Abstract

Postmodern and post-structuralist theories in architecture have entered a phase of revision and re-evaluation. Taking the current academic debate of ‘critical’ theory versus ‘post-critical’ or ‘projective’ practice as a starting point, this essay analyses three examples of atmospheric spaces to test the alternative modes of interpretation and to question the clear oppositional dialectic developed by the protagonists. Especially the common denominator of weather and atmosphere in the projects of Diller Scofidio, Philippe Rahm, and Olafur Eliasson, might be able to introduce uncertainty, ambiguity and suspicion against the rendering of clear alternatives to the discourse. Whilst the arguments of the postcriticality debate are primarily based on a linguistic model of architecture, the indeterminacy of atmospheric spaces opens up different readings, with the brief remarks about the philosophers Gernot Böhme and Peter Sloterdijk being just a first step. Instead of giving answers, this essay asks for a reformulation of ‘critical’ thinking in architecture beyond the current atmospheric interferences.

How to Cite:

Fischer, O. W., (2007) “Atmospheres – Architectural Spaces between Critical Reading and Immersive Presence”, field 1(1), 24–41.