (London, England: The MIT Press), 174-5.
23. 23
thePROBLEMArchitecture has always been concerned with how our physical bodies relate to the physical realm they dwell in. Furthermore, ar-
chitects are concerned with how this relation effects and influences both our body and our mind/spirit. Though in today’s world, “...
we spend countless hours looking into screens...,”2
a virtual window becoming insensitive of the physical space around us. Virtual,
“being functionally or effectively but not formally of its kind,”3
and, “acting without agency of matter,”4
simply substitutes the place
in which our physical bodies belong. No longer is our sense of place important, for our virtualized identity “is constructed through a
series of intellectual acts, and not through the emplaced, embodied actions that are at the root of “real” identity.”5
We shift our points
of view, travelling to virtualized places through the screen (our minds mobile) though we may remain stationary (our bodies immobile).
Not only should this alarm the architect of our physical “place”, but it should alarm the users as well. Screen technologies give an
amazing ability to communicate. In fact the time:space continuum has been shrinking as technology progresses; it is almost non-
existent today. Today, communication across the globe is nearly instantaneous, a spatial distance that only a century ago would
have been unheard of to most. Ironically, screen technology actually directs us to solitude as it removes physical communication.
“Frequentation of non-places today provides an experience - without real historical precedent - of {relational} solitary individuality
combined with non-human mediation... between the individual and the public...”6
And as we now inhabit two places at once, the
physical where our bodies remain stationary and the virtual we are effectively consumed by, our body and our mind are at a discon-
nect. We become disembodied leaving behind not only our bodies but the physical space they inhabit. “Indeed, descriptions of
identity within [Virtual Environments] bear a disturbing similarity to accounts of schizophrenia,”7
where schizophrenia is quite literally
existing in two realities simultaneously. As we succumb to our Virtual Environments, our physical “place” of purpose looses it’s value.
In fact, we are not even aware of it.
Furthermore, screens permit us a virtual reality that challenges how we experience reality (virtual or physical). As our senses are the
key to experience, virtual reality permits us only the senses of vision and sound; all other senses are disregarded, most importantly
that of touch and smell. Where these senses are not ignored (augmented) they are not an inherent synthesis, and therefore, leave
us to synthesize the experience. As “every significant experience of architecture is multi-sensory,”8
the screen, by depriving us of a
multi-sensory experience, should disturb architects.
Yet screens are necessary, and in fact useful in today’s culture; they are here to stay. Even still, few architects regard the screen as
an important factor in the design process. If so they are often additive and misunderstood; most disregard their presence completely.
Architects must not disregard the screen and it’s influence on the spaces we take
great care in creating. Instead, we must understand these influences and find a
balance between resisting the virtual world the screen permits us (returning the
body to the importance of our physical space and “place”) but while complying to
the screens transient nature (that of its virtualization of reality).
24.
25. The problem of virtualization permitted by screen technologies left much to research. The
solution would be found through analyzing the screens physical and metaphysical qualities
to earn a deep understanding of screen usage, impact, and physicality. Furthermore, it is
necessary to find examples of Architecture that in some way relate to the screen and/or vir-
tualization. The following chapter will explore this research.
Note: At this point in the thesis, there was no clear direction for a solution.
RESEARCH
26. “How one sees is just as important as what one sees.”
- Kate Mondloch 1
27. 27
prospectSPECTATOR
Gilles Deleuze, an influential French philosopher of the later half of the twentieth century “gave rise to the
possibility of spectators who engaged their bodies and senses...”2
There are two forms of spectatorship:
passive and active. Passive spectators are mainstream spectators of the screen - the cinema specta-
tor. In cinematic fashion, “the audience is separated from the (single) screen in a darkened enclosure in which
the spectator’s physical engagement with the film and the screening space is conspicuously limited.”3
Hol-
lywood, at the obedience of our society, encourages this form of spectatorship. We succumb to it because
it is provided, entertaining, and easy. We don’t question it because there is no obvious reason to. Instead,
we escape into the screen and leave our physical selves behind. The active spectator never forgets their
physical selves. A popular example of active spectatorship is the avant-garde presentation of The Rocky Hor-
ror Picture Show, where actors reenact the film while it projects behind them. It is a requirement that, at one
point, the spectators become a part of the presentation. This is an example where theatricality (as opposed
to architectural space) grounds the spectator in actual reality, adding to the experience one would get as a
passive spectator to the film.
Richard Rushton, “Deleuzian spectatorship.” Screen 50, no. 1 (2009), 45. 2
Kate Mondloch, Screens: viewing media installation art. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), 9.
Photographer unknown
Image courtesy of 123RF LIMITED
3
*
4
Kate Mondloch, Screens: viewing media installation art. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), xii. 1
30. prospectENGAGEMENT
There are three modes of engagement that can be identified between the screenHUMAN engagement. Rich-
ard Rushton, in dissecting Deleuzian spectatorship makes the distinction between to modes of engagement
with the screen: absorption and immersion. “The mode of absorption is one in which the spectator
goes into the film - that is, is absorbed in or by the film - whereas in the mode of immersion the film comes out
to the spectator so as to surround and envelop her/him.”2
The mode of absorption creates the disconnect
previously identified. It asks the spectator to succumb to another “place”, while we also acknowledge that it
is impossible to actually be there. Furthermore, it suggests “not merely that one can be looking in on another
world, but also that one can have the sensation of bodily occupying that space in another world, the sensa-
tion of occupying the space of another being.”3
The mode of immersion portends that we never leave our
“self.” Instead, “comes the sensation that the film is entering your own space, perhaps even that it is entering
your own body.”4
It’s purpose is not to provide us with an escape, but to become a part of our actual reality.
It succumbs to us. In terms of spectatorship, the mode of immersion classifies as active spectatorship, the
mode of absorption as passive spectatorship; both allow the spectator to be stationary. In fact the mode of
absorption requires it.
A third mode of engagement (which will be called the mode of occupation can be deduced from Mond-
loch’s analysis of media installations in Screens. Unlike the mode of immersion, where active spectatorship
may be achieved by remaining stationary, the third mode builds upon the mode of immersion by requiring the
spectator to be physically active in the environment shared with the screen. It is about discovery. The experi-
ence is earned, opposing instantaneous gratification. It invites the spectator to, “understand the screen - as
well as the site and experience of screen spectatorship - as material.”5
Unique to this mode, the spectator
becomes one with the content, just as important, if not more so, than the content of the screen.
As they have mediated our engagement with the world, with others, and with our-
selves, [screens] have transformed us so that we currently see, sense, and make
sense of ourselves as quite other than we were before them.
-Vivian Sobchack1
Image courtesy of 123RF Limited
Kate Mondloch, Screens: viewing media installation art. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), 2.
Kate Mondloch, Screens: viewing media installation art. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), 2.
Image courtesy of visualphotos.com
5
7
6
8
4
2 3
1
30
Richard Rushton, “Deleuzian spectatorship.” Screen 50, no. 1 (2009), 49.
