What do you think?
Rate this book
Die Poetik eines Mauervorsprungs (Bauwelt Fundamente, 77)
Originally published in German in 1985 as Die Poetik eines Mauervorsprung, Jan Turnovský’s The Poetics of a Wall Projection is ostensibly a description of a corner within the breakfast room of the Villa Stonborough in Vienna, designed by Ludwig Wittgenstein and Paul Engelmann.
But it is also much more. Working from within an established Viennese tradition (practised most famously by Krauss, Freud, Loos and Wittgenstein himself), Turnovský’s study elucidates a complex set of ideas from something seemingly trivial – in this case, an analysis of the villa's corner detail expands into a wider exploration of the logics of architectural syntax and his belief that good and poetic architecture is always also practical.
Jan Turnovský (1941–1995) at various times worked as a carpenter, graphic designer, tenor saxophonist, poet and architectural researcher at the Architectural Association and the Technical University in Vienna.
The Poetics of a Wall Projection is translated, and introduced, by Kent Kleinman, Dean of the College of Architecture, Art, and Planning at Cornell University.
But it is also much more. Working from within an established Viennese tradition (practised most famously by Krauss, Freud, Loos and Wittgenstein himself), Turnovský’s study elucidates a complex set of ideas from something seemingly trivial – in this case, an analysis of the villa's corner detail expands into a wider exploration of the logics of architectural syntax and his belief that good and poetic architecture is always also practical.
Jan Turnovský (1941–1995) at various times worked as a carpenter, graphic designer, tenor saxophonist, poet and architectural researcher at the Architectural Association and the Technical University in Vienna.
The Poetics of a Wall Projection is translated, and introduced, by Kent Kleinman, Dean of the College of Architecture, Art, and Planning at Cornell University.
- GenresArchitecture
128 pages, Perfect Paperback
First published January 1, 1985
7 people are currently reading
28 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
Read
April 20, 2025“Be sure not to be dependent on the external world, then you don’t need to be afraid of what takes place in it.” Written on Nov 4th, 1914 (Personal Notebooks 1914-1916, p.87)
Regarding his hope to be transferred to a different post in the army… “So I see that our plans can fall through at any moment & I must develop a different attitude in order to live despite it all.” Written Nov 30th, 1914 (Personal Notebooks 1914-1916, p.107)
“I cannot bend the happenings in the world to my will… I can only make myself independent of the world - and so in a certain sense master it – by renouncing any influence on events.” Written July 5th, 1916 (Personal Notebooks 1914-1916, p.177)
The above quotes illustrate Wittgenstein’s thought process while serving in WWI and writing what is now considered the penultimate draft of the Tractatus. Turnovsky explains how Wittgenstein’s philosophy evolved over his lifetime. It may be an oversimplification (I haven’t read Wittgenstein’s philosophy yet) when Turnovsky says, “the Tractatus can be placed in the rationalist tradition and the Philosophical Investigations in the empirical tradition.” If the Wittgenstein of 1914-1916 attempted to practice architecture with the sentiments expressed above, he would likely be very unhappy having to contend with materials and tangible processes. On the other hand, Turnovsky references Lothar Rentschler’s claim that the older Wittgenstein practiced architecture with an “insubstantial empirical substantiation.” This is a fancy name given to a design sensibility ill-equipped to allow for real things to exist as real things. In other words, the designer is so insistent that the real things (e.g., construction materials, structural members, temporary bracing, staging materials, etc.) adhere to their preconceived mental image/drawings that backup plans are not accounted for, tolerances not incorporated, and flexibilities unleveraged.
Ideally, someone practicing architecture will fall somewhere in the middle of Wittgenstein’s sensibilities exhibited in his 1914-1916 journal entries and those exhibited by his practice of architecture which began in 1926.
A designer’s attitudes and feelings will be tested continually as they operate in both the conceptual and empirical realms. There are no shortcuts. There is no mass production of an architectural design once conceived (minus prototypical model and spec houses). Architecture is rarely innovative and only occasionally succeeds in responding to the scene of which it is a part.
