According to Peter’s eleven points on knowledge and wisdom, a post-humanist position has been used in visual art and architecture with a certain amount of excitement. Peter suggests novel modes of creating new space and styles of appreciation for excellent positions; he is particular biased to landscapes and visual designs. From his point of view, architecture and anthropomorphism have been embraced in Landscaping not because of their ability to fit in with human needs and environment, but rather because of their ability to radically generalize and neutralize architectural works that have been brought a transcendent general architecturalness.
However, Schulz explores the meaning of western architecture with the concept of ‘place’ to define the meaning of architecture in relations to Objects. In his definition, he cites the contradiction between the accepted definitions of homely with the demands of an increasingly multicultural and mobile society. In Schulz literature, he asks a semiotic question of how can a building be both a physical object and draw a cultural meaning at the same time. He critics whether there the relationship between the object and culture exist. If such a relationship exists, then how do architects control or influence the cultural meanings they produce when they make buildings.
Both Peter and Schulz claim that architecture is faced with semiotic problems. In simple terms, the type of meaning an architectural space conveys to its users or inhabitants reflects their semiotic will. Semiotic architectural problems emanate from the triangular relationship between the meanings of space, the object being referred or carries the meaning and lastly, the users or subject who experience its benefits and harms.
Unlike Peter’s bid to create new space designs, Norberg-Schulz’s endeavors to search for the structures and models that deliver meaning or significance between man and his architectural environments. Christian is cognizant of semiotic signs and language as the carrier of meaning. However, he identifies the weakness of sign structure as its inability to include a strong or stable link between the word house and the concept of the house. Christian is criticized for his modern art of dissolving and undermining architecture as an institution, this is because he led culture into chaos on the meaning of space and environmental designs.
In Juhani’s literature, ‘the eyes of the Skin’, a gentle manifesto that emanated from the finish architecture raises concern about the ‘dominance of vision and the suppression of other senses in the conceptualization, understanding and critic of how architecture is taught. In the book, Juhani calls for a non-ocular-centric architecture that responds to external human queries. Juhani uses the eyes of the skin as a plea for silence and tranquility that was being ruined by a gang of philosophers who superficially lacked tectonic logic.
Furthermore, Juhani strives to analyze the issue of polemics where parts of the planning dissertation were being characterized by increased interest in sensory experience in architecture. As proposed by the literature title, Juhani tries to point out the significance of sensory involvement in architecture, which contradicts with Peter’s bid to use architecture to elicit excitement. His literature is certainly ananswer to what the book terms ocularcentrism of contemporary architecture. According to his definition of ocularcentrism, the word refers to the act of holding visual stimuli in higher regards to extra sensory stimuli accessible through human perception.
In Ken’s ‘differentiation of the continuum’, the image of a contemporary city is compared to that he terms as haptic city. Ken defines a haptic city as one that can be touched which is contrary to the distant, exterior oriented modern city. Additionally, he borrows into Christian’s literature to discuss how tranquility can be promoted in developing architecture as an institution.
In Ken’s argument, he quotes examples of the undercurrents of the logic of touch in a delicatesensitive state. Additionally, he uses the term tranquility to not only denote to the ration of his architecture but also his activities and experience. However, Ken’s literature can be compared to Juhani’s in that the two support the argument that man is the dominanttheme of derivation of everything. Therefore, architecture can is a manifestation of man’s creativity and interaction with his environment to come up with designs.
Ken holds that the presence of and the enveloping of satisfaction through multiple Stimuli in nature describes good architecture. He further identifies the feeling of being inside the space of a clearing invoked by exterior visualization as the importance of a shadow in creating light. Ken, unlike Christian, suggests that modern architecture seems to lack appreciation of their cultural meaning, he emphasizes on the importance of ‘feeling’ nature during the design process. Additionally, he highlights the disadvantages of ocular centrism that made the modern cold and distant from man.
The other major theme in Peter’s literature is the question of whether or not it is possible to accredit deconstruction as an architectural design. According to his argument, he holds that deconstruction is an architectural design that strives to create canonical figures like loo's. A self-reflexive architecture would strive to make its past a mock topic to be dissembled and forgotten in various form of ways.
Ken and Christian use their literature to argue that communication and architecture take the leading design role of safeguarding the design quality throughout the project. Virtual building models are used to coordinating and detecting clash for complex building designs. Architectural designs of space embrace new tools of mobility, collaboration, automation, and communication. Juhani and Peter hold that architects have a responsibility of designing sustainable built environment that are going to solve urbanization as a global phenomenon.
The four authors situate architecture and information as crucial tools in design development. The meaning of architecture is affected by the Semiotic relationship between the meanings of space, the users of space and the object being referred to space. The contradiction between the accepted definitions is affected by the increase in modern multicultural and mobile society.