Richard Rushton, “Deleuzian spectatorship.” Screen 50, no. 1 (2009), 45.
Vivian Sobchack, “The Scene of the Screen: Envisioning Cinematic and Electronic Presence,” Film and Theory: An Anthology, (London, Blackwell, 2000), 69.
34. Marin Kemp, “Kemp’s conclusions,” Nature 392, no. 6679 (1998), 876.
Martin Kemp, Art Historian at Oxford University, suggests that our society’s “visual culture” is not the study
of art or of science separately, but of both. In a sense, art and science synthesize. Our “visual culture” is an
“inquiry into human creativity that can be seen.”2
Being that architecture extends beyond the “visual culture”
into our “physical culture,” one may exempt it from Kemp’s suggestion. It would be a disservice to do so.
This section explores the science that can help direct the design of screenHUMAN engagement to better
understand the limits and effects of such interaction.
Note: The final direction of the thesis went in a different direction and most information became unapplicable.
Regardless, the information provided is important for standard human interactions with the screen and is
therefore still included.
screenSCIENCE1 2
“The artist and scientist both live within, and play active roles in constructing, human, mental and
physical landscapes.”
- Martin Kemp1
35. 35
DIRECT GLARE
The most serious mistake:The monitor should never be posi-
tioned directly in front of the window. The sun glares directly
and prevents reasonable working. In case of direct daylight
the disposition of the monitor directly and unprotected by the
window is always problematic.
INDIRECT GLARE
An uncomfortable arrangement: the window behind your
back. The monitor reflects the incident light. Surfaces behind
the work place with a high luminance, windows as well as
very bright wall or cupboard surfaces also cause the so called
reflex glare.
PARALLELISM RULE
In order to reduce the risk of direct and indirect glare the
monitor and the keyboard should be positioned in a way to
allow the line of vision running parallel to the windows. The
further away from the window the monitor will be positioned
the better. These two rules often compete with other require-
ments in practice and cannot always be kept, however, they
should play an important role for the layout planning!
GLARE
Information and (edited) imagery are referenced and credited to leuwico.com *
36. 36
SITTING
When we change from standing to sitting the spine is brought
out of its physiological S-shape by the twisting of the pelvis
into a more or less non-physiological posture. Thus the com-
pressive load onto the intervertebral discs is increased enor-
mously which may cause the painful herniated vertebral disc.
STANDING
When standing upright the vertebral column has a perfectly
balanced slight S-shape and the intervertebral discs will be
strained evenly.
ERGODYNAMISM
The regular, spontaneous change between sitting and stand-
ing has a lot of positive effects: circulation, musculature and
vertebral column will be released significantly,the well-known
disadvantages of physical inactivity – especially at computer
work places – will be attenuated considerably. The general
physical well-being and thus the mental efficiency and the
power of concentration will be improved noticeably. Stress
as a result of a permanent physical underchallenge will be
prevented effectively.
Work scientists recommend 3-4 posture changes per hour.
ERGONOMICS
Information and (edited) imagery are referenced and credited to leuwico.com*
37. 37
THE AXIS OF VISION
If no visual object determines the direction our line of vision is
pointed slightly downwards.The position of the relaxed visual
axis results from a slight forward inclination of the head and a
line of vision pointing slightly downwards. Looking constantly
straight ahead or even upwards is a forced posture. For flat
screens especially with large format the initial height of the
support feet should not be too high.
THE ANGLE OF VISION
The line of vision should be directed preferably straight on the
screen. Therefore, an inclination of the screen backwards is
useful when the line of vision is pointed downwards.
VIEWING DISTANCE: IMAGES
Working heavily with images is characterized by a strong fix-
ing to the monitor. Most designers prefer visual distances be-
tween 20 in - 36 in. In principle a change in distance is also
good for the eye muscles.
VIEWING DISTANCE: TEXT
The pleasant visual distance to the monitor varies individually.
Most people prefer a distance of more than 20 in. For the
frequent change between the monitor and the documents the
comfortable visual distance is a bit lower than for long-term
fixing to the monitor.
25o
- 35o
10o
- 15o
0o
36” ≥ 28”
28” ≥ 20”
1:1 VIEWING CONDITIONS
Information and (edited) imagery are referenced and credited to leuwico.com *
38. 38
Steven Bellman, Anika Schweda and Duane Varan, “Viewing Angle Matters - Screen Type Does Not,” Journal of Communication, 59 (2009), 617.
Steven Bellman, Anika Schweda and Duane Varan, “Viewing Angle Matters - Screen Type Does Not,” Journal of Communication, 59 (2009), 628.
Philip Ash and Nathan Jaspen, Optimum Physical Viewing Conditions for a Rear Projection Daylight Screen (Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State College, 1953), ERIC: Abstract.
THX recommended vertical viewing angle. THX ltd., “HGTV Set Up,” THX, http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/home-theater/hdtv-set-up/ (accessed April 28 2011).
2 6
1
3 4
5
≥ 30o
≥ 15o
In “Viewing Angle Matters,” Steven Bellman, Anika Schweda and Duane Varan experi-
ment with the effects of spectator to screen viewing angle. Though the experiment was
focused on spectator response to advertisement, the results have wider implications and
are appropriate for the educational purposes. On a wider viewing angle, that is, from a
relatively closer than normal distance to the screen, it was found to have significant posi-
tive effects on memory recall (tested for up to one week) and attitude toward the content.1
Similarly, they found that the spectators arousal went higher for the wider viewing angles,
no matter the screen type used. It is argued that the wider the angle, the more immersed
the spectators become.2
These results, translated into design guidelines could greatly
benefit the student in the screen learning environment.
In an experiment designed to discover the differences in learning which could be attrib-
uted to differences in room illumination viewing angle, and distance from the screen, Philip
Ash and Nathan Jaspen used a rear projector in a room with 50 seating positions under
different lighting conditions and tested the effectiveness of an instructional video. Some of
the results were unexpected. For example, performance was better under conditions of
daylight.3
This opposes the general understanding that the projector works best in dark-
ened room conditions. Furthermore, they defined the optimum horizontal viewing angle for
productivity to be within 30 degrees of the center line (perpendicular to the screen) and
found that optimum viewing positions were within 12 screen widths of the screen.4 5
It is interesting to note that women were 3/5th more likely than men to chose a wider viewing angle. “Pre-
vious research into conversational distance has found that women are more comfortable being intimate
(discussing personal topics) at a closer distance than men (e.g. Skotko & Langmeyer, 1977), and for this
reason, women may prefer the intimacy of a closer screen.6
2+:1 VIEWING CONDITIONS
39. 39
When we look at a small screen, disassociation is in part encouraged by the simple fact
that what we see isn’t the correct size. The closer an image is to what we know to be true,
the more correct the association the virtual is with its real counterpart. In “Viewing Angle
Matters,” Bellman, Schweda and Varan also explored what impact screen size has on a
spectator. What they discovered was the correlation between screen size and the feel-
ing of close proximity. “Large screens increase the realism, and therefore the motivational
relevance of objects depicted on them, because they convey perceptions of nearness
not only by single-point perspective (visual angle), but also by fooling binocular judgments
of distance.”1
In other words, the stimuli of the screen is depicted as being nearer, which
“increases the size of viewers’ emotional responses to these objects.”2
But all is not lost for the small screen. One of the limitations of the large screen is the
lack of physical intimacy. We can’t interact with them in the ways that are provided by the
small screen. We can pick them up. We can put them in our pocket. We can hold them.