My main takeaway from Chapter 2, which was by far the book's low point, is an explanation for Order. “For just as important as order itself is the possibility of a non-totalising order, limited in scope to what is structurally necessary or meaningful, and the possibility of incorporating diverse ordering systems within a single work.”
Chapter 3 picks up the pace. Turnovsky includes references to actual architectural elements and design procedures as he continues to analyze the WP.
Is the severity of the corner problem lessened with chamfered corners? The peril associated with apartment corner units (specifically that “A corner solution can never be achieved by modifying a linear plan, and there is probably no such thing as a geometrically perfect corner unit plan.”) brought Barcelona’s chamfered superblocks to mind. Ildefons Cerdà planned Barcelona’s superblocks to increase sightlines and facilitate wider turning radii of anticipated public transit models.
The chamfer corner question begs whether increasing the number of an enclosed space’s corners (and thus each corner’s angle) decreases the severity of the corner problem’s ramifications. For example, does a square’s corners provide less tolerance than a pentagon’s? Every architect knows the pitfalls of designing a triangle floor plan, as much of its square footage is unusable. However, the more angles one introduces, even if self-similar, amplifies the occasions of what Turnovsky describes as overlapping, territorial battles between each face’s spatial claim or “view.”
Unfortunately too, if one begins considering an overall plan rather than a single enclosed space, rooms shaped with 4+ sides will not cleanly nest, yielding oddly shaped rooms in their network.
Turnovsky claims the only way to address the corner problem in one’s pursuit of “reducing conflict in architecture” is to remove it, “which can only be achieved by inserting a physical object [such as a corner pillar] into it.” Furthermore, “inserting corner pillars into a room transforms walls into wall niches.”
Rather than chamfering the corners of apartment blocks, Turnovsky claims:
The wall projection is cubist… “If cubism imbues a single surface with multiple aspects – multiple spatial aspects – then the frontal surface of the WP qualifies as supra-cubist, since two opposing perspectives come together in it: it is simultaneously in profile and en face.”
Chapter 4 finishes strong.
Smooth surfaces, shallow relief, along street facades are appropriate given the passengers they serve. This is directly opposite from what Jan Gehl claims makes good street design… To design to a walker’s pace, one must create change into the street façade every 25’ (Cities for People). I agree with Gehl. But I can see why the reliefs of street facades are shallower than say large overhangs, colonnades, etc. of buildings defining the edges of large public squares.
Should building facades protrude or pull back is a question of whether they want to be perceived as objects or givers of space.
Regarding his hope to be transferred to a different post in the army… “So I see that our plans can fall through at any moment & I must develop a different attitude in order to live despite it all.” Written Nov 30th, 1914 (Personal Notebooks 1914-1916, p.107)
“I cannot bend the happenings in the world to my will… I can only make myself independent of the world - and so in a certain sense master it – by renouncing any influence on events.” Written July 5th, 1916 (Personal Notebooks 1914-1916, p.177)
The above quotes illustrate Wittgenstein’s thought process while serving in WWI and writing what is now considered the penultimate draft of the Tractatus. Turnovsky explains how Wittgenstein’s philosophy evolved over his lifetime. It may be an oversimplification (I haven’t read Wittgenstein’s philosophy yet) when Turnovsky says, “the Tractatus can be placed in the rationalist tradition and the Philosophical Investigations in the empirical tradition.” If the Wittgenstein of 1914-1916 attempted to practice architecture with the sentiments expressed above, he would likely be very unhappy having to contend with materials and tangible processes. On the other hand, Turnovsky references Lothar Rentschler’s claim that the older Wittgenstein practiced architecture with an “insubstantial empirical substantiation.” This is a fancy name given to a design sensibility ill-equipped to allow for real things to exist as real things. In other words, the designer is so insistent that the real things (e.g., construction materials, structural members, temporary bracing, staging materials, etc.) adhere to their preconceived mental image/drawings that backup plans are not accounted for, tolerances not incorporated, and flexibilities unleveraged.
The origin of this insufficiency is the unpracticed conviction that geometry can be made to absorb the rules of material – or vice versa. This conviction typically fuels an iterative process of error correction, and almost always ends in the propagation of error. It is not specific to architecture, but does have a long and distinguished history in the field: the attempt to space consistently both the Doric column and its triglyphs, the compulsion to bend an Ionic capital around a corner, etc… Sufficient empirical substantiation is a kind of systemic slack, a tolerance in the psychological realm (a tolerance for capitulating in advance, without a fight) and in the material realm (a tolerance in the area of construction details).
