Reading Buildings and other things

Structure of Stolaf Buildings: "After our discussion yesterday on the buildings of St. Olaf I thought about it more when walking around campus. The idea that the St. Olaf i..."

Katie kept thinking about Tostrud/Skogland after class and noted that mind, body, and spirit are all cultivated there, but added: "I think that these may have come together for function not as a result of major planning. It is nice and convenient I think and it does make a unique dynamic to the location but I feel like it may not have had a lot of intention."  

She puts her finger on a larger interpretive issue that has come up in class more than once.  Remember those Pocahontas paintings and our questions about what the artists intended for us to receive from their work?  Volumes and volumes have been written on this topic; I won't solve it here.  I do, however, want to make a small suggestion: the more angles of vision we can bring to bear, the richer and perhaps even more accurate will be our reading of a building, a painting, a poem, a political movement. 

Are the multiple-uses of Skogland/Tostrud that address spirit and mind as well as body in an athletic facility MERELY a matter of convenience and function?  How would we know?  What are the limits of our interpretation?

1. Such an intention would be consistent with the college's official statements of its mission, so we can allow the possibility that this was a principled decision.
2. The practice, i.e. multiple use buildings that serve spirit, mind, and body or some combination of at least two, is common at St. Olaf, so this might indeed be an institutional habit based in an expressed ideal.  Indeed, we know that the previous gym (now the theater building) was also used for worship over several decades and that the current chapel building includes classrooms.
3. Next, we should set off to the archives to look for documentary evidence.  Did the planners of the buildings make any statements about their intentions?  What was said at the ground breaking and dedication ceremonies?  Of course, even if we don't find any explicit statements to the positive, unless we find statements in the negative, the possibility of a principled decision remains.
4. Imagine the alternatives.  If we had the opportunity to hold all classes somewhere other than in Skogland, would we?  If we had the opportunity to hold large events such as Christmas festival somewhere else, would we?  Are these temporary arrangements, consistent with official statements of mission, but not determined by mission?  
5. Do we need to divide the question a bit?  Surely the classrooms are there "on purpose" even if use of the gym for ceremonial events is in part due to lack of an alternative.  Does this lead us to modify the interpretation so that the intentions of the builders is less central and defensible interpretation by the users is the primary concern?