We can take them everywhere. We are always with them. One suggestion is that this
connection stimulates bodily arousal, perhaps replacing what only the large screen can
provide.3
Another aspect of the small screen is the introduction of headphone. “Viewers
prefer headphones over speakers, even though most rated them equal on sound quality.
Biometric measures of attention (blood pressure) and liking (EMG) were also higher for the
headphones. They argued that headphones are preferred because of their intimacy, and
because they isolate the viewer from the environment, both of which increase presence,
which increases motivational relevance, and overall pleasure.”4
Steven Bellman, Anika Schweda & Duane Varan, “Viewing Angle Matters - Screen Type Does Not,” Journal of Communication, 59 (2009), 617
Steven Bellman, Anika Schweda & Duane Varan, “Viewing Angle Matters - Screen Type Does Not,” Journal of Communication, 59 (2009), 612
Steven Bellman, Anika Schweda & Duane Varan, “Viewing Angle Matters - Screen Type Does Not,” Journal of Communication, 59 (2009), 613
2
1
3 4
impactSCREEN SIZE
vs
closeness
intimacy
control
40. “The electronic paradigm directs a powerful challenge to architecture because it defines
reality in terms of media and simulation; it values appearance over existence, what can be
seen over what is.”
- Peter Eisenman 1
41. 41
“Since its origin, architecture has been the art of organizing physical reality, the act of establishing the ma-
terial order of a cultural order. Until recently this has meant to work in and with tectonics. However, as our
civilization moves deeper into the information age, cultural expressions (sources, processes and products)
become increasingly dematerialized, virtualized. In a culture of the simulacrum, the corporeal looses ground
to the informational, the concrete to the representational, the real to the simulational.”2
While the screen is at
the heart of this problem, it is also very real, tangible, and physical. It is, then, “a curiously ambivalent object
- simultaneously a material entity and a virtual window.”3
The following section explores the screens as a material entity - the ways it can be used - the technologies,
uses, and qualities of different types of screens and a simple analysis on screen space.
screenSTUDIESPHYSICAL RESEARCH
Peter Eisenman, “Visions Unfolding. Architecture in the Age of Electronic Media” in
A.Papadakis, G.Broadbent & M.Toy, eds., Free Spirit in Architecture (London: Academy Editions, 1992) pp.88-91; p.88.
Bermudez, Julio and Hermanson, Robert, “Tectonics After Virtuality: Re-turning to the Body” in
Proceedings of ACSA International Conference: Constructions of Tectonics for the Postindustrial World, (Copenhagen: ACSA Press, 2000), pp.66-71; p.66.
1
2
Kate Mondloch, Screens: viewing media installation art. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), 2. 3
43. 43
Physical Limitations
Physical Limitations
Directional Light
Directional Light
Limited Spatiality
Spatiality?
Physical Possibilities
Spatial Light
Spatiality
Noise screenTYPESQUALITIES
?
CRT technology limits the size and material possibilities of the screen.
Light is directed toward the spectator and only as a by-product. Any
shadows created by objects or spectators in the room face away from
the spectator, limiting spatial awareness. They have bulk and depth, pro-
viding some sort of physical spatiality, though its awareness by the spec-
tator is limited. Furthermore, the trend was to make the physical depth as
minimal as possible, a trend furthered by Flat Panels.
Flat Panel technology limits the material possibilities of the screen,
though size is not much of an issue other than practicality. Light is also di-
rected toward the spectator and only as a by-product. Considering spa-
tiality of this technology begs the question: what spatiality? The trend has
been to remove any physicality beyond the actual screen itself. Bevels
and depth are disappearing and the future projections are to have neither.
Projectors on the other hand are limited only by their own housing
and configuration. The projected surface has limitless material possibili-
ties, including three dimensional and moving surfaces. Depending on the
configuration, light can engulf the spectator, the origin being in one part of
the space, while the projected surface in an opposing part of the space.
The light then travels through the room and is purposeful to the projected
image. Through the use of light and shadows, multiple projectors, unique
projected surfaces (flat or otherwise), and the user itself, spatiality can be
achieved. Projectors emit white noise, similar to a desktop computer fan.
White noise is calming and helpful to studying while also being a tech-
nique for additional spatial awareness.
CRT
FLAT PANEL
PROJECTOR
45. 45
screenSPACEIMPLIED
Projectors have the ability to create space, depending on the configura-
tion. The diagram to the left show’s how this can be achieved. Projectors
are placed at each side of the space opposite the screen medium. Upon
entering the space, the user hinders the projected light, casting a shadow
on the medium. This serves two purposes. First, it directs the user to find
a location where they would no longer hinder the projected content. Sec-
ondly, it encourages user awareness in the space and the spatial quality
of the projector.
ENTRANCE
PLACED
46. “Screen-reliant installations are therefore exemplary to the extent that they
make viewers reflexively aware of this condition, persuasively (and persistently)
reminding them of the necessarily embodied and material nature of all media
viewing.”
-Kate Mondloch1
47. 47
Kate Mondloch, Screens: viewing media installation art. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), 19.
Oliver Grau, Virtual Art: From Illusion To Immersion. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003), 285.
Art and media historian Oliver Grau argues that the screen “enable the user to present in three places at the
same time: (a) in the spatiotemporal location determined by the user’s body; (b) by means of teleperception
in the simulated, virtual image space; and (c) by means of teleaction in the place where, for example, a robot
is situated, directed by one’s own movements and providing orientation through its sensors.”2
The following section explores screen-reliant installation art and the spectatorship it evokes, which began in
the 1960’s and 70’s. Though “Media Art” is still pervading art to this day, the examples given date to the two
decades stated (with one exception in the 1990’s). As technologies have progressed, art has followed; more
recent examples do not necessarily focus on the spatiality of the screen as the early works exampled on the
following pages and, therefore, are not as relevant for this thesis.
screenSTUDIES
1
2
METAPHYSICAL RESEARCH
48.
49. 49
INTEGRATED REALITY
WIPE CYCLE
1969
Frank Gillette and Ira Schneider
Wipe Cycle is one of the first screen-reliant installations to incorporate live feedback into what is typically a
single direction of the flux of information. “‘The most important function of Wipe Cycle,’ recalls Schneider,
“was to integrate the audience into the information.’”1
This installation takes the idea of receiving informa-
tion and encourages further attention by giving you the opportunity to broadcast information into the same
medium. You are now a part of the information stream. Recall a sports game that you have attended. Often
times, during commercial breaks, the audience is panned by the cameras settling on specific groups of
people or individuals who are broadcast to the rest of the spectators from a communal screen. This encour-
ages participation from the crowd and gives the added sense of belonging.
