Blurring Limits in Architecture

Abstract

The limits in architecture are on debate in recent years, since architecture has been considered as a substantial entity. Inquiries using substantialist approach, however, are varied where substantialist approach emerged more into a sort of eclecticism. However, it is possible to inquire limits in architecture through a transactional point of view. Besides, if we assume that there is a limit between x and y, x stands as the reason of y`s becoming. In this regard, limit cannot be positioned outside a relational structure. If we define the relationship as a separate entity from x and y, it may only appear as transactional but it is, in fact, actually focused on a substantialist consideration. Besides, in case of acknowledging that there is a relation between x and y as a third entity, pseudo-transactional approach emerges, which is also substantialist. For this reason, this research is to inquire limits in architecture according to transactional approach versus to substantialist one by referring to critical theories. Blurring, as an act, seeks to undermine the well-defined limits in architecture within frequently referred notions and binaries, where an “in-between” space emerges. In order to understand the term “blurring” for an architectural inquiry of limits, three exemplars are chosen, defining three acts: altering, transforming and transgressing. When a (substantialist) limit is altered, transformed and/or transgressed by blurring, it would provide a dynamic consideration, suggesting a new way of thinking in architecture.