INTRODUCTION

In Brazil, more museums were built in the last thirty years than in the last three hundred years. According to the Instituto Brasileiro de Museus (Brazilian Institute of Museums, Ibram) in 2011, the Country had around 3,300 museums, and approximately 10% of them were located in the state of Minas Gerais (INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE MUSEUS, 2011). The growing propagation of museums in Brazil and around the world has contributed to the development of new architectural theories surrounding museum architecture. Theorists have approached museum architecture from different perspectives, perceiving a building both as an object and as an organism, through the analysis of its outer façade, aesthetics, and form, and the analysis of its inner emptied space, layout, flux and functions, sometimes with controversial conclusions. The art gallery, or pavilion, draws attention for it has always been understood as an experimental field by architects. This essay approaches these buildings in a search for deeper relations between space and art. As museums are being built, the architectural idea of the ‘museum building’ is being transformed. Instituto Inhotim, popularly known simply as “Inhotim”, is one of Brazil’s most important contemporary art spaces, and is a rising museum in the international scene. It exemplifies how the spatial development of art galleries relates to the uprising practices of contemporary art.

For many authors, the core difference between art and architecture is functional. According to Puls (2006), architecture is conceived to serve a function, whereas art is “free”, its aesthetics suffices. This idea does not mean that architecture is solely guided by its practical function, but that it necessarily bears a function that differentiates it from art. In a different approach, Holl (2013) would say that this classification diminishes the idea of “function”. He argues that “a ‘function’ of architecture is to inspire with a construction of luminous spatial energy. Its highest ‘use’ is to deeply move us” (HOLL, 2013, non-paged) The contemporary art museum is a rising case in which buildings carry a symbolism as well a technical function, as it not only assists art and the public with adequate infrastructure, but also continues to provide an aesthetic experience of architecture that is multisensory and immersive, involving light, volume, texture, scent, and sound; elements that determine what buildings feel as humans move through them. This phenomenon permits museum architecture to move itself to the edge of architectural formal experimentation field in search for conceptual statements, in particular the case of the art galleries, due to their flexible scale and smaller programs. If art is constantly pressing through set stones of aesthetic languages and forms, the art gallery is the architectural response to this movement, providing dialogical spaces that merge conceptual aesthetics to necessary practicalities.

Art and architecture narratives have been historically overlapped and museum architecture has been considered relevant to understand art, but this is even more evident in contemporary art. As Shiner (2011, p.32) affirms, “one of the most important symbolic aims of art museum architecture has been to express the value of art itself” (SHINER, 2011, p.32). Furthermore, Carrier (2011, p.183) adds that “where” art is displayed is elemental to understand contemporary art itself because “the most interesting contemporary art would barely be possible without the display spaces of our new museums”. Therefore, Shiner (2011) and Carrier (2011) agree that museum spaces have become more than mere shelters that provide pedestals for artwork, but rather necessary allies to the artistic expression in the contemporary.

This article explores the spatial relations between art and architecture at the art galleries of Instituto Inhotim, extending the use of Martin Heidegger’s (1889-1976) concept of “dwelling” - presented in his essays “Building Dwelling Thinking” (1971a), and “... poetically, Man dwells ...” (1971b) -, to the artworks under study. Doug Aitken’s Sonic Pavilion (2009) and Cristina Iglesias’ “Vegetation Room” (2010-2012) are taken as key examples of how art “dwells” through subjective and concrete relations in both built and natural environments.

One question will guide this proposed idea that “art dwells”: “What is the meaning of ‘art dwells’, according to Heidegger’s concept of ‘dwelling’”? This will be addressed in the following topic. A phenomenological approach to the galleries in question will be used so as to comply with Heidegger’s line of thought. As Sharr (2007, p.27) explained it: “Heidegger followed phenomenology, a strand of thought shaped by Edmund Husserl, who himself responded to thinkers including Hegel and Schopenhauer”. Heidegger argued that, in contemporary society, the direct contact with existence became hazy and people should attempt to it in a philosophical state. “Such phenomenology begins with the bare fact of human existence, arguing that the world is always already there before anyone tries to reflect upon it” (SHARR, 2007, p.27). Sharr (2007) explains that the philosopher advocated the promotion of “things” rather than of “objects,” since he considers that “objects” were observed detached from the individual, apprehended by western scientists; whereas “things” were, on the opposite, connected to everyday life and uses. “To him, it was only possible to begin trying to understand the world from a starting point already enmeshed in the familiar everyday language, priorities and things of the world” (SHARR, 2007, p.27). The phenomenological approach assumes that when individuals connect in a personal level to things and places as they uncover their real meaning and value. As Norberg-Schulz summarizes it: “What Heidegger wants to reveal in his examples, is the thingness of the things, that is, the world they gather” (NORBERG-SCHULZ, 1983, p.64, author’s emphasis).