Kate Mondloch, Screens: viewing media installation art. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), 24. 1
SPECTATOR AT TIME A
SPECTATOR AT TIME B
SPECTATOR AT TIME C
51. 51
ALTERED REALITY
LIVE-TAPED VIDEO CORRIDOR
1970
Bruce Nauman
Live-Taped Video Corridor is one of many installations by Nauman that introduced spacial restrictions on the
spectator in an often times uncomfortably narrow and long corridor. At the end of the corridor, barring the
way, are stacked two screens. Emanating from each screen is the corridor, though each alter the spectators
perspective and understanding of the space. As the spectator approaches them, the spectator notices their
figure, though not as a reflected image as one would expect. Instead, the camera is stationed at the en-
trance to the corridor and recording your back. The closer you are to the screen physically, the more distant
you are from the screen visually. Even more unnerving, perhaps, is that the bottom of the screen projects the
corridor as though you were not there. If “we conceive of video screens as ‘someone or something seeing,’
the bottom monitor’s playback is especially disturbing because it distressingly fails to ‘see’ the spectator at
all.”1
It can be argued that this contradiction of realities encourages one to reflect on the space they inhabit
verses the contradiction of the space represented on the screen.
Kate Mondloch, Screens: viewing media installation art. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), 30. 1
EMPTY CORRIDOR
REGRESSED LIVE RECORDING
52. 52
DUPLICATION OF REALITY
SHOWER
1964
Robert Whitman
“In Shower, a film of a woman taking a shower is projected in a continuous loop onto a curtain, behind which
water cascades inside a metal shower stall.”1
What is interesting about this installation is its duplication of
realities. Not only is the projected image of a woman in a shower (virtual reality), but the setting on which it is
projected is that of a shower with running water (physical reality). This duplication reinforces the notion that
the content of the screen is in fact a virtual reality, while the screen itself is a material entity.
1
*
Chrissie Iles, Into the Light: The Projected Image in American Art 1954-1977. (New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, 2001), 86.
Photo: Howard Afriesti
PHYSICAL SHOWER + CURTAIN
VIRTUAL WOMAN PROJECTED ON SHOWER CURTAIN
53.
54.
55. 55
REALITY THROUGH TIME
PRESENT CONTINUOUS PAST(S)
1974
Dan Graham
Present Continuous Past(s) consists of a white room with two adjacent walls consisting of mirrors. Directly
across the mirrored wall located at the “back” is a screen with a camera situated directly above. The camera
records all visual information within the room (pointing directly to the “back”), including the spectator, and
transmits the image to the screen after a 16 second delay. As the spectator looks into the screen, he is wit-
nessing his actions from 16 seconds prior. The mirror adds a whole new complexity to this scheme. As the
camera records the reflected view of the room in the mirror, which includes the screen and its delayed image,
the spectator can essentially look through time at 16 second intervals. “[The] piece obliges its audience to
confront the ambiguity of media installation’s participatory requirement by drawing out the typically ignored
architecture of spectatorship between viewing subjects and media art object.”2
Because this infinite time loop
is only possible by the use of mirrors and the opposition in spacial planning, the architecture is inherent and
necessary to the efficacy of the installation.
Kate Mondloch, Screens: viewing media installation art. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), 36. 1
Diagram: Dan Graham from Marian Goodman Gallery *
“Mirrors reflect instantaneous time without duration. They totally divorce our exterior be-
habior from our inside consciousness, whereas video feedback does just the opposite; it
relates the two in a kind of durational time flow.”
-RoseLee Goldberg1
ENTRY
WHITE WALL
LARGE, WALL-SIZED VIDEO MONITOR
SHOWING CAMERA VIEW 8 SECONDS DELAY
VIDEO CAMERA AND MONITOR
MIRROR WALLS
CAMERA
8 SECONDS DELAY
16 SECONDS DELAY
56. 56
CAMERA
MIRRORED
PROJECTED
REFLECTIVE AND TRANSPARENT MEDIUM FOR PROJECTION
PROJECTOR
PARALLEL REALITY
INTERFACE
1972
Peter Campus
Interface is a simple setup of a camera placed behind a translucent screen and a projector placed to its front.
The simplicity of the installation is made powerful by three properties of the materiality of the screen. Reflec-
tive, transparent, and a medium for projection, the screen allows a spectator to see through the screen to
the space behind (a literal window), their reflected self (a reflective window), and their virtualized self projected
onto the screen in a somewhat altered perspective. Therefore, Interface “creates an awareness in the viewer
of the screen’s role in conceptually and physically mediating (manipulating) relations between itself, the pro-
jection, and the viewer.”1
Here, the materiality of the screen itself is integral to the experience of the screen
and the space around it.
1
*
Kate Mondloch, Screens: viewing media installation art. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), 70.
Photo: Courtesy of Locks Gallery
57.
58. 58
DISPLACED REALITY
THE DIFFERENCE ENGINE #3
1995-98
Lynn Hershman
One of the problems with the computer (a very relevant tool in the realm of education) is that “we can be
two (or more) places at once, in two (or more) time frames, in two (or more) modes of identity.”1
With The
Difference Engine #3, Hershman deals between these realms through a rather complicated and convoluted
virtual and actual installation. What separates this installation from others previously studied is the separation
between the virtual and actual. Instead of the virtual (screen content) inhabiting the actual (physical) space of
the installation, The Difference Engine #3 “reveals sharp distinctions between the spectatorial experiences
of... two audiences- viewers who are physically in the museum and those who access the work online.”2
The displaced spectator accesses this space through the virtual (screen), which depicts perspectives of
the actual gallery space and the museum goers inhabiting the space. The displaced spectator can control
these perspectives (the camera), allowing their presence to be seen and felt by the museum goers them-
selves in the actual gallery by motion of the device. In the gallery, a sculpture of screens depicts images of
the displaced spectators who are observing the museum goers. This creates a duality of surveillance. As
the museum goers are being observed, the sculpture which they are there to observe depicts the images
of their observers (the displaced spectator). This complex system of interaction, engagement, and observa-
tion gives a “tacit understanding that the world on the “other side” of the screen may also directly impact the
world in which the viewer is situated,”3
giving the spectators appreciation of not only the space through the
screen, but their own. As we begin learning from “displaced spectators” and broadcasting ourselves so they
can learn from us, this case study is particularly important for screenEDUCATION.
Kate Mondloch, Screens: viewing media installation art. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), 79.1
Kate Mondloch, Screens: viewing media installation art. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), 83.
Kate Mondloch, Screens: viewing media installation art. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), 87.
