Abstract
AbstractTransgression is not absolute. What constitutes a transgression is forever in flux, being redefined with the mores of society. The potential for transgression also does not halt with the completion of a building. David Littlefield examines the temporal character of transgression in relation to lived‐in buildings, and the manner in which transgression lodges itself between a building and an idea. Here transgression is a byproduct of the occupiers rather than their makers, sometimes to the extent that a building can take on unbearably horrific associations.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
