Metaphor is a communication component inherent in all types of communication. Culture-dependent, it encompasses world views, modes of living, and accumulated social knowledge. The metaphor is inherent in all the layers of the message: the signs, their form, pronunciation, accent, accentuations, semiotics, semantics, syntax, sound, rhythm, and frequency. Many metaphors are embedded in the language so that they are no longer perceivable, while others are employed to manipulate emotional, primal or rational effects - all participating in the building of the accumulative essence of the metaphor, its perception and comprehension. Whether used in verbal, artistic or architectural messages - each metaphor has roots in the past, and some influence on the future. 

Numerously widespread, metaphors differ from one another by infinite characteristics, yet may be categorized according to the nature of the message conveying them. The saying “One picture is worth a thousand words” depicts the superiority of the visual message compared to the verbal one. On this basis,  a multi-facet metaphor experienced by many users over a long period of time is worth far more than a thousand pictures. 

Every metaphor has two lines of existence: one accumulative and the other one-off. Both feed off each other, thus motivating the on-going process of evolution where the concrete manifestation is inspired by the accumulative one, while at the same time delineating its boundaries. Thus, for instance, the term ‘church’ may evoke several buildings, each one of them drawing its metaphorical existence from the abstract term, while expanding the number of accumulated connotations of said abstract term.

As the most tangible physical component of society, architecture plays a central role in motivating the evolution of metaphors. Thus, for instance, climbing the emergency staircase of a building differs from climbing the Spanish Steps in Rome mainly in the metaphoric context of each.

As with every process bound to the laws of evolution, accumulative imagery is not controllable (except when limited to laboratory conditions), as it is fed by random mutations. In such a reality, the only way to influence the accumulative metaphor is via the metaphoric layer inherent in the building. This may be compared to our ability to drive a car and reach our destination, without always knowing what’s happening under the engine-hood. 

While employing metaphors in art is essential - in architecture, as a practical medium, it is only an added value to a functional end. Nonetheless, the use of metaphors in architecture is what actually distinguishes one building from another and one architect from his colleague. 

The relation between a building and its surrounding is reciprocal: namely, relations whereby the building exploits the benefits of the surroundings (such as scenery, climate, and culture), and contributes of its own advantages (synergic participation, contacts of space and esthetics). These mutual relations are vastly important to the development of the abstract meaning of the place, which distinguishes it from other places. To evoke D.H.Lawrence in his book “A Spirit of Place”: the sense of place is the outcome of a one-time interaction between the writer (in this case - the architect), his experience and his surroundings.

In order for such interactions to occur, a conceptual connection is necessary between the concrete message embedded in the building and the abstract metaphors conveying it. Thus for instance, the branding of Tel Aviv in the 90s as the “city that never stops” managed to enhance the city’s image only because it reinforced an already-existing concrete reality. Conversely, the image of Kfar Saba as an “ancient city“, by compelling the main street buildings to be decorated with arcades, is widely perceived as an unjustified artificial action whose efficiency is dubious to this day.

The ability to understand the metaphoric layer of a building or a place is significant to the architect/user relations, a gap not easily bridged. While the user calculates his priorities on a  cost-effective basis, the architect sees the the imagery of the  building as a vehicle to express his creative urges.

A fine example of a clash between the architect’s code and the user's perception can be seen in the Modernist code, which grasped the building as a machine. The result was that many users perceived Modernist buildings as a nondescript object. According to the functional idea, revelation of the metaphoric level of the building was a crucial part of experiencing the building. And in the words of Modern artist Paul Klee: “To perceive the root of the matter, one must learn what is hiding behind the façade…identify the concealed currents from which the overt is revealed. One must dig beneath the surface, discover, examine, analyze.” As a result, the user who was not acquainted with the secrets of the minimalist code had difficulties encrypting the hidden message, hence perceiving the building as boring - while the architects who had created it viewed it as the pinnicle of applied art (to this day, by the way). 

The ensuing Post-Modern code, which rose as a reaction to the 'tedious' linear Modernist one, took the multi-faced opposite path, granting the metaphoric aspect an independent existence. This led many architects to perceive the excessive Post-Modern architecture as often detached from its context, expressing meaningless shallowness, with the masses worshiping it as the golden calf. 

Nowadays there are four areas that make often exaggerated use of metaphors: digital architecture, which subjects the form of the building to several parameters, to the nearly total disregard of others; thematic design, using the metaphor as a fictive vehicle supporting the narrative; conservation with its vague notions; and sustainability, too often grasped as green. 

Much has been written about the total imagery involving digital architecture (AI 79, 69, 63). The leading concepts in this area are the associated parametric design method and the performance based design (Performalism). The problem is that in (too) many cases, the conceptual metaphor that was originally intended to complement, connect and enrich the building has actually taken over its comprehensive imagery, causing imbalance between all components of the programme.  

Thematic design is usually based on a borrowed narrative from a non-contextual reality - a Japanese restaurant in London, a holocaust museum in New York, or Disney World in Orlando. Being intentionally detached from the world of images characterizing the place, the technical imagery in essence connects non-spatially to its accumulative imagery. That is, one technical metaphor relates to the other technical images beyond space. In this manner each of them can enrich the accumulative abstract metaphor, thereby motivating its evolutionary process, similarly to spatial interpretations.

Of the four areas mentioned above, the most problematic is that of conservation, which - by virtue of its attempt to freeze the imagery - impinges upon the user’s priorities, whether private or public. 

This is not the place to deal with all the problems inherent in the cultural, architectural and social components of conservation. However, it is clear that the most paradoxical trait of conservation is the deletion of the authentic signs of the building - first and foremost the aging patina of the substance. To demonstrate this problem, one may ask whether a renovation of the Parthenon at the Acropolis is preferable to leaving it in its present state. The answer is of course: “No”, as the metaphorical significance of temple structures lies in their durability over time - a characteristic that reinforces the imagery of eternal essence, thus supporting the dimension of continuity. 

Continuity also fits with one of the populist metaphors bandied about today - the topic of sustainability. Contrary to the notion that sustainable building may save in building materials, in many cases an old building does not adjust to the spirit of the times, causing a waste of energy in maintenance costs. The advantage of sustainability lies, however, in its ultimate relation with its surroundings - in other words, in preserving the urban fabric which creates the imagery of the entire place, rather than that of the single building. This ensures that Prague will continue to be Prague even when its regime changes, that Tel Aviv will go on being a multi-facet city even when someone insists on re-planning it, and that the stone walls of Jerusalem may preserve her unique historical scent. 

Without delving too deeply into the evolutionary roots of signs - a subject that was discussed already in the 70s by researchers such as Noam Chomsky, Amos Rappaport, and Christopher Alexander - it is safe to say that many architects use metaphors as a cover for stumbling planning. And even worse - since the building becomes an integral part of the metaphoric surroundings, it might in turn influence future creation disproportionately to its architectural quality.

* The article is based upon Barie Fez-Barringten's articles dealing with the role of metaphors in art and architecture.

Prof. Barie Fez-Barringten is an architect, philosopher, writer, artist, project manager and teacher. He is one of the world’s foremost advocates of the artistic concept called ‘Architecture as the Making of Metaphors’. His work has been recognized around the world, particularly in the US and Saudi Arabia. According to Professor Fez-Barringten: 

A. Art is about making metaphors;

B. Architecture has an artistic dimension;

C. Therefore, architecture involves the making  of metaphors.