Abstract

»Consciousness and Its Place in Nature« (Chalmers 2003) is the title of an article written by David Chalmers, which deals with the so called hard problems of consciousness, that means, with those problems that do not concern how functions are performed (Chalmers 1997:4), but deal with the emergence of consciousness in the sense of subjective experience. On the one hand, it is important to treat architecture from the very beginning not only as somehow stylish and useful heaps of stones that are additionally embedded in political and philosophical contexts (whatever that means). On the other hand, architecture belongs to nature just as much as trees, apes, and what apes produce. So architecture is situated between what can be grasped from a ›materialistic‹ point of view, on the one hand, and what depends on subjectivity, on the other hand. As far as a general theory of architecture is able to examine what is essential to architecture, one should keep in mind that we would probably not accept a set of characteristics as sufficient for a building being a piece of architecture as we have learned from Wittgenstein and others concerning categories in general (Kleiber 1993). Finding necessary conditions is not as simple as one may expect either. There is a closely related phenomenon however: Are not some individual buildings more representative of architecture as such than others? Gropius once designed a pigsty for the manufacturer Rosenthal. We are inclined to acknowledge it as a part of his architectural work due to the fact that the famous architect Gropius designed it and gave it a typical International Style appearance. Its being purely a pigsty, not a castle or a dwelling, however may be a reason to deny it this status as architecture (Isaacs 1984:1105)