Abstract:
For centuries, at least in the western society, architecture has been associated with notions of stasis, timelessness and endurance and these continue to define architecture in the modern society (Croft, 2000; Fox & Kemp, 2009; Lynn, 1977; Zuk & Clark, 1970). [...]
However, it is questionable whether the traditional status of architecture is still appropriate in the contemporary society. Current society is dynamic and is subject to frequent transformation. [...] While society has progressed forward, architecture has been held back. Due to this architecture currently potentially fails to take advantage of the opportunities in motion-based developments and falls short in satisfying the demands of modern society (Korkmaz, 2004). [...]
In order for architecture to literally survive in the contemporary world, it must evolve and adapt to the new era of vast transformation and movement by utilising what is present, the techniques of kineticism (Fox & Kemp, 2009; Korkmaz, 2004; Lynn, 1997; Zuk & Clark, 1970). Zuk and Clark compares this paradigm to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution that explains, “the problem of survival always depends upon the capability of an object to adapt in a changing environment”, which also holds true for architecture as it stands at the threshold for a new evolution (1970, p.4). The techniques of kinetics are a vital tool for architecture to survive today’s unpredictably transforming world.
In regards to domestic architecture, one of the advantages of such adaptation is that it would increase the ability for it to be personalized, which is a fundamental aspect that constructs a sense home. Currently, personalisation of a house is usually done through choosing the objects in the house such as furniture or colours of the walls (Cooper, 1995). However, utilization of motion in architecture can provide greater opportunities for personalisation, which would eventually assist in obtaining a greater sense of home.