Photo: Lynn Hershman
2
3
*
DISPLACED SPECTATOR (AT HOME WATCHING MUSEUM-
GOERS) BECOME A PART OF THE SCULPTURE
BROADCAST TO EMBODIED SPECTATORS (AT MUSEUM)
LOOKING AT SCULPTURE (OF DISPLACED SPECTATORS
WATCHING THEM)
59.
60. “We are thus to examine the seemingly opposing sides of virtuality and tectonics with
an understanding that they imply and need one another and may act as potential
parents of multiple parallel, coexisting, and at times conflicting offsprings.”
-Julio Bermudez1
61. 61
There are two opposing types of architecture that relate to our new virtualized world: “Transience Architec-
ture” and “Presence Architecture”. Transience Architecture expresses the current state of virtualiza-
tion and it’s transient nature. Some may call it “Architecture of the Eye,” where vision is the primary (of not
only) sense that is conceived of in it’s design.
“Presence Architecture” resists it. It concerns itself with all the primary senses to create a multi-
sensory experience.
The following pages give examples of each architectural types.
architecturalSTUDIESBermudez, Julio and Hermanson, Robert, “Tectonics After Virtuality: Re-turning to the Body” in
Proceedings of ACSA International Conference: Constructions of Tectonics for the Postindustrial World, (Copenhagen: ACSA Press, 2000), pp.66-71; p.67.
1
62. 62
“This architecture of screens expresses the life and value of information as
measured under the light of consumption. Fleetingness is required for infor-
mation to survive. Information persists by virtue of continuously changing,
thus avoiding the final consumption, death.”
-Julio Bermudez1
1
2
3
63. 63
architectureTRANSIENCEBermudez, Julio and Hermanson, Robert, “Tectonics After Virtuality: Re-turning to the Body” in
Proceedings of ACSA International Conference: Constructions of Tectonics for the Postindustrial World, (Copenhagen: ACSA Press, 2000), pp.66-71; p.67.
Bermudez, Julio and Hermanson, Robert, “Tectonics After Virtuality: Re-turning to the Body” in
Proceedings of ACSA International Conference: Constructions of Tectonics for the Postindustrial World, (Copenhagen: ACSA Press, 2000), pp.66-71; p.68.
1 2
3 4
UFA CINEMA (1) by Coop Himmelblau in Dresden, Germany (1998) is a metaphor to the fleeting quali-
ties of the screen and its transient nature through the screen’s surface. It tends to “leave substance and
depth behind for the sake of appearance and surface.”2
SIGNAL BOX (2) by Herzog & de Meuron in
Basel, Switzerland (1999) is a project that mimics how screens remove the boundaries of our own physical
space. It “partially reveals the visceral (the concealed internal organs of the human body) in a persuasive at-
tempt at subverting our understanding of boundaries.”3
CARTIER FOUNDATION FOR CONTEM-
PORARY ART (3) by Jean Nouvel in Paris, France (1994) “consciously [play’s] with the dissolution of
solid materials into transparencies, translucencies, and opacities that suggest a fleeting vision of a disem-
bodied presence,”4
similar to the nature of the screen.
64. 64
architecturePRESENCEBermudez, Julio and Hermanson, Robert, “Tectonics After Virtuality: Re-turning to the Body” in
Proceedings of ACSA International Conference: Constructions of Tectonics for the Postindustrial World, (Copenhagen: ACSA Press, 2000), pp.66-71; p.71.
Images courtesy ArchDaily.com
1 2 3
*
“Although there are examples of presence architecture in history (Barragan, Kahn, Scarpa), these architec-
tures were never intentionally produced to balance or provide an alternative to our culture of speed, simula-
tion, and fragmentation.”1
There are ever fewer architects who continue designing for the senses in favor of
media driven architecture (examples: Transience Architecture). The examples provided are contemporary
works by architects who continue designing for the tactile, sensorial, analog world. These examples resist
virtualization by bringing focus to tectonics, physical relation to space, and the senses, while providing “us
with the needed weight to keep us grounded amidst the lightness of today’s superficial fleetingness and
simulation.”2
The examples provided are as follows:
CHURCH OF THE LIGHT (1) by Tadao Ando in Ibaraki, Japan (1989)
GASPAR HOUSE (2) by Alberto Campo Baeza in Zahora, Spain (1992)
GARCIA MARCOS HOUSE (3) by Alberto Campo Baeza in Madrid, Spain (1999)
PRAYER AND MEDITATION PAVILION (4) by Marcello Bonfanti in Khartoum, Sudan (1999)
65. 65
1
2 3
4
“Seeking to compensate for what could be seen as today's intolerable
and unhealthy transience, many people would like to find themselves
in a highly material, sense-rich and public environment that assures
them of their reality, wholeness, and presence.”
-Julio Bermudez3
66.
67. Finally, a direction for the solution began to form. As we are consistently surrounded by the
current screen condition, the product of the solution would be places of refuge from the con-
dition and inspired by the analysis in the previous section (research). The goal is to encourage
or entice the user to find an awareness of the conditions of the screen (and that of its virtual-
ization) that are often taken for granted. Furthermore, these spaces would inspire a newfound
appreciation of the users physical environment and atmosphere (even when confronted with
screen technologies) that is typically lost in lieu of the screen. While these places of refuge
have the potential to be designed for any location or sector in society (as screens saturate
every location, public and private) the focus for this thesis was to design places of refuge for
the education sector, more specifically, at Washington State University.
This section follows the thought process and direction that guided the final solution.
DESIGN:PROCESS
68. 68
architectureHYRBID
RESIST
EXPRESSRESISTEXPRESS screen technology
transparency
dematerialization
voyeurism
observation
virtual
grounded (reality)
tactile
sensory
engaged
tectonics
Where screens are relevant and will continue to be so, the architect would
do a disservice if they were to fully resist the technology. Therefore, a hy-
brid architecture where there is a balance and furthermore a synthesis of
resisting the virtual world the screen permits us while complying with the
screens transient nature. To resist the virtual, an architecture must provide
a grounded experience - a reminder of the users grounded presence in
reality. It must provide both visually and physically tactile surfaces to aid
in a sensory experience. As was previously researched natural light is
beneficial to projector environments (p.38), though the parallelism rule
(p.35) provides precedent where natural light can work, while direct light-
ing (p.35) can easily interfere with the projected media. Therefore, there
is an opportunity to apply architectural screens that allow subdued and
indirect lighting to engulf the space. This delicate lighting will also aid in
a sensory and engaging architectural experience. Tectonics, the art, sci-
ence, and poetry of materials, connections, and construction, is highly
important to this resistive space. To express the virtual, projector screen
technology should be used. As was previously researched (p.43-45),
projectors allow for the virtual media, though it provides the most spati-
ality (with proper configuration and atmospheric conditions). As a major
aspect of architecture is about crossing a threshold, there is an opportu-
nity to express the transience prior to the threshold of entering the refuge
space. This includes the metaphor of transparency and dematerialization.
