meditation/celebration – These two words describe the process that occurs upon the first viewing of a new building. When I first see a new structure, I first think about what the building is trying to convey to me. What is the building telling me? No part of the building is insignificant, as Roth writes, “The mind does not interpret incoming data as signifying nothing.” (Roth pg. 67) All of these parts come together to form ideas about the structure. After I decide what the underlying idea is, I think about how well it does what it was intended to do. After this, I enjoy the building because of the feelings that it conveys to me. I celebrate the elements that come together to form the structure in front of me.

This column reminds me of the strength that it carries. It is perhaps the most celebrated building style.
light/shadow – Details that live on the façade of a structure are what, in my opinion, make a finished product. The only way that these stand out, however, is that they hit by a combination of light and shadow, allowing the details to pop out to the eye. Our eyes, as Le Corbusier says, are “made to see forms in light.” (Roth pg. 67). We see the pairing of light and shadow and it draws our eyes because of the contrast that exists there.

transpose/juxtapose – In music, the term transpose relates to the key of music. When you transpose a piece, you take a melodic line and move it to a key that is more easily performed. Juxtaposing music allows the composer to translate one phrase into multiple similar phrases later in the piece. To apply this to architecture, I see the phrases as motifs in the building patterns. An idea may be translated (or juxtaposed) somewhere else along the façade, or it may be transposed into a similar (but not identical) idea. This repetition of ideas plays into the appeal of rhythm in a structure. Roth writes that, “This is one way that architecture is like music, for both must be experienced in time.” (Roth pg. 76)

The idea of sails is repeated, but not copied, through this structure.
literal/abstract – The relationship of the literal vs. the abstract is very important to the we view a building. If we all viewed buildings based purely on the literal viewing, I do not think architecture would be nearly as affective. We would see the buildings for what they are; a collection on stone, metal, and wood arranged into a tidy pile. We can appreciate the building for that, but only because of the work that it took to create that nice stack of materials. It is only when we add the abstract that a building really transforms before our eyes. We see not only the effort, but also the symbolism that “inhabits” the building. Roth says that the human mind is, “programmed to seek meaning and significance in all sensory information sent to it.” (Roth pg. 67) We see the inspiration behind the building and the metaphors embedded in that thought.

A pile of materials or a tomb for the dead?
monologue/dialogue – In theatre, these two terms tell a lot about the characters as well as the situation and setting. In a monologue, we learn about a character’s personal intentions and motives through a one-sided conversation to the audience. In this direct conversation, the purest of intentions and truths come out. In a dialogue, the audience is not involved as much. It becomes more of a conversation between two characters, with the audience acting as an outside observer. If we substitute the word “character” with the word “element”, the descriptions can apply to architecture. In a dialogue with the observer, one sees the surface of the building. In this view, we are not able to decipher the underlying meaning of the building. Since the architect has been described as an “engraver of the history of his time” by Eugene Raskin (Roth pg. 119), we can say that the words “spoken” tell the story of the times. Only through the details and the understanding of the Literal vs. the Abstract are we able to “hear” the monologue that the architect tells through the structure.

All of these pairs of terms have something very important in common. They all provide a stark contrast from the other. These contrasts, however, come together to form the overall product or structure. Without these contrasts, the buildings would be very two-dimensional and flat. The contrasts provide the added dimensionality and depth to the building.
Roth, Leland M. Understanding Architechture: Its Elements, History, and Meaning. 2nd. Colorado: Westview Press, 2007.