What is it that we see when, from a certain distance, we look at a building? Not randomness, but rather gatherings, texture, shape, color, volume, light and shadow. What do we experience when entering a building? Indeed, what is it that allows us to even consider entering? Not nothingness, but rather emptiness; space, void, flux, and airway. Architecture is this rich multisensory structure that both encloses and opens. We perceive its “enclosedness” and live in its openness. It is a complex built thing that simultaneously expresses men’s dwelling on earth and also shelters them. It is space organized for men’s needs and pleasures.

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF “ART DWELLS”, ACCORDING TO HEIDEGGER’S CONCEPT OF “DWELLING”?

For Heidegger, the purpose of every building is to be dwelled, and building and dwelling relate as “means” and “end”; primarily, “buildings house man” (HEIDEGGER, 1971a, p.144). Yet, when Heidegger states that men “dwell”, he has in mind a profound ontological concept that a man “is”. For him, dwelling is not understood merely as one form of human behavior alongside many others. Rather, it is the essential character of human existence. Dwelling and being are one and the same. Therefore, when this essay states that “art dwells,” it means the same. Art does not merely lodge or shelter itself in a given architectural space. Rather, there is a notion that art is through a given architectural space. The two chosen art pieces and galleries at Inhotim exemplify this primary idea. Architecture is not a mere container that withholds the pieces, but the means through which they exist.

Therefore, the present essay on art and dwelling is thought of, but not limited to, graphic arts and within these to grand scale installations. This form of art embodies space and is an out-fold of sculpture in the contemporaneity (considering the time frame of 1990-2014). It necessarily deals with space and place, as it will become clearer throughout this essay.

The reason why the “Sonic Pavilion” (Figures 1 and 2) and the “Vegetation Room” (Figures 3 to 6) were chosen as key examples is because art exists through architecture in both pieces. They present themselves inseparable from the built environment. If the building ceased to exist, the art would also be inexistent. Different from a traditional sculpture that could be transported from one building to another or built in the studio of an artist and then exhibited at different locations, these works and their galleries become one. Also, different from a simply large installation or sculpture where the piece itself is a freestanding structure, thus creating an environment in itself, these pieces are distinctive from architecture (as a bearing structure), which is precisely what permits the concept of artistic dwelling. Both pieces are in isolated buildings and this gives them a particular impression of oneness, since they are both one clearly marked space. There is no misapprehension as to their physical limits, though both pieces allude to the infinite, Aitken’s, through never-repeated sound, and Iglesias’, through its mirrored surfaces. When describing the “Sonic Pavilion”,Rached (2014) states that it defies the expectations about art form by creating an illusion of limitless space between architecture and landscape. Both architectures make use of minimalistic forms, cylinder and cube, and both bear very organic art forms - art is fluidly enclosed within a rigid geometry.

FIGURE 1
Photo: Doug Aitken’s Sonic Pavilion.
Source: Personal collection of the author Liz Valente (2015).

FIGURE 2
Photo: Doug Aitken’s Sonic Pavilion.
Source: Personal collection of the author Liz Valente (2015).

FIGURE 3
Photo: Cristina Iglesias’ Vegetation Room.
Source: Personal collection of the author Liz Valente (2015).

FIGURE 4
Photo: Cristina Iglesias’ Vegetation Room, stainless steel detail.
Source: Personal collection of the author Liz Valente (2015).

FIGURE 5
Photo: Cristina Iglesias’ Vegetation Room, inner walls engraved with vegetation.
Source: Personal collection of the author Liz Valente (2015).

FIGURE 6
Cristina Iglesias’ Vegetation Room, site sketches, mixed media on paper.
Source: Personal collection of the author Liz Valente (2015).

The “Vegetation Room” is a piece that occupies a cleared area in the woods, whereas the “Sonic Pavilion” is located on a hilltop. The “Vegetation Room” is an architectural space, but also a sculpture that deals with the representation of natural elements (vegetations). It evokes references from the baroque, such as the labyrinth, the dense ornamentation, and infinity. According to Moura (2012), one of Inhotim’s art curators, the piece dialogues with Inhotim’s ambiguous natural environment, its non-spontaneous landscape, its prevailing human presence and planning. In the description of the piece at the official webpage of the artist, it is said that the “Vegetation Room” “uses sculpture and architecture as instances of physical and mental itinerary proposed to the viewer”². The “Sonic Pavilion” is a medium through which the sound of the earth can be heard. The whole building works as a mechanism that allows the sound to be dispersed and contemplated. The walk-through scale of these installations brings the visitor into the work in a fully committed manner.