Ideally, someone practicing architecture will fall somewhere in the middle of Wittgenstein’s sensibilities exhibited in his 1914-1916 journal entries and those exhibited by his practice of architecture which began in 1926.
A designer’s attitudes and feelings will be tested continually as they operate in both the conceptual and empirical realms. There are no shortcuts. There is no mass production of an architectural design once conceived (minus prototypical model and spec houses). Architecture is rarely innovative and only occasionally succeeds in responding to the scene of which it is a part.
My main takeaway from Chapter 2, which was by far the book's low point, is an explanation for Order. “For just as important as order itself is the possibility of a non-totalising order, limited in scope to what is structurally necessary or meaningful, and the possibility of incorporating diverse ordering systems within a single work.”
Chapter 3 picks up the pace. Turnovsky includes references to actual architectural elements and design procedures as he continues to analyze the WP.
Is the severity of the corner problem lessened with chamfered corners? The peril associated with apartment corner units (specifically that “A corner solution can never be achieved by modifying a linear plan, and there is probably no such thing as a geometrically perfect corner unit plan.”) brought Barcelona’s chamfered superblocks to mind. Ildefons Cerdà planned Barcelona’s superblocks to increase sightlines and facilitate wider turning radii of anticipated public transit models.
The chamfer corner question begs whether increasing the number of an enclosed space’s corners (and thus each corner’s angle) decreases the severity of the corner problem’s ramifications. For example, does a square’s corners provide less tolerance than a pentagon’s? Every architect knows the pitfalls of designing a triangle floor plan, as much of its square footage is unusable. However, the more angles one introduces, even if self-similar, amplifies the occasions of what Turnovsky describes as overlapping, territorial battles between each face’s spatial claim or “view.”
Unfortunately too, if one begins considering an overall plan rather than a single enclosed space, rooms shaped with 4+ sides will not cleanly nest, yielding oddly shaped rooms in their network.
Turnovsky claims the only way to address the corner problem in one’s pursuit of “reducing conflict in architecture” is to remove it, “which can only be achieved by inserting a physical object [such as a corner pillar] into it.” Furthermore, “inserting corner pillars into a room transforms walls into wall niches.”
Rather than chamfering the corners of apartment blocks, Turnovsky claims:
Removing an exterior corner from an apartment block creates a configuration that is very similar to the room with corner pilasters and wall niches. The difference is that an open void, expanding into the street, is inserted into the structure instead of a corner pillar.
The wall projection is cubist… “If cubism imbues a single surface with multiple aspects – multiple spatial aspects – then the frontal surface of the WP qualifies as supra-cubist, since two opposing perspectives come together in it: it is simultaneously in profile and en face.”
Chapter 4 finishes strong.
Smooth surfaces, shallow relief, along street facades are appropriate given the passengers they serve. This is directly opposite from what Jan Gehl claims makes good street design… To design to a walker’s pace, one must create change into the street façade every 25’ (Cities for People). I agree with Gehl. But I can see why the reliefs of street facades are shallower than say large overhangs, colonnades, etc. of buildings defining the edges of large public squares.
Of course we could also bring into play other factors influencing plasticity. For example, we could answer the question of why the houses lining a street should be smoother, in principle, than those around a square, by referring to two (essential) differences: the kinetic momentum of the street as opposed to the static character of the square, and the street’s relatively cramped conditions versus the more open space of the square, which encourages the perception of the houses as individual objects.
Should building facades protrude or pull back is a question of whether they want to be perceived as objects or givers of space.
We can take this observation a step further. Rounding off (ie, smoothing out) the corner affects the perception of the building: the greater the radius of the curve, the less object-like it appears. (On the other hand, a convex bulge in a facade with an otherwise straight form provides a hint of ‘objectness’, whereas a concave depression in the facade of a freestanding object building is possibly the smallest conceivable contribution to defining space – and is perceived as such.)
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 of 1 review