Language has been said to be not just a cultural phenomenon but the source of it.
What is the source of architecture? What can we claim the sole source of "good" design is from our architectural language of diagrams to buildings? Is there a figurative structure that we design to other than the restrictions of building codes?
The source of architecture is a complex web of process and these processes are structured in a particular way. There is a design process, a production process, a construction process and the process in which the building becomes activated.
ReplyDeleteThe language of architecture lies within the diagram. The diagram speaks of the relationship of the solid and the void. A wall can only exist if it is bordered by two parallel voids. The nature of "good" architecture is aware of the dichotomy of space.
The figurative structure we must respond to is that of the human body in action and interaction with others. Architecture should be the refiguration of that content, by analogy, into material artifacts; bearing in mind that human action is simultaneously both temporal (happening at sometime), and spatial (happening at someplace), as are the materials that we work with, in their own special ways. Ignore this at our peril.
ReplyDeleteMaybe a Structuralist would argue that language is a closed system and that we cannot get outside of that. There is nothing outside of the language framework itself to make its meaning. Therefore form can be "liberated" from meaning. This sounds almost refreshing. But I wonder what this does to our understanding of space. If we are using language and forever it is self-referential, at what point are we allowed to take part in the conversation? If the form is so separated from our human selves how do we relate? Time and place surely our relevant, as is our body connected to these spaces. I am still wondering on what leg Structuralism really stands? How can the authorless be advocated for?
ReplyDeleteThe source is everything, not that it is the only thing, but it is made up of everything. Architecture has become a field of the study of all knowledge. (has been in the past as well) The design of the built environment incorporates knowledge from every scholarly field imaginable. At the same time, the written word had been created about every subject out there as well. And since one designer cannot possibly know every piece of information about every single thing out there, we have to use the best information given to us which is tangible to one person. This is why we study human action so we can focus on the design situation at hand and the details associated with the project which will impact that human the most. Place becomes important solely because architecture has to be built somewhere in someplace. If it wasn’t built somewhere, then it was never built, and thus never a piece of architecture to begin with.
ReplyDeleteI think the primary source of architecture is humans or other intelligent beings. Without people there would not be architecture. Other animals use nature to shelter themselves but those are natural formations that were not “built” but formed.
ReplyDeleteThe sole source of “good” design comes from designing to the human scale. Like The Professor stated, the response to the action of the human body and the interaction with others. A building could look really cool and have great “curb appeal”, but without the spaces of the interior being designed around the motions of human beings, then what is the point of the building? Why have a building that looks “cool” but is not functional? If we do not design our building around the occupants that utilize the space then the building will fall useless quickly.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is a response to Jim,
ReplyDeleteWatch this video. I would embed it but the settings currently don't allow that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozkBd2p2piU
After seeing that video its hard for me to say only humans or even intelligent beings are only capable of building.
Peter Eisenman is one of those ‘structuralists’ and theorist. He tries to make his architecture be free or “liberated” from meaning. In his House series for example, he attempts to disconnect the houses from their context and relies on a grid system to deconstruct and manipulate the cubic form. By ignoring site context, he is able to focus the architectural design principles instead of trying to respond to the natural and human conditions normally applied to the architectural design process.
ReplyDeleteI think this kind of architecture is a great exercise to do because in the process, we can potentially uncover something relevant and inspiring. (such as relationships within the building elements)
That is a very interesting statement Sergey. Process is something we are constantly discussing in academia. One's process uncovers much about formal design intentions. We are also told to keep an eye perusing through the books in the library, in search of each new architects' addition to our built realm. We flip through page after page trying to uncover something that will add to our arsenal as designers. We look to their process. We attempt to extract from the text and the pictures what their cognitive process is.
ReplyDeleteAnd..What do we really uncover?.