The perspectives are infinite; these installations engage the visitor’s inner self as they invite the viewers to enter their dense environment of self-awareness. Iglesias transports the visitor into an imagined space where materials are used to excite the viewer. The presence of water, for example, introduces a temporal sequence that confuses the viewer’s perception and changes the notion of space-time. It is a 9mx9m (nine meters by nine meters) square piece covered with polished stainless steel that gives the sensation of mirrored outer façades, which camouflage the piece in the woods as it repeats its surroundings on its walls. Iglesias’ piece has four entrances, one on each side, and each door opens into a small cornered space with dense ornamented walls and openings into deeper interior spaces. Once inside the structure, it is not possible to access other paths; the sculpture must be exited and re-entered in order to find other ways inside. Each entrance repeats the sensations of density, labyrinth and movement. Only one of the entrances leads to the center of the labyrinth where, under a metal mesh floor, the water forms a vortex. The murmur of the water can be heard from every path, engaging the visitor in a mysteriousness similar to the groaning sounds from Doug Aitken’s “Sonic Pavilion”. Aitken’s pavilion has only one entrance, which is also the exit, and it takes the visitor inside through a spiral ramp. The 202-meter deep hatch from where the sound of the earth is captured is located in the center of the spiral. A formal comparison (Figure 7) between the two buildings provides an overview of the presented works.

FIGURA 7
Form analysis of the Sonic Pavillion and Vegetation Room.
Source: Personal collection of the author Liz Valente (2015).

An interesting feature is that both artworks and their respective architectural structures evoke movement in their visitors. “Sonic Pavilion’s” cylindrical shape and ramps put the viewer in a rotational direction, mimicking the role of a film inside a camera. What spins is not the building, but the observer’s point of view, whose trajectory ends in front of the hatch. Tonetti (2013) declares that the emphasis on giving the viewer the role of a film editor through movement in space is a constant strategy in Aitken’s work. She states that “he is interested in the representation of a world of possibilities in constant transformation, where form is transitory” (TONETTI, 2013, p.124). In a similar way, to fully experience Cristina Iglesias’ “Vegetation Room”, movement is required. The labyrinth plans give the visitor an opportunity to search for new perspectives, while the fibered low-rise engraved vegetations on its inner walls give an illusion of liveliness, as if the walls were constantly shifting, also referencing the 19th century fantasy literature and science fiction.

Having presented the chosen works at Inhotim by Christina Iglesias and Doug Aitken, it is now important to sustain the concept of dwelling in Heidegger. Naturally, there are differences between the manner through which man dwells and art dwells. Heidegger proposes that man dwells through “building”, so how then does art dwell since it does not build or cultivate the earth? We shall now further explore this concept of dwelling and attempt to apply it also to art.

a) Etymological argument.

To sustain his argument on “dwelling”, Heidegger initially turns to the etymology of the verbs “to build,” “to be,” and “to dwell.” “He suggested that they share the same root in old German (the English ‘build’ and ‘dwell’ also come from the same German root). This common origin was no coincidence to him. It indicated that ‘building’ and ‘dwelling’ were previously understood as one and the same activity” (SHARR, 2007, p.29). Heidegger explains it:

Bauen originally means to dwell. Where the word bauen still speaks in its original sense it also says how far the essence of dwelling reaches. That is bauen, buan, bhu, beo are our word bin in the versions: ich bin, I am, du bist, you are, the imperative form bis, be. What then does ich bin mean? The old word bauen, to which bin belongs, answers: ich bin, du bist mean I dwell, you dwell. The way in which you are and I am, the manner in which we humans are on the earth, is buan, dwelling [...]. The old word bauen, which says that man is insofar as he dwells, this word bauen, however, also means at the same time to cherish and to protect, to preserve and to care for, specifically to till the soil, to cultivate the vine (HEIDEGGER, 1971a, p.145, author’s emphasis).

According to Norberg-Schulz (1983), in his most prominent book “Being and Time” (1953), Heidegger emphasized that the “discourse is existentially equiprimordial with state-of-mind and understanding” (HEIDEGGER, 1953, p.203), which means that it is impossible to consider the world separately from language, a concern that Heidegger constantly implemented through the use of etymology to support his ideas. “Language names things which ‘visit man with a world’ and man’s access to the world is through listening and responding to language” (NORBERG-SCHULZ, 1983, p.67). By returning to the original meanings of the words, Heidegger implies two things: first, that if it is the primal nature of the word, it must also be the authentic nature; second, that if this meaning was lost through contemporary ways of living, then it must be recuperated through philosophy. The quotation above also concludes with the presentation of other original meanings to the word “bauen,” which involve protecting, preserving, and cultivating. Within this last meaning, “cultivating”, he includes “building” as a form of cultivation and explains: “Building as dwelling unfolds into the building that cultivates growing things and the building that erects buildings” (HEIDEGGER, 1971a, p.144).

