We are so used to the concept of the term 'space' that we do not question its conceptual validity. However, this paper argues that the notion of space prevailing all over the world, is not a universal concept that can be applicable to all architectures of the world, but is a particular concept that is generated from the Western way of thinking. This paper alms to identify the conceptual structure of the idea of space as it is originated in the tradition of the West, and, as an alternative view of space, tries to identify the nature of the view of space perceived in the tradition of the Eastern architecture. Comparison of the two views, that of the East and the West, and their meaning in the future of architecture, is another task to discuss in this paper. To be able to clarify the meaning of space in East Asian tradition, a set of new perspective of understanding of space was invited. They are ; 1. sky-earth(天地); insisting that the notion of space should be replaced within the context of sky, which is one half of sky-earth totality 2. energy of the air (空氣), space is not empty part inside of a building, but is a dynamic condition of air that is a part of the sky which always exist in form of energy 3. place(자리): instead of space, which, basically. is a man-made concept, idea of place is necessary, which include not only space but also earth Such concept of space which is different from the notion of space of the West, is meaningful not only to identify the idea of space in the East, but also to be able to contribute for more dynamic, varied, and balanced understanding of space.

All architectures in the history have certain attitudes of aesthetic expression of their own. Depending on the culture, such aesthetic attitudes are not the same but different. This paper aims to identify the nature of the difference of aesthetic attitude in the architectures of the East and the West. As a way of approach for this purpose, two keywords are employed as representative concept. They are: 'proportion' and 'vitality'. Proportion, of course, represent the attitude of the Western, while, vitality, the Eastern. Although these two words are subjective selection, it is hoped that the nature of aesthetic attitudes could be observed through the windows of these two representative concepts. We all know that the architects and students of architecture of this period, are very much concerned about the aesthetic expression of their design. However, the value judgement of aesthetic quality seems quite confused in modem period. If the nature of aesthetic attitudes of the Eastern and the Western architecture is well understood, such understanding will help much for the direction of architectural aesthetic of future architecture.

All architecture in the history were based on a certain concept of architectural unit that functioned as a base model of architectural design. As we know, such model was not the same in the East and the West, and therefore, their architectures are not the same. This paper aims to identify how and why such base model of the two cultural area are different. As one way of discussing this issue, the concept of particle and field, as two representative idea of the West and East respectively, the employed. This kind of discussion can not follow the way of scientific verification as method of argument. However, the understanding of such concept of unit model is crucial for the understanding of the architecture of the culture in general. In basic sense, the tradition of Western architecture is rooted in the model of particle, where, architecture is conceived to be as a independent unit standing on earth as if it is a box like object. While, the tradition of Eastern architecture is rooted in the model field, where, architecture is conceived to be a part of field organization. In present days, we are used to the model of particle as if it is the only possible model of architecture. But, in fact, what man need to achieve in their architecture and city, is the balance between the two models.

Perception of architectural experience is different in different culture. This paper aims to identify how the experience of architecture is understood to be different in Eastern and Western culture. The discussion is based on the idea that the Western architecture placed more emphasis on visual perception, while the Eastern, on mutual responsiveness between man and built environment. The fact that the Western culture is more visually oriented than other culture, and therefore visual aspect of architecture, too, is considered to be very important, is already widely agreed among scholars. But, then, what had been considered to be important in the architectural experience in the East? It is the degree and quality of mutual responsiveness between man and architectural environment. This fact influenced much on the making of architecture of course, and the same fact played the key role in making the Eastern architecture different from that of the West. We are so used to the way of architecture of the West, that the quality of responsiveness is unknown if not forgotten. However, it is not the quality that was useful only in traditional society of the East, but necessary in our modem period as well. The quality for responsiveness, therefore, should be rediscovered and restored as the prime value and quality of architecture in the future architecture.

The tradition of architecture in the East and the West are different in many ways. One of the basic cause of such difference, however, is the different ways of perception of space and time. This paper aims to identify the attitude of perception of space and time in the cultures of the East and the West, and its influence on architecture. Degrees of importance placed on either space or time, as well as the modes of perception of space and time are discussed in relation to architecture. Basically, the architecture of the West seems to be more spatially oriented than the East, and this have much to do with the fact that the tradition of Western architecture is visually oriented. On the other hand, East Asian architecture have been more conscious on bodily feeling and its movement in architecture. Spatial units of traditional Eastern architecture, are arranged in such a way in which man can experience the change of space that is supposed to be organized to form a sequential message. Thus, in the East, temporal dimension is more deliberately included in the course of architectural experience compared to the cases of the West. Although it is not easy to attempt any kind of value judgment on such aspects, it is necessary to understand how the different perception of space and time influenced architectural outcome, especially when one wants to understand the cultural cause that have made the architectures of the East and the West very different. Such understanding is particularly important in East Asia where their future of architecture depends much on how they harmonize the Eastern and Western background which are already built up as two cultural structure in their consciousness to be able to create more desirable architecture for themselves.

This paper aims to identify the meaning of architectural form of the East and the West. Ordinarily, we know the visual differences of architectural form between the two cultural families, and the technical reasons of such differences. However, the East and the West have their own views of architectural form that are derived from their own views of architecture, and again the views of architecture are rooted in their own views of the world. The paper maintains a comparative stance between the two cultures in analyzing the different concepts of architectural form, and employ the ideas of 'Form(形象)' and 'Energy-Form(氣形)' as a kind of representative concept of the two views of architectural form. It is discussed that the idea of Form pursued the realization of ultimate substance which is less materialistic but more ideal., while, the idea of Energy-Form pursued the realization of oneness and health through mutual interaction between man, architecture and nature. Architectural form in the West has been the purposeful expression of human ideal, while in the East, it was an expediential device for better energy condition. It seems important to understand such differences of the meaning of architectural form between the East and the West, since, in present time, we tend to think that the Western conception of architectural form is the only possible one. But it is not generally known that the Western conception of form has very particular background reason of its own which is unique to Western culture, and on the other hand, the nature of East Asian conception of architectural form is generally unknown.