Aspects of voyeurism and observation are also relevant to the space.
69. 69
The first aspect of balance is to design a space that seems to inherently resist
the transient nature of the screen. The space is fully functional and experien-
tial without the activation of the screen within the space. It is up to the user to
activate the resistive space to express the screen in it. When this activation
occurs and there is a true hybrid, the space must remain important in the ex-
perience, instead of being replaced completely by the virtual. Techniques of
duality (physical vs. virtual) and materiality of projected surface can encourage
the user to be aware of the virtual nature of the screen, thereby bringing aware-
ness of the physical nature of the space.
RESIST EXPRESS
RESISTEXPRESS
activateSCREEN(smartglass)
slideSCREEN(track)
architectureCHOICE
71. 71
prospectEDUCATION
The Screen has “profound effects on the ways we learn.”1
They allow us freedom to choose when, where,
how, and what we learn. What we learn directly reflects who we are. As the period of dependency has ex-
tended through history, College is often the first time a student has the freedom for self expression and iden-
tity formation, where the individual commits to a self-chosen set of values and goals. Quite literally, [they] are
trying to find out more about “who they are.”2
Similarly, college is a major transition to the age of socialization.
At 41% of all Facebook users, people aged between 18-24 (college) represents the largest group to use the
social media. As the screen has greater power over the creation of our identity, education is a particularly
important vehicle.
Allan Collins and Richard Halverson, Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology. (New York: Teachers College Press, 2009), 5. 1
“Cognitive/Social Development and Educational Interpreting,” Classroom Interpreting, EIPA, http://www.classroominterpreting.org/Contact/index.asp (accessed April 27, 2011)
Image of Pullman High School computer lab
2
*
72.
73. 73
prospectREFUGE
“A true learning environment provides for both formal instruction and learning that takes place without instruc-
tion. Informal learning touches more than just the cerebral - it combines the head, the heart, and the gut.”1
But often times, our education sector underestimate the power of special, transformative, and even sacred
spaces within the learning environment. It is this environment as a place, and not a collections of rooms and
hallways that create memories for students and an identity for the environment where they, themselves, are
discovering their own.
It is the connective tissue among the collection of rooms and hallways - the educational landscape - in which
we find meaningful, sacred spaces.2
Therefore, they should be provided throughout the “educational land-
scape”. Used for individual rituals and reflection, they are “typically small and intimate, and highly influenced
by elements of light and darkness.” The goal is to use the screen to encourage a unique emotional reso-
nance of the space. To encourage the greatest impact of these spaces, their position through the project
should be both in relation to and in contrast of a major gathering space, representative of the current screen
condition.
Earl Broussard, “The Power of Place on Campus.” Chronicle of Higher Education 55 no. 34 (2009). B12 1 2
74. 74
refugeTYPES
For this thesis, two new room types have been developed. Both share the same architectural purpose
(p.68-69) and language (p.75) with several unique differences (p.76-79). The following pages will explore
these.
75. 75
refugeTYPES
formprocess
weight
light
compression +
projection spread
weight + grounding function
The form’s intention is to imply weight to give the user as much grounding as possible as a meta-
phor of “grounded in reality”. The more weight there is to the atmosphere of the space, the more
the user will remain aware of the space. This intention is also applied to the wall thickness (materi-
als will be discussed on the following pages). Furthermore, light is brought into the space through
minimized spaces. This creates a delicate lighting atmosphere (p.35, 38) that allows for diffused
natural light while also providing contrast to the weight of the space and, therefore, sensitizing the
space of the weight/lightness.
DESIGN LANGUAGE
77. 77
concrete wood aluminumglass
Room:type GROUNDED interacts with the ground, depending on the theme of the room, the requirements of
the thematic location, etc. For example, the refugeIMMERSION (p.82,107) would be room type GROUND-
ED, more specifically, submerged in or tangent to the ground to fully immerse the user. Architecturally, each
subtype share the same design language and material use. The primary material is concrete, which can be
a highly tectonic and tactile material if used properly. It provides both visual and physical weight in an attempt
to give weight to reality when the virtual is activated in the space. In order to achieve the light quality desired,
an architectural screen made of wood is used in specific accent areas. In between the strips of wood is a
space to allow light to pass through into the space. Wood is also a highly sensory material. It provides both a
visual and physical tactile quality and a unique and appreciative smell. The architectural screen is oriented to
extend toward the projector medium (screen) directing the user toward the it. The projector medium is similar
to that used in INTERFACE (p.56), sand blasted glass that acts as a translucent material, a reflective mate-
rial, and a medium to project on. In the thematic rooms provided in this thesis, refugeSOCAL (p.82,103)
and refugeFOCUS (p.82,93) use the scheme of slidingSCREEN (p.69), while refugeIMMERSION uses the
scheme of activateSCREEN (p.69).
Note: The weakest of the diagrams, and unrealized for this thesis is room:type GROUNDED, SITTING, as it has the weakest
grounding. While several other subtypes are unrealized for this thesis, it is for no other reason than they were unnecessary for the
chosen themes and locations.
79. 79
wood
diagramA
Room:type ELEVATED does not interact with the ground, depending on the theme of the room, the require-
ments of the thematic location, etc. For example, refugeESCAPE would be room type ELEVATED, more
specifically cantilevered or hung to express extension, a metaphor of escaping. Architecturally, each subtype
share the same design language and material use. The intention of these spaces are intended to encour-
age weight or grounding similar to that of room:type GROUNDED, though the structural differences require
a different approach; concrete is not a possible material. Instead both glass and wood become the primary
materials, with steel replacing wood as the secondary (accent) material. Essentially, the shell of the room
is structural glass (and steel). In order to achieve an atmosphere of weight or grounding, the architectural
screen made of wood is used in the place of concrete. The architectural screen follows the same form on
the interior, then wraps around following the shell, creating a void, or implied thickness to the wall (see dia-
gram A). The gradient of diffused lighting created by the change in thickness brings awareness to its depth.
The steel accents are treated similarly, though in a horizontal fashion. The light gaps (in both the wood and
steel architectural screen) are directed toward the projector medium (screen). All rooms in this theme use
the scheme of activateSCREEN (p.69).The projector medium is smart glass, which is activated by the user
through the projector. Smart glass is transparent when an electronic current is applied to it and becomes
translucent when the current is deactivated.
steel aluminumglass
80. 80
prospectCOMPTON:UNION
“The Compton Union is a gathering place for all members of the Washington State University
community. It is an integrative educational, social, and physical environment that inspires personal
and intellectual growth, intercultural engagement, and community activism.”1
Furthermore, there
are an estimated 10,000 visitors to the CUB every day. That means at any given time, there might
be 1000 users occupying the space.2
As can be imagined, the spaces are saturated with screen
technologies; televisions, personal computers, laptops, and cell phones. Surprisingly, the spaces
seem not to be designed with screen technologies in mind occupying the space. Representing
the current screen condition, and saturated with both people and screen technologies (and their
use), the CUB is a premier location to provide refuge spaces.