In concordance with Heidegger’s premise, Puls (2006) states that the essential goal of architecture is to make the world more human. Besides the different use of vocabulary, these two authors are saying equivalent things. Puls (2006) explains that the humanization of space is given, among other things, through the production of properly distributed voids in accordance to the human scale and the application of comfortable materials. This ordering action requires corresponding explanations. So, these two authors over time share the idea that buildings or architectures are built by men for men’s needs and pleasures, and so, they inevitably bear men’s essence. Heidegger affirms that this human way of “building” is in fact “dwelling”. He developed his idea about dwelling as an accommodation between people and their surroundings. “Language suggested to him that dwelling involved somehow being at one with the world: peaceful, contented, liberating” (SHARR, 2007, p.41). For him, dwelling was connected to the mode of building that involves cultivating and nurturing. However, when we analyze these two galleries at Inhotim, their form and content are not essentially made for men’s needs, nor do they reflect a human way of being. Rather, each of them meets the needs of their respective artistic contents. The relationship between the architectural structure and its artistic content is comparable to the relationship between a person and his/her home, in the sense that architecture accommodates its form to its subject and the subject gathers itself within architecture and reflects its identity.

In the article “O museu como casa da arte” (The museum as the art's home) Menezes (2010) discusses about Inhotim. In the analysis of the “Sonic Pavilion”, the author concludes that architecture is the place where the work ‘lives’: “The glass structure would then be where this sound lives, it is through it that it appears. Thus, the work needs the building to exist, and the construction, once again, is what it is due to the sound of the work” (Menezes, 2010, p.11). Considering this analysis, the building can be understood as a physical extension of art dwelling, rather than men’s dwelling, as it is conformed to art rather than human needs and pleasures.

The ‘circularness’ in Aitken’s “Sonic Pavilion” is very appropriate, since Heidegger’s thought process is known for its circular rhetoric. Heidegger furthers the extent of dwelling by stating that “we attain to dwelling, […] only by means of building” (HEIDEGGER, 1971a, p.143). Therefore, while building is the means to which dwelling is the end, men can only fully accomplish dwelling through building. “Genuine buildings give form to dwelling in its presence and house this presence” (HEIDEGGER, 1971a, p.156). Building is then a formal expression of man’s dwelling on earth. It is ontological and very precise. Building is dwelling, dwelling is being, thus, building is being. The following quote is very conclusive to this matter of dwelling as being and building as dwelling: “We do not dwell because we have built, but we build and have built because we dwell, that is, because we are dwellers” (HEIDEGGER, 1971a, p.146, author’s emphasis). The two galleries at Inhotim are buildings that received form from art-dwelling rather than human-dwelling. Although the buildings were constructed by men, they express the art’s formalities and house the art’s presence.

b) Space and place.

The relationship between man and space is vital for understanding “dwelling” in Heidegger. Therefore, as space is created, man is; hence, man dwells. Nonetheless, regarding the contemporary art galleries at Inhotim, this article proposes that the prerogative changes to “buildings house art”; where art is the subject that dwells, which impels the formal decisions and drives the building process. Also, art reveals itself through its abiding in space, art is space. Once more, it is not that art occupies space, neither that it produces space, but that it only is because it produces and occupies space. Without its spatiality, art doesn’t exist.

In his later article “Art and space” (1973), Heidegger leaves a cue for conceiving art as the dweller in a given space. His article is about sculptures, and thus, he approaches the issue of embodiment by asking the following questions: “What is it that the sculpture embodies?”; “Does it embody space or does it occupy space?” Distinctions of space and place also come into light in this text. In the case of installations, such as the two key examples used in this essay, further this tension between embodiment and ‘occupience’ as they relate to space in a deeper, indivisible way. That is, space becomes an active element of the work, as Silva (2011) points out about contemporary installations. In these pieces, space is part of the work, thus the concept of time is also inevitably inserted into it; space and time become integral elements of the work’s composition (SILVA, 2011). The walk-through scale of these installations highlights even more the spatiality of the work, in opposition to smaller installations that may be walked-around, and perceived comparably to the perception of traditional sculptural objects. The scale of an installation that allows visitors to “enter” the work stresses the spatial element to its furthest and creates infinite perspectives.

Heidegger once more uses the etymology of the words to express his interpretations. He explains that the word “space” comes from the older term “räumen” which literally means “clearing-away”. He states the following about the subject:

Whereof does it speak in the word ‘space’? Clearing-away (Räumen) is uttered therein. This means: to clear out (roden), to free from wilderness. Clearing-away brings forth the free, the openness for man’s settling and dwelling. When thought in its own special character, clearing-away is the release of places toward which the fate of dwelling man turns in the preserve of the home or in the brokenness of homelessness or in complete indifference to the two. Clearing-away is the release of the places at which a god appears, the places from which the gods have disappeared, the places at which the appearance of the godly tarries long. In each case, clearing-away brings forth locality preparing for dwelling (HEIDEGGER, 1973, p.5).

