Each building, once erected, spatially structures certain parts of the world for us, and we can either adopt this structure, or reject it. For example, a building directs our gaze through lines of sight, or through pictorial or graphic elements, e.g. in a museum. Moreover, semiotic as well as spatial cues help us to understand the social situation we happen to be part of: A restaurant’s dining room, for instance, is different from its kitchen, which is why waiters (who understand the cues) behave differently, depending on whether they are in the dining room or the kitchen. Buildings also convey the way in which we can relate to each other communicatively, e.g. a lecture hall is spatially different from a seminar room (so are the discussions), and they pre-figure courses of action, for instance when we’re shopping in a supermarket. Rather in terms of their materiality, buildings create atmospheres that affect us (for example in a stadium or a church building) or they simply get in our way of which prisons are good examples. The panel is intended to explore whether social and cultural science perspectives on architecture can help to inspire an interdisciplinary spatial research. In terms of social theory, it seems to be most fruitful to understand buildings not only as passive expressions of the social in the non-social world of objects, but as material products of human social actions that act back on them. This opens up a wide range of empirical questions that form the background for addressing the methodological problems this session is actually aimed at. With regard to processes of planning and erecting a building empirical projects might ask: How do architects intervene in a place with their design? How do administrative regulations and the building industry pre-structure design work? Once a building is erected and ‘there’, empirical projects look at what it ‘does’ by standing where it stands and ask: How does it direct gazes and movements? What meaning do people ascribe to a building, both through using it practically and through talking, discussing or fighting about it? Has it become a symbol of something? And, finally, with regard to its use, empirical projects ask: How is a building actually used? By whom? For what? Is it being used according to its original idea? Or is it being reused or even alienated? If yes, what happens to the original idea? What levels of meaning are attributed to the building with a possible new use? While these questions could provide some empirical background for the debate, the focus of the session will be on the reflection of methodological problems associated with architectural research and on methods that could help to better understand the social significance of buildings.

I therefore invite papers that present and discuss – the connection between the theoretical conceptualization of architecture and methodological questions associated with this – methods that help to capture the materiality and/or spatiality of architectural objects – arts- and design-based methods that explore buildings (or aspects of them) – spatial methods that help to understand floor plans and the arrangement of rooms – methods for analyzing visual and textual discourses about the meaning of buildings – methods for analyzing the (sometimes conflicting) (re-)uses of buildings – methods that help to capture the atmospheric qualities of buildings – methods that help to understand the semiotic elements of buildings.

ABSTRACTS

1.Methods of Architectural Research

Silke Steets  (Germany)

Each building, once erected, spatially structures certain parts of the world for us, and we can either adopt this structure, or reject it. For example, a building directs our gaze through lines of sight, or through pictorial or graphic elements, e.g. in a museum. Moreover, semiotic as well as spatial cues help us to understand the social situation, we happen to be part of: A restaurant’s dining room, for instance, is different from its kitchen, which is why waiters (who understand the cues) behave differently, depending on whether they are in the dining room or the kitchen. Buildings also convey the way in which we can relate to each other communicatively, e.g. a lecture hall is spatially different from a seminar room (so are the discussions), and they pre-figure courses of action, for instance when we’re shopping in a supermarket. Rather in terms of their materiality, buildings create atmospheres that affect us (for example in a stadium or a church building) or they simply get in our way of which prisons are good examples. The panel is intended to explore whether social and cultural science perspectives on architecture can help to inspire an interdisciplinary spatial research. In terms of social theory, it seems to be most fruitful to understand buildings not only as passive expressions of the social in the non-social world of objects, but as material products of human social actions that act back on them. This opens up a wide range of empirical questions that form the background for addressing the methodological problems this session is actually aimed at. With regard to processes of planning and erecting a building empirical project might ask: How do architects intervene in a place with their design? How do administrative regulations and the building industry pre-structure design work? Once a building is erected and ‘there’, empirical projects look at what it ‘does’ by standing where it stands and ask: How does it direct gazes and movements? What meaning do people ascribe to a building, both through using it practically and through talking, discussing, or fighting about it? Has it become a symbol of something? And, finally, with regard to its use, empirical projects ask: How is a building actually used? By whom? For what? Is it being used according to its original idea? Or is it being reused or even alienated? If yes, what happens to the original idea? What levels of meaning are attributed to the building with a possible new use? While these questions could provide some empirical background for the debate, the focus of the session will be on the reflection of methodological problems associated with architectural research and on methods that could help to better understand the social significance of buildings. I therefore invite papers that present and discuss – the connection between the theoretical conceptualization of architecture and methodological questions associated with this – methods that help to capture the materiality and/or spatiality of architectural objects – arts- and design-based methods that explore buildings (or aspects of them) – spatial methods that help to understand floor plans and the arrangement of rooms – methods for analyzing visual and textual discourses about the meaning of buildings – methods for analyzing the (sometimes conflicting) (re-)uses of buildings – methods that help to capture the atmospheric qualities of buildings – methods that help to understand the semiotic elements of buildings.