Washington State University, Compton Union Building (Pullman, 2011).
Washington State University, Information Reference Guide (Pullman, 2012).
1
2
81.
82. 82
dining services elevator extension
quiet zone
living room
cafe
location A
PUBLIC
ISOLATION
scale: 1/64”= 1’0”
83. 83
refugeCOMPTON:UNION
refugeESCAPE (p.87)
typeELEVATED
hung
refugeSTUDY:DUALISM
typeGROUNDED
tangent
refugeIMMERSION (p.107)
typeGROUNDED
submerged
refugeSOCIAL (.p101)
typeGROUNDED
sunk
refugeOBSERVATION (p.97)
typeELEVATED
cantilevered
refugeFOCUS (p.93)
typeGROUNDED
sunk
As previously stated (p.23), screen technologies direct us to solitude. “‘Frequentation of non-
places today provides an experience - without real historical precedent - of solitary individuality
combined with non-human mediation (all it takes is a notice or a screen) between the individual and
the public...’”1
We replace human interaction with virtual interaction. Cell phones have replaced
direct communication with indirect communication. Education may exist with no physical relation-
ship between student and teacher. Friendships may exist without every physically meeting them.
It is no longer required to speak in order to communicate at a similar (or faster) pace. We text. We
blog. We tweet. We Facebook. All instantaneously. Locating a refuge at the periphery of argu-
ably the most consistently public and “social” space on campus serves two purposes: Primarily,
entering first into a public location prior to the refuge space encourages the user to acknowledge
the isolating factor of screen technology; in order to use the screen technology within the space,
the user must first isolate their self from the public space. Other techniques in the design further
encourage the user to understand this isolating factor. For example in one of the refuge spaces,
refugeSOCIAL, the primary visual connection out of the space is directed towards the dinning hall,
one of the most social (and least screen inhabited) space in the CUB. In order to use the screen,
this connection to social reality must be replaced by the screen, where virtual social media takes
its stead. The materiality of the screen, which is somewhat translucent, gives some encourage-
ment that the user always be aware of the physical interactions that are taking place beyond the
screen. The second intent is that entering a space undesigned for screen use, and then into a
space that encourages the user to understand the lack of spatiality the current screen condition
and architecture has provided. Walking past a table occupied by several students, each with a
laptop, and dissolved into the screen, then into a space where the screen adds to the atmosphere
of the space instead of dissolving it encourages the users awareness of this nature.
Although the spaces are designed with one user in mind, up to four users can comfortably occupy
the space; a different experience will occur. Leaving a “social” environment lacking any discourse
or relationship with the screen (and virtualization) and entering the refuge space where the environ-
ment and atmosphere are synthesized and stimulating encourages thought provoking conversa-
tion in the personal as apposed to the virtual.
A survey was conducted to determine the specific themes for the refuge spaces that explored the
kinds of environments college students enjoy studying in. Though these spaces are not limited to
studying, the derived themes are listed at left.
1Ian Buchanan, “Non-Places: Space in the Age of Supermodernity*,” Social Semiotics 9, no. 3 (1999), 396.
89. 89
PLAN
scale: 1/4” = 1’0”A
A
sliding door
sand blasted glass (p.77)
view A is projected on the surface,
a virtual dualistic representation of
the view behind the door.
being inside the (architectural) screen wall
horizontal aluminum panels
skeletal boundary thickness
view A
express
resist
aluminum wall
aluminum surface
implied thickness
location projected on surface
90. 90
SECTION AA
scale: 1/8” = 1’0”
expansive view of palouse hills extension
bridge to CUBreplaced by virtual escape
of choice when “activated”
94. 94
PLAN
scale: 1/4” = 1’0”
N
AA
express
view to meditative focus
water
water reflections projected on sur-
face when room is “activated”
replaced by virtual focus of
choice when “activated”
slidingSCREEN
“activates” the virtual
wood architectural screen
trees projected on surface
when room is “activated”
skeletal frame/track system
meditative images projected on screen surfaces
view from quiet zone
view into space from quiet zone
quiet zone (p.82)
outside (p.82)
95. 95
WEST (SIDE) ELEVATION
SECTION AA
scale: 1/4” = 1’0”
scale: 1/4” = 1’0”
submerged
Notice the screen does not extend to
the floor of the space. This is to keep
the user aware of the submerged
nature of the space at all times.
ramp
encourages sense of weight and
grounding
98. 98
SECTION
scale: 1/8” = 1’0”
view of terrell mall
replaced by virtual live
recordings from around
campus (of choice) when
“activated”
Note: People with a view of the screen
(and projected image) above them be-
come aware of the voyeristic aspects of
technology; they may or may not be being
watched from specific locations around
campus at any time (even currently). View to live recording of the
user in the space (when
“activated”)
98
99. 99
SECTION SOUTH (FRONT) ELEVATION
scale: 1/4” = 1’0” scale: 1/4” = 1’0”
replaced by view of self (user)
when “activated”
observer being observed
view of terrell mall
99
102. 102
PLAN
scale: 1/4” = 1’0”
N
AA
view to living room +
dining services
replaced by virtual so-
cial media services
when“activated”
living room (p.82)
dining services (p.82)
outside (p.82)
105. 105
SECTION AA
scale: 1/4” = 1’0”
architectural screen of wood
social recorded media from location A (p.82)
projected on surface (when “activated”)
108. 108
SECTION AA
scale: 1/4” = 1’0”
A A
B
B
PLAN
scale: 1/8” = 1’0”
compression expansion
light well
behind architectural screen of wood
entrance (p.82)
109. 109
SECTION BB
scale: 1/4” = 1’0”
view below crown entering CUB
replaced by immersive me-
dia (i.e. under water, under
tree canopy) of choice
when “activated”
corresponding projected media
i.e. under water light rays, ground to
canopy tree trunks (when “activated”)
112. 112
thesisAPPLICATION
While this thesis chose a specific route - that of refuge spaces from the screen condition
in education - the research and applications of the designed spaces are applicable to any
design sector. The screen condition is macro-cultural; it affects everyone, everywhere. For
example - in the health sector, more specifically, hospital rooms where patients are confined
24 hours a day, provides a perfect opportunity for this screen:architecture synthesis. Fur-
thermore, screens infiltrate every space designed by architects from the users or owners/
function of the space . Therefore, all spaces are challenged by the virtual. The research and
techniques explored in this thesis, are therefore, applicable to all.
113. 113
thesisREFLECTION
Something that I have learned throughout my architecture experience - a project is never done; it could
always use improvement. There are two areas that are common in this. First is the design itself, and the
second in how it is presented. The least amount of research that was conducted during this process was in
material use. While the materials are all specific to the purpose of the space, there are unique applications
to those materials that could have been further developed, specifically with that of concrete in room:type
GROUNDED (images of such precedence provided at left). The architectural screens of wood could have
been pushed further, specifically how the shadows would cast (p.65). Another area that needed further
development was the activation of the screen in room:type ELEVATED. To activate the smart glass by turn-
ing on the projector might not be the most effective way to create awareness of the “choice” to go “virtual”.