Thus, if space is the clearing-away, and clearing-away is the “release of places” (HEIDEGGER, 1973, p.5), what is “place”? “Place” is explained as the opposite of clearing-away, it is “gathering”; where “Gathering (Versammeln) comes to play in the place in the sense of the releasing sheltering of things in their region” (HEIDEGGER, 1973, p.6, author’s, emphasis). In summary, for Heidegger, “places” gather, while “spaces” clear-away. He concludes that in the case of sculptures, they are the embodiment of places, as a man-made thing, it is and embodiment of human gatherings on earth. What could be said of installations?

In the case of grand scale installations, such as the “Sound Pavilion” and the “Vegetation Room”, it is ambiguous, presenting themselves both as space and place. For example, “the Vegetation Room” is indeed “space” cleared for the passage of people through its dense body, in its labyrinth and textured paths; there is space both reflected and reoccurred in its mirrored façades. As said before, space is an active element of artwork through which it dwells. The uncovering of new places, the gatherings of materiality, time, and emotional experiences are also inevitable. According to Silva (2011), installations reveal their materiality through the performance of physical forces of the surrounding space, recognizing in their material plurality the possibilities of a bent-space-time. This ambiguity is even clearer in the “Sonic Pavilion”. The cylindrical minimalist architecture clears-away, as if it somehow arose from the underground, thus making room for the sound to flourish; but it simultaneously gathers into itself a sound ambiance.

c) The fourfold

Once again, turning to Heidegger’s writings on dwelling, other aspects should be considered, namely the fourfold and the poetic.

For Heidegger, the fourfold consists of a “oneness” between earth, sky, divinities, and mortals. Sharr (2007) and Norberg-Schulz (1983) help us understand the fourfold:

Heidegger didn’t offer a definition of any of these terms, inferring that earth, sky, divinities, and mortals derived authority from mutual definition. He suggested that the four remain conjoined in ‘mirror-play’ (‘Spiegel-spiel’), an inevitable reflection of one another that was the primary pre-condition of existence. Heidegger felt that in earth, sky, divinities, and mortals together consisted the primary circumstance of existence, naming this circumstance ‘the fourfold’ (‘das Geviert’) (SHARR, 2007, p.31).

He offers an interpretation of this wherein as a fourfold of earth, sky, mortals, and divinities. Again we may feel bewilderment, being used to thinking of the world in terms of physical, social, or cultural structures. Evidently, Heidegger wants to remind us of the fact that our everyday life-world really consists of concrete things, rather than the abstractions of science (NORBERG-SCHULZ, 1983, p.63).

Fourfold relates to the concept of dwelling, since Heidegger claims that mortals are in the fourfold by dwelling. “Mortals dwell in the way they preserve the fourfold in its essential being, its ‘presencing’. Accordingly, the preserving that dwells is fourfold” (HEIDEGGER, 1971a, p.148). For Sharr (2007), Heidegger also understood dwelling as a peaceful accommodation between individuals and the world, together with building through the fourfold conditions of existence.

Things also relate to the fourfold, and Heidegger uses the example of the jug and the bridge, as each of them gathers the fourfold in their own way. “The bridge swings over the stream […]. It does not just connect banks that are already there. The banks emerge as banks only as the bridge crosses the stream” (HEIDEGGER, 1971a, p.150). Thus, the bridge makes a place come into presence, at the same time as its elements emerge as what they are. “The words ‘earth’ and ‘landscape’ are not used here as mere topographical concepts, but to denote things that are disclosed through the gathering of the bridge. Human life takes place on earth, and the bridge makes this fact manifest” (NORBERG-SCHULZ, 1983, p.64). Art galleries are metaphorically comparable to the bridge as they connect men to art in the same way bridges connect men to new locations, new experiences. The art work emerges as such only as the gallery permits it. The ensemble of art and architecture “gather” to themselves, in “their own” way, earth and sky, divinities and mortals. The ensemble art-architecture is a location. Thus, as such a thing, it allows a space into which earth and heaven, divinities and mortals are admitted. In the case of the “Sonic Pavilion”, it literally unites earth and sky by elevating the buried sounds and sprouting them in audible cleared volume. “By observing the interaction of visitors with the work, it was noted that sometimes a relationship is established where the earth seems to ‘speak’ and the central hole functions as the channel that connects people to this ‘entity’ Earth” (MENEZES, 2012, p.28). The ensemble art-architecture present in the works in question disclose the spatiality of the fourfold through its standing there. “Standing there, it admits life to happen in a concrete place of rocks and plants, water and air, light and darkness, animals and men” (NORBERG-SCHULZ, 1983, p.67). The ensembles are an inhabited landscape. Therefore, they are a manifestation of the fourfold; they come into presence through the buildings that bring the fourfold closer to man.

