Main Article Content
|Issue||Vol. 4 No. 2 (2021)|
|Published||Jul 31, 2021|
Submitted : Sep 30, 2020 | Accepted : Jun 22, 2021
At a time where boundaries within society, culture, and technology are continually challenged and redefined, even the commonly understood binary oppositions within areas such as gender, age, and digitality (Negroponte, 1995) are becoming less visible, measurable, and socially accepted. In this new realm where even physical reality is encroached upon by the digital, are the tangible and perceived distinctions between interior and architecture also becoming extinct? The emergence of more flexible and transitional space appears to not only blur the boundaries of inside and outside, interior and architecture, but also the previous distinctions of function. Space is no longer solely intimated by visual cues, materiality, or the physicality of walls and interior objects. Instead, we see increased ‘function neutrality’ within buildings, with rising opportunity for user interpretation and take-over. This renewed focus on the user can enrich our built environment as we embrace new equality of the interior and relish its new freedom and voice.
Adams, R., & Marlor, L. (2019a). A spatial diorama: the act of the interior (A five act play). In G. Brooker, H. Harris, & K. Walker (Eds.), Interior futures (pp. 28–39). Crucible Publications.
Adams, R., & Marlor, L. (2019b). Breaking the binary oppositions of the interior: A momentary permanence. Interiority, 2(2), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.7454/in.v2i2.58
Alonson, I. (2014). Seagram Building New York [Photograph]. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/finchermac/15174153854
Attiwill, S. (2018). Urban interiority as collective individuation. In P. Atmodiwirjo, & Y. A. Yatmo (Eds.), [in]arch international conference 2018—The stories of interior: Multiple perspectives on interiority (pp. 53–62). Department of Architecture Faculty of Engineering Universitas Indonesia.
Atmodiwirjo, P., & Yatmo, Y. A. (2018). Interiority in everyday space: A dialogue between materiality and occupation. Interiority, 2(10), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.7454/in.v2i1.56
Benjamin, W. (2004). The Arcades Project (H. Eiland & K. McLaughlin, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
Berger, J. (1972). Ways of seeing. Penguin Books.
Carnelos, L. (2018). Unknown [Photograph]. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/IMUwe-p1yqs
Civic Architects. (2019). LocHal Public Library Tilburg.https://www.civicarchitects.eu/projects/lochal-tilburg
Dalbera, J-P. (2012). Re-set, La Biennale di Venezia 2021 [Photograph]. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalbera/8132711535
Diller Scofidio + Renfro. (n.d.). The Shed, New York, NY. https://dsrny.com/project/the-shed
Emporis. (n.d.). Seagram Building. https://www.emporis.com/buildings/ 115572/seagram-building-new-york-city-ny-usa
Forty, A. (2013). Words and buildings: A vocabulary of modern architecture. Thames and Hudson.
Google. (n.d.). Go inside with indoor maps. Google. https://www.google.com/maps/about/partners/indoormaps/
Hannah, D. (2018). Event-space: A performance model for spatial design. In G. Marinic (Ed.), The interior architecture theory reader, (pp. 300–309). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315693002
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Wiley-Blackwell.
McCarthy, C. (2005). Towards a definition of interiority. Space and Culture, 8(2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1206331205275020
Morris, A. (2019, February 27). Civic architects creates public library in vast locomotive shed.Dezeen. https://www.dezeen.com/2019/02/27/lochal-public-library-civic-architects/
Murialdo, F. (2019). The new digital interiorscape and the edited Airbnb interior. In G. Brooker, H. Harris, & K. Walker (Eds.), Interior futures (pp. 178–190). Crucible Publications.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. Hodder and Stoughton.
Pallasmaa, J. (2011). An architecture of the seven senses. In L. Weinthal (Ed.), Toward a new interior: An anthology of interior design theory (pp. 40–49). Princeton Architectural Press.
Pimlott, M. (2018). Interiority and the conditions of the interior. Interiority, 1(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.7454/in.v1i1.5
Prišmontas, B. (2018). The Arches Project. https://www.boanoprismontas.com/thearchesproject
Psarra, S. (2009). Architecture and narrative: The formation of space and cultural meaning. Routledge.
Reid, E. (2020, February 6). A look back at 15 years of mapping the world. Google. https://www.blog.google/products/maps/look-back-15-years-mapping-world/
Romero, F. (2016). London—Pop Brixton [Photograph]. Flickr. https://flickr.com/photos/129231073@N06/31270115413
Soderqvist, L. (2011). Structuralism in architecture: A definition. Journal of Aesthetics & Culture,3(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3402/jac.v3i0.5414
Space Popular. (2019). The Venn Room [Exhibition]. Estonian Museum of Architecture, Estonia. http://www.spacepopular.com/exhibitions/2019---the-venn-room
Sparke, P. (2010). The modern interior: A space, a place or a matter of taste?. Interiors Design/Architecture/Culture, 1(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.2752/204191210791602276
Sparke, P. (2008). The modern interior revisited. Journal of Interior Design, 34(1), v–xii. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1668.2008.00002.x
Suresh, A. (2019). The Shed–Complete [Photograph]. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajay_suresh/48206488176/
Teston, L. (2020). On the nature of public interiority. Interiority, 3(5), 61–82. https://doi.org/10.7454/in.v3i1.72
Todd, D., & Mortimer, R. (1929). The new interior decoration: An introduction to its principles, and international survey of its methods. B. T. Batsford.
Voordoow, J. (2018). Topology and interiority: Folding space inside. In G. Marinic (Ed.), The interior architecture theory reader (pp. 318–326). Routledge.
Whyte, W. H. (2001). The social life of small urban spaces (8th ed.). Ingram.
Zumthor, P. (2006). Atmospheres: Architectural environments, surrounding objects. Birkhauser.
Author(s) retain the copyright of articles published in this journal, with first publication rights granted to Interiority.