2.Visual Methods of Spatial Research (Photography, Drawing, Mapping, Video): A Comparison

Séverine Marguin  (Universität Siegen, Germany)

In this talk I would like to provide a reflection on visuality and methods for the research on architecture by reviewing four different methods: photography, drawing, mapping, and video – and by describing though examples what specific insights they can productively generate about space (Löw & Marguin 2021; Heinrich et al. 2021). Which method brings which advantages for empirically grasping the spatialisation of social phenomena and in particular the physical materiality of buildings as well as the atmospheres in interaction with social actions (Baxter et al. 2021; Marguin et al. 2021)? In the comparison of the different visual forms, common challenges of visual procedures for the empirical research of architecture will be systematically elaborated (Rose 2014; Mélix & Singh 2021).

3.Situated Order: Ways of a Practice-Theoretical, Pragmatist based Architectural Research

Christine Neubert (Universität Hamburg, Germany)

My proposal draws on a strong concept of the social as practice and contextualizes architecture as a singular building and object in relation to a specific context of practice. This impulse of a practice-theoretical, pragmatist sociology of architecture ties in with a qualitative research practice that preferably implements an ethnographic research style. I discuss the extent to which ethnography, with its object of social practices, is suited (or is not suited) to take architecture – at second, not first glance – seriously in terms of social theory and to highlight spaces of social practices. The basis of my argument is my study on the meaning of built environment in everyday work. To this end, I visited various work environments and studied the work practices (including machine work in a factory, visitor service in an art museum, artistic work in studios) on site. Architecture as the built environment of social practices creates both spaces for their unfolding and situations of obstruction or disturbance. The proposed ethnographic architectural research takes this epistemological interest into account. In the bodily presence of the researching person, it becomes possible, on the one hand, to observe and experience how practices can unfold (both the observed activity and one’s own research activity), and on the other hand, there is attention to experienced, contextualized moments of failing and disruption in relation to the order of a practice. The guiding motive of the participant observations, the workplace conversations as well as the interviews and photographs are to draw and understand architectural experiences engaged through the practices, such as working on the machines in the factory or doing rounds in the museum. This makes visible how architecture has an effect in everyday life and what potential, e.g. for questions of sociology of work, results from a practice-theoretical, pragmatist architectural research.

4.The mosque in the gas station: the overlay as well as the change of spaces and meanings or in short: “This is (not) a mosque”

Kathrin Herz  (Universität Siegen, Germany)

The proposed contribution aims to show how change in buildings can be examined. This is done in a differentiated manner and sticking close to the material. The subject are Muslim community centers in converted buildings which was founded by so-called guest workers in Germany. It became clear that the analysed places are spaces of change and overlay. Both implicates a variety of different meanings for various people. The buildings examined reflect especially the specific dynamic which architecture underlies. But this dynamic is not reflected in the established systems of order or theoretical concepts in architecture since only states and not processes are considered.