d) “... poetically... ”

In his essay “... poetically, Man dwells ...”, (in German, “... dichterisch wohnet der Mensch ...”), Heidegger interprets phrases of Hölderlin’s poem, working outwards from the line which Heidegger chose as the title. “The German word ‘Mensch’ is less gender-specific than the English word ‘Man’, closer to ‘person’” (SHARR, 2007, p.75). In it, he addressed the notion of poetry, as Sharr (2007), explains:

For him, poetry was defined very broadly, describing all thoughtful human creations. Poetry was linked to building and dwelling - considered as a single spontaneous activity as in ‘Building Dwelling Thinking’ - from which it derived its authority. Heidegger felt that building and dwelling were always involved with attempts to make sense of existence, and were thus poetic. He felt that such attempts occurred properly, and poetically, through measuring: an activity which approached insight by judging experiences of human circumstances alongside each other. Rather than science, which Heidegger thought separated things out for investigation, the measuring that he advocated took place through a constitutive unity connecting people with things and the world. This unity was engaged with the fourfold preconditions of existence already discussed in ‘The Thing’ and ‘Building Dwelling Thinking’. For Heidegger, in the unity of these preconditions, poetry and dwelling remained intense measures of one another, helping individuals make sense of their circumstances (SHARR, 2007, p.76).

Turning, once again to the etymology of the Greek word for ‘making’ - poiesis - he linked then poetry with dwelling. Again, Sharr (2007, p.76), explains: “He implied that all making thus involved poetry to some extent. He also implied that poetry didn’t necessarily have to involve words. Heidegger thus argued that poetry and dwelling weren’t as incompatible as commonly assumed; rather, that proper dwelling was primarily poetic”.

In his essay, Heidegger states that “poetry is what first brings man into earth, making him belong to it, and thus brings him into dwelling” (HEIDEGGER, 1971b, p.216). After thoroughly linking poetry to dwelling, he then explained the meaning of ‘poetic’ in ‘dwelling’; “the taking of measure is what is poetic in dwelling” (HEIDEGGER, 1971b, p.219). Heidegger worked towards a discussion of measuring by taking a larger extract from Hölderlin’s poem:

May, if life is sheer toil, a man
Lift his eyes and say: so
I too wish to be? Yes. As long as Kindness
The Pure, still stays with his heart, man
Not unhappily measures himself
Against the godhead. Is God unknown?
Is he manifest like the sky? I’d sooner
Believe the latter. It’s the measure of man
Full of merit, yet poetically, man
Dwells on this earth. But no purer
Is the shade of the starry night,
If I might put it so, than
Man, who’s called an image of the godhead.
Is there a measure on earth? There is
None

Source: (HEIDEGGER, 1971b, p.217).

Rather than analyzing the whole extract, Heidegger focused on parts of the poem relevant to the fourfold. “His selection from the poem notably contains the four elements of his fourfold: earth, sky, divinities (‘the godhead’), and mortals (‘man’)” (SHARR, 2007, p.79). Of particular importance was the realm of the godhead and the contrast to scientific measure-taking. For the philosopher, this poetic form of measure-taking, as in his critiques of building production and the notion of object, belonged with experience rather than science or mathematics. It was not taken by a palpable stick or rod, or any other systematic or mathematic application. Instead, “it is described by the German word for measuring, messen, which, although it also refers to mathematical gradation, carries connotations of comparing like with like” (SHARR, 2007, p.79, author’s emphasis). Heidegger states:

Man’s dwelling depends on an upward-looking measure-taking of the dimension, in which the sky belongs just as much as the earth. This measure-taking not only takes the measure of the earth, ge, and accordingly it is no mere geo-metry. Just as little does it ever take the measure of heaven, ouraous, for itself. Measure-taking is no science. Measure-taking gauges the between, which brings the two, heaven and earth, to one another. This measure-taking has its own metron and thus its own metric (HEIDEGGER, 1971b, p.219).

Based on Hölderlin’s poem, Heidegger speaks about the poetic as the “measure” with which man measures out his dwelling, his stay on the earth beneath the sky; and to him, “The godhead is the ‘measure’” (HEIDEGGER, 1971b, p.218). For the philosopher, men are only able to be commensurately with his nature insofar as they take the measure of their dwelling in this way. Thus, he concludes, “Man’s dwelling depends on an upward-looking measure-taking of the dimension in which the sky belongs just as much as the earth” (HEIDEGGER, 1971b, p.219). The basic element of this comparative measuring is the godhead, the divinity. And so, he proceeds to explain what is the godhead, or, who is God?

Turning to a new extract of Hölderlin’s poem, he is then able to conclude his concept of the poetic as the basic capacity for human dwelling. This measure-taking abides in men’s dwelling on earth, and is the means through which the godhead is perceived among men. The verses continue:

[...] As long as Kindness,
The Pure, still stays with his heart, man
Not unhappily measures himself
Against the Godhead [...]

