2020 Volume 85 Issue 773 Pages 1593-1600
(Section1) This is part three of the study which analyzes and clarifies the correlation between Kazuo Shinohara’s design logic and his works. His logic is expressed through the conception of “ordinary/ extraordinary” that is consistent throughout the four styles. This paper is intended to identify how the change of words modified by “ordinary/ extraordinary” across the four styles (identified in the previous paper) are correlated with the change in spatial dimension of his works.
(Section2) We measure the volume of the main space of his residential works (Vo), the percentage of max peak of Visual distance (P), and the width of 80% of Visual distance(W). With these, we classify spatial dimensions into several types through cluster analysis. The results are as follows:
1. Spatial dimensions are classified into four types (A, B, C and D).
2. Three types out of four have corresponding relationships with the styles. (A=the first style, B=the second style, C=the Third style)
3. The first style is small in size and has relatively homogeneous space with little variances in shape. The second style is relatively small in size and flat. The third style is large in size with many variances in terms of shape.
(Section3) Through the analysis, we examine the correlation between the text analysis and the spatial dimension analysis. The results are as follows:
1. For the first style, space types are identified, and “extraordinary” abstract space and extraordinary scale are affirmed in his text. On the other hand, a tendency toward small homogeneous space with little variance is recognized in the spatial dimension analysis. It is not normal to apply similar scales simultaneously for floor, wall and ceiling. In other words, we identify “extraordinary” scaling here. Thus, there is correlation between the texts and the drawings.
2. For the second style, “extraordinary” irrational space and huge surface of wall are affirmed in his text. On the other hand, we identify the irrational height of space in relatively small flat space and the resulting huge wall surface in the spatial dimension analysis. Therefore, there is correlation between the texts and the drawings.
3. For the third style, “substance(objects)” types are identified, and the conversion of “ordinary” materials into “extraordinary” things is frequently mentioned in his text. One of the examples of “ordinary things” is structure (pillar, beam, slant of 45 degrees and so on). On the other hand, there is a tendency toward large and heterogeneous space with many variances in the spatial dimension analysis. “Substance(objects)” such as structure exposed to space and slant of 45 degrees are partially attributable to this tendency. Thus, there is correlation between the texts and the drawings.
In the first paper, we’ve identified the correlation between his texts and drawings in the first and second styles through the analysis of text and structure. In the second paper, we’ve identified the correlation between his texts and drawings in the third style through the structural form analysis and in the fourth style with the spatial form analysis. In this paper, we’ve identified the correlation between his texts and drawings in the first, second and third styles through the analysis of spatial dimension.
