321sion and connection; of body/mass and space through their
figure-ground relationship; of load and support through the
overcoming of the forces of gravity; and of space and time
through the structuring of spatial movement.Symmetrical order and its transcendence coincide in human
form itself. To be sure, bodily organs and limbs are arranged
symmetrically, yet their functions are not strictly symmetri-
cal – architecture is perceived in analogous ways. Certainly,
a vertical mirror axis placement plays an important role in
perception, but when it dominates a > composition, it can
become stultifying.
In the present context, the concept of symmetry rests on
its current and customary definition as axial symmetry, for
which the identity of forms through mirroring or the rotation
of repeated elements is essential, as it is for point and rota-
tional symmetry. A more differentiated conception of symme-
try (i.e. meaning literally ‘to measure together’), and one no
longer current today, corresponds to that which antiquity re-
ferred to as eurythm, referring not to the identity of elements,
but to a balanced relationship between corresponding parts
that follows a certain rhythm and is displayed in a building’s
> proportions.
In contrast, axial symmetry corresponds to a feature of
our bodily organization. Essentially, we carry vertical axial
symmetry within our own frames. Converging in it is the up-
right posture, which opposes the forces of gravity, and the
axial positioning of bifocal vision; horizontal symmetrical
axes do not have the same significance for us. The virtual sub-
division of the field of vision into symmetrical halves that lie
to the right and left of the main axis of vision corresponds
to the symmetrical division in breadth of the space that lies
before us.
That the vertical axis is related to the upright stance of
our bodies must be the reason why we perceive buildings withSymmetry