Source: (HEIDEGGER, 1971b, p.226).

The philosopher highlights that “Kindness” with the capitalized epithet “the Pure” is a word translated from the Greek charis, grace, something that is given. Heidegger beautifully concludes:

As long as this arrival of kindness endures, so long does man succeed in measuring himself not unhappily against the godhead. When this measuring appropriately comes to light, man creates poetry from the very nature of the poetic. When the poetic appropriately comes to light, then man dwells humanly on this earth (HEIDEGGER, 1971b, p.227).

In summary, “poetically” is the means through which dwelling occurs. It is a measurement that men use to mirror himself into the fourfold. This measuring is an arrival of kindness (charis), the basic element of the godhead, used as a comparable element for men’s way of dwelling on earth. The question that is presented in this essay is then, is the artistic work capable of dwelling in such a manner? Does it also dwell “poetically”?

In “The origin of the work of art”, Heidegger affirms that the artist is the origin of the work, but also that the work is the origin of the artist. Once again, with his circular thought, he enhances that though neither exists without the other, also, neither is the sole support of the other. “In themselves and in their interrelations artist and work are each of them by virtue of a third thing which is prior to both, namely that which also gives artist and work of art their names - art” (HEIDEGGER, 1971c, p.17). This statement is important as it gives “art” the sort of autonomy that preconditions the idea of “artistic dwelling” proposed in this article. If the work of art is somewhat autonomous, besides being a “thing”, it contains elements of a live “being”. Therefore, Heidegger says that a man dwells between work and word. “If we consider the works in their untouched actuality and do not deceive ourselves, the result is that the works are as naturally present as are things” (HEIDEGGER, 1971c, p.18). When we consider the art-work’s presence as inseparable from the built environment, the artistic dwelling can be perceived. Heidegger in fact emphasizes that “staying with things is the only way in which the fourfold stay within the fourfold is accomplished at any time in simple unity (HEIDEGGER, 1971a, p.149). The relation between man and godhead (divinity) is in this manner comparable to the relation between artwork and man, as one is present within the other through a poetic measure. The question of the poetical way of dwelling is then respectively readapted to allow the work of art to dwell in such a manner. Artistic dwelling is poetic in the sense that the poetic is a measuring, though in the case of art, the measuring is not of the “divinity” element of the fourfold, but the “mortal” element. Man stays in things; man measures things; this manly way of measuring is what makes things be things. Furthermore, in the case of the two artworks in question, they pursue humanness as they, from several perspectives, present themselves as beings rather than as things. They reflect the fourfold, they create illusion of movement. Space and time are summoned and celebrated. They are space, but also art. They are art that dwells in space, and exist through space, clearing-away but simultaneously gathering.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

When we think about art museum spaces, there are many different levels of interaction between space and art, from the distant and most indifferent white cube to the overpowering expressionist buildings. This essay has explored the concept of dwelling in Heidegger and attempted to apply it to the relations between space and art in the contemporary art galleries at Inhotim. The concept of dwelling was approached by interpreting Heidegger’s etymological argument, the idea of embodiment (space and place), the fourfold and the poetic. Each Heideggerian approach has shown how his thought of dwelling can be applied to the relation between art and space, or artwork and architecture.

Firstly, the etymological argument stated that “dwelling” and “being” are essentially one, thus, to dwell is to be. Art dwells because art is. Secondly, the embodiment showed that the artistic contents present in both the “Sonic Pavilion” and the “Vegetation Room” are ambiguous, being at the same time spaces that ‘clear-away’ and places that ‘gather’ as they open themselves and inspire movement, and also close into gatherings of time, textures and memories. Thirdly, the fourfold argued that art gallery is similar to Heidegger’s example of the bridge, as it connects men to the artistic in the same way bridges connect men to new locations, thus creating an ensemble of art and architecture which gathers to itself in “its own” way earth and sky, divinities, and mortals. Fourthly, the poetic showed that this is the manner through which dwelling occurs; it is a measuring used to place the dweller within his/her environment.

The growing widespread of museums throughout the world has brought the museal space into deeper discussion. The cases of Inhotim and other contemporary art museums - where galleries evoke experimental architecture created in deep relation with specific sites and specific artworks -, and the spatial complexities inspire profound philosophical reflections on the thresholds of art and space.

For Heidegger, the way of making sense of things was by experiencing them in their context, rather than separating them out for abstract investigations. Thus, a phenomenological approach of the two exemplary artworks was taken, with conceptual and observatory sketches and extracts from a personal visitation journal used in order to approximate the artworks to the theoretical content discussed here.