Perhaps something more impactful or physical like a mechanical switch, or a vertical slider along the screen.
Regardless, something that would bring the user up to the view prior to activating the screen would create
more awareness of what the user is choosing to replace.
As for how the project was presented, the drawings could have used more work. While there is detail in each
drawing (and furthermore in the renders), it might have been helpful to provide detail call outs to show the
specific tectonics as it was such an important factor to the thesis.
114. 114
locationWSU CAPITAL PLANNINGAND DEVELOPMENT
michaelLEONAS,P.E.
director,capital planning services
kevinKODAMA
information systems manager
louiseSWEENEY,LEEDAP
project manager
darryllSHERMAN
project manager
byronSMITH
senior architect:facilities services,capital projects
115. 115
publicPRESENTATION
The public presentation was held at Capital Planning and Development at Washington State University to a
professionally diverse group. What resulted from and during the presentation was an engaging discourse on
virtualization and architecture. It was an appreciative response and one that I hope the users of these rooms
would engage in as well. Through the dialogue, there were many appraisals of both the project and presenta-
tion; there were three major critiques.
The first critique was about what was presented. It was acknowledged that architecture becomes irrelevant
when it’s focused on the visualization aspect instead of the sensory as seen with architecture:TRANSIENCE
(p.63). Unfortunately, with what was presented to them - renders being the primary selling tool of the the-
sis solution - one comment was that I was focusing on the same visualization architects tend to design for;
they would have liked to have seen more emphasis in the presentation on the tectonic aspect of the design,
which was mostly emitted for the presentation and included in my own reflection on the project.
The second critique (or more of a concern) was how do you not make this an addictive experience. It was
thought that these spaces could act like a new drug for the future generation. It was an interesting con-
cern, one I had not been presented with before. I have not yet decided if it would be appropriate for these
spaces to be a “drug” or not. If the user comes to this space to find awareness or a deeper understanding,
it shouldn’t matter if it is a “drug” or not (it could be understood as a healthy drug).
The third critique was on the room:types themselves. While there were two designed, they were realized
as a plug and play style room that could be applied anywhere thinking that the techniques would translate
into any environment. While it was acknowledged that the rooms were located with purpose within the cub,
there was a missed opportunity to adapt the room types to further site specificity which could help further
the importance of the architecture itself. This critique is entirely valid and could have made the thesis solution
stronger.
116. 116
annotatedSOURCES
Kate Mondloch, Screens: viewing media installation art. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010).
Kate Mondloch’s novel, Screens, was the gateway to my research. Through analyzing screen art instal-
lations, Mondloch has presented a deep understanding of the metaphysics of screens and techniques
on user awareness of them. While there are many resources used fort his thesis, most others were
derived from extending research off this source and will not be annotated (see sources on p.22,
thePROBLEM).
Bermudez, Julio and Hermanson, Robert, “Tectonics After Virtuality: Re-turning to the Body” in Proceedings of
ACSA International Conference: Constructions of Tectonics for the Postindustrial World, (Copenhagen: ACSA
Press, 2000).
“Tectonics After Virtuality”, provided a deeper understanding on virtualization and architecture. While
it briefly discussed a solution to the problem, my thesis was focused more on the problem it distin-
guished, which further helped organize my thoughts on the issue and guided my solution.
117. 117
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Roy A. Allan, A History of the Personal Computer (London, Ontario, Canada: Allan Publishing, 2001).
Philip Ash and Nathan Jaspen, Optimum Physical Viewing Conditions for a Rear Projection Daylight Screen (Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State College, 1953), ERIC: Abstract.
Steven Bellman, Anika Schweda & Duane Varan, “Viewing Angle Matters - Screen Type Does Not,” Journal of Communication, 59 (2009).
Julio Bermudez and Robert Hermanson, “Tectonics After Virtuality: Re-turning to the Body” in Proceedings of ACSA International Conference: Constructions of Tectonics for the Postindustrial World, (Copen-
hagen: ACSA Press, 2000), pp.66-71.
Earl Broussard, “The Power of Place on Campus.” Chronicle of Higher Education 55 no. 34 (2009).
Ian Buchanan, “Non-Places: Space in the Age of Supermodernity”, Social Semiotics 9 no. 3 (1999).
“Cognitive/Social Development and Educational Interpreting,” Classroom Interpreting, EIPA, http://www.classroominterpreting.org/Contact/index.asp (accessed April 27, 2011).
Allan Collins and Richard Halverson, Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology. (New York: Teachers College Press, 2009).
CTIA: The Wireless Association. History of Wireless Communications. February 2011. http://www.ctia.org/media/industry_info/index.cfm/AID/10388 (accessed April 26, 2011).
CTIA: The Wireless Association. History of Wireless Communications. February 2011. http://www.ctia.org/media/industry_info/index.cfm/AID/10392 (accessed April 26, 2011).
Michael R. Curry, review of “Digital Sensations”, by Ken Hillis, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91, no. 4 (2001).
Peter Eisenman, “Visions Unfolding. Architecture in the Age of Electronic Media” in A.Papadakis, G.Broadbent & M.Toy, eds., Free Spirit in Architecture (London: Academy Editions, 1992) pp.88-91.
A. Friedberg “The Virtual Window: from Alberti to Microsoft”. (Spain: The MIT Press).
Laura Fitzpatrick, “A Brief History Of: Television*,” Time 173, no. 24 (1999).
Oliver Grau, Virtual Art: From Illusion To Immersion. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003).
Karsten Harries, The Ethical Function of Architecture (London, England: The MIT Press).
Chrissie Iles, Into the Light: The Projected Image in American Art 1954-1977. (New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, 2001).
Kate Mondloch, Screens: viewing media installation art. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010).
Nielsen Company. U.S. Homes Add Even More TV Sets in 2010. April 28, 2010. http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/u-s-homes-add-even-more-tv-sets-in-2010/ (accessed April 26, 2011).
Richard Rushton, “Deleuzian spectatorship.” Screen 50, no. 1 (2009).
Vivian Sobchack, “The Scene of the Screen: Envisioning Cinematic and Electronic Presence,” Film and Theory: An Anthology, (London, Blackwell, 2000).
Times Square Alliance, “Pedestrian Counts,” Times Square: Crossroads of the World, http://timessquarenyc.org/facts/PedestrianCounts.html (accessed April 28, 2011).
THX recommended vertical viewing angle. THX ltd., “HGTV Set Up,” THX, http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/home-theater/hdtv-set-up/ (accessed April 28 2011).
U.S. Census Bureau. “Home Computers and Internet Use in the United States: August 2000.” Population Survey, September 2001.
Washington State University, Compton Union Building (Pullman, 2011).
Washington State University, Information Reference Guide (Pullman, 2012).
