It is not surprising, then, that Cohen often related his work to precedents in architectural history. His architectural ideas, mostly about contested geometries, were developed in these circumstances (Cohen 2001). Then, by referring to two other prominent examples of the use of the hyperbolic paraboloid surface-first, to Vladimir Grigoryevich Shukhov’s groundbreaking installation of the hyperbolic paraboloid surface in a tower at the All-Russia Industrial and Art Exhibition in Nizhny Novgorod in 1896, and second, to Le Corbusier and Iannis Xenakis’ use of hyperbolic paraboloid surfaces in the Assembly Hall in Chandigarh and in the Philips Pavilion at Expo 58 in Brussels-I will expand on the symbolic role of hyperbolic paraboloid surfaces in architecture.Ĭohen, a professor of architecture at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design and a former chair of its Masters in Design program, evolved out of the academic sphere. I will start with a discussion of Cohen’s Lightfall as an operative symbol. Together, they constitute a comprehensive understanding of symbolic use of the mathematical shape. In this essay, I would like to propose a discussion of three different ways in which the surface is used as a symbol each way stems from a different cultural condition and each represents a different meaning. The Lightfall is not different in that respect. Each implementation carried significance beyond the structural and mathematical realm. Over the years, the hyperbolic paraboloid surface has been implemented in many ways.
In the following paper, I would like to discuss my claim that the significance of the Lightfall goes beyond its shape and form and beyond its mathematical idea.
0 kommentar(er)