Finally, the relation between men and the analyzed galleries can also be explained as one of “dwelling”. Ultimately, every relation between men and their surroundings is a dwelling relation. Men’s primal and constant relation with space is dwelling. Even if art dwells within the art gallery, men also dwell because, in essence, the art gallery would not exist if men did not dwell, if in dwelling they did not urge to compile and guard his artistic assets, if he did not, consequently, build and visit these places.

The temporal aspect of the spatial relation is also relevant. The reason why men are comparable to the flâneur is their ephemeral relation with these given spaces. They evoke the human poetic by reflecting the godhead measuring of charis, which allows people to perceive humanness in built things. Since art is not mortal and is physically static in its given location, it permanently dwells; while men dwell temporarily, as the builder and as the passer-by, and then they dwell in memory and thought. In conclusion, for dwelling through thinking, it can be emphasized that Heidegger stated ‘thinking’ itself as belonging to dwelling in the same sense as building; in thinking of space and developing spatial ideas, man dwells. “Building and thinking are, each in its own way, inescapable for dwelling” (HEIDEGGER, 1971a, p.158). “In other words, we have to give thought to the thingness of things in order to arrive at a total vision of our world” (NORBERG-SCHULZ, 1983, p.68). Thus, the exercise of thinking spatial relations is in itself a dwelling relation with space, one that the artistic cannot convey. Although men’s contact with the space is ephemeral, whereas the art contact is permanent, through the visitation of these sites men are able to connect to art, and consequently to humanness. The artistic content uses humanness as its poetic measuring entering the fourfold of gathering earth, sky, divinities, and mortals. Simultaneously, it is the poetic content of the human dwelling in the first place that inspires both the creation and the philosophical thought of installations, grand-scale installations, and architectural galleries.

It has been argued that art dwells through the building because these given art pieces only truly exist through the existence of these given galleries. Hence, art is through space, thus art dwells. However, it can also be said that these buildings and artworks are impressions of men’s dwelling on earth. They reflect upon him, but are also autonomous ensembles of space and place.

REFERENCE

CARRIER, D. The art museum today. Curator: The Museum Journal, 2011. p.181-189.

HEIDEGGER, M. Being and time. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1953. p.5-227.

HEIDEGGER, M. Building dwelling thinking. In: HEIDEGGER, M. Poetry, language, thought. London: Harper and Row, 1971a. p.143-161.

HEIDEGGER, M. ... poetically, Man dwells... In: HEIDEGGER, M. Poetry, language, thought. London: Harper and Row, 1971b. p.211-229.

HEIDEGGER, M. The origin of the work of art. In: HEIDEGGER, M. Poetry, language, thought. London: Harper and Row, 1971c. p.17-78.

HEIDEGGER, M. Art and space. Man and world, n.6, p.3-8, 1973.

HOLL, S. What is architecture? (Art?). The Brooklyn Rail: Critical Perspetive on Arts, Politics, and Culture, New York, 2013. Available from: <http://www.brooklynrail.org/2013/09/criticspage/what-is-architecture-art>. Cited: Nov. 3, 2015.

INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE MUSEUS. Museus Em Números. Brasília: IBRAM, 2011. v.1.

MENEZES, A.T. O museu como casa da arte: propostas e soluções na experiência do Inhotim. In: Reunião Brasileira de Antropologia, 27., 2010, Belém. Meeting [...]. Belém: ABANT, 2010.

MENEZES, A.T. Arte contemporânea no museu: um estudo de caso do Instituto Inhotim. 2012. 176f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Museologia e Patrimônio) - Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 2012. f.28.

NORBERG-SCHULZ, C. Heidegger’s thinking on architecture. Perspecta, v.20, p.61-68, 1983. Available from: <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1567066>. Cited: Mar. 11, 2015.

PULS, M. Arquitetura e filosofia. São Paulo: Annablume, 2006.

MOURA, R. Cristina Iglesias: inaugurações. [S.l.:s.n.], 2012. 1 vídeo (3:31 segundos). Publicado pelo canal Inhotim. Disponível em: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=wu-aKqZ8xoI>. Acesso em: 17 jun. 2015.

RACHED, L.H. Centro de arte contemporânea Inhotim: Caci. 2014. 300f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Arquitetura e Urbanismo) - Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2014.

SHARR, A. Thinkers for architects: Heidegger for architects. New York: Routledge, 2007. p.27-76.

SHINER, L. On aesthetics and function in architecture: The case of the “spectacle” art museum. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, v.69, n.1, p.31-41, 2011.

SILVA, L.B. Instalação: espaço e tempo. 2011. 243f. Tese (Doutorado em Artes) - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 2011.

TONETTI, A.C. Interseções entre arte e arquitetura: o caso dos pavilhões. 2013. 203f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Arquitetura e Urbanismo) - Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2013. f.124.

NOTAS

Author notes

Correspondence to/Correspondência para: L.F.O VALENTE | E-mail: <valente.liz@gmail.com>.