Transition has always been an interest of my being. Having studied architecture I have learnt three aspects for it, inside- in- between- outside with respect to the built form. Now, inside and outside can be understood in their literal sense. Inside relates to a form of approach towards something, a starting point from where you begin to experience change in feeling and space. While outside is the part which is again a contrast to the inside feeling, it's something like bidding farewell to a space, a built form. The above expressions are more limited to the architectural sense, although these terms have different meanings which co- exist in the realm of our lives.
Finally I arrive at the part which I just skipped called the 'in- between'. Well, if a certain thing has a starting as well an ending point, it encloses an in-between within itself. This is the part where there is a different kind of experience in- store. When you are moving through it, you reach a state of constant equilibrium, which is no way meant to be static in its experience, but you are sort of a part of it while you are in- between the inside and the outside.
While studying architecture, I realised that it's not always about building buildings. Whenever I was given an exercise to design be it a house, a cultural centre, a hotel or anything, for me it was always about a journey which a person will traverse through. It was more like an experience that had to be implanted on site, where the experience itself will be the outer form of the building. It was always about enclosures, envelopes, somewhere there and somewhere not. Changing moods, feelings, movements paths all became an integration of the overall design experience.
To reply you need to sign in.