Are we just making connections to the information with relationship to our own process? If you postulate that we are fabricating something that is inherently inspiring or relative to ourselves or the viewer, than I wonder what the experience of a professor is? It would be interesting to begin with an architecture professor, broaden the scope to a design professor, and then broaden the scope to an educator. To what degree does process play a roll in the inspiring/relating to/educating us?
I believe there exists the potential to empower a space through an integration of scale, material, light and thermal delight for the people who occupy the space. As designers, this should be our top priority, designing a delightful space for the occupant. Yes, it must fall in line with the jurisdictional code but that should by no means be an excuse to compromise the spatial integrity, it should instead be a constraint that boosts creativity.
ReplyDeleteNot to pick on you Jim, but I would like to contest your comment about other animals not building intelligently I can think of countless examples of animals that constuct: beavers, ants, spiders, birds, and bees to name a few. I think comparing the dwellings they create to our own could be a fascinating process (wait just a second, biomimicry!). More fascinating then the various methods these animals use to build homes (mud, self made silk, dirt, wood) is that natural building materials for humans are essentially the same. Mud clay and wood are the international standards for natural construction whether adobe, straw bale, etc. Bee hives, ant colonies and beaver lodges are all extremely compelling to come across (well maybe not bee hives- ouch!). I think there is an incredible beauty in the economy and humble presences of their construction that humans generally only approach when using the same materials without modern finishes or adornments.
I agree that humans are not the only makers or building on this earth. Lots of architects have benefited from studding the natural behavior of such builders. Studding plans and their behavior has helped the modern man.
ReplyDeleteHow modern or advanced is the man today?
Spiders create their own light weight web that is durable. So how advances are we from the natural world around us? It’s fascinating world when we come down to like ants lever and study them apply what we learned.
We as humans create regulations and rules on how to build. But to determine if something is good we need to compare it so the already existing systems in nature such as a tree.
Pier Luigi Nervi says that a good architect understands the intrinsic beauty and validity of structure and its nature. They welcome the suggestions and models it, emphasizes it, and proportion it in a personal matter which constitutes the artistic nature of architecture.
ReplyDeletePier Luigi Nervi has some of the most elegant and beautiful structures I have ever seen and experienced. I believe that his view on aesthetics and meaning in architecture go beyond the artificial making of a place and phenomenological experience and relies more deeply on the intrinsic beauty that nature has imposed on structures, such as compression, tension, and shear movements that HAVE to dictate form to a certain extent.
It is true that a cultural concept bases itself on language which is the cement of our communities. However, the diagrams we use in architecture cannot be thought of as language.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, the diagrammatic nature of plans is not what conveys the architectural message of a building. It is a simple code between designers and builders. What conveys the message behind the building is the geometry, and geometry is universal.
It is true that drawing cannot represent the full reality of a three dimensional construction, but the data we lose is standard. It is the same for any culture, for any place. The proof is that architectural plans can be understood throughout cultures and ages. To the contrary, a tablet written in a lost language on a remote island cannot be deciphered without extra information.
So the base of architecture is not in its design.
I believe that the base of architecture is to be found somewhere else. Since novelty in architecture is not necessarily coming from communication but rather from personal creativity, I think that the base of architecture is dreaming. To illustrate this example, I would cite the Postman Cheval's ideal palace (see http://www.flickr.com/photos/14286378@N08/1448279185/lightbox/ ). What else but dream could synthesize cultures and generate such a new p(a)lace?
The architectural language provided by 2D representation should avoid an analogous pairing with spoken language. They are both forms of communication, yet the vernacular never has extensive properties.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly though, when a language is transcribed, portions are lost.
I agree with the general census that the way we build isnt yet proven in the world during the longetviety we would all love to design for. If there was a way to show and convince people that the building codes dont always mean that the building will be a good building. The design will obviously stand but the architecture wont neccessarliy be appealing. To build a visually appealing building along with challenging the building code we need to look more at nature to see how the simpler species design.
ReplyDeleteI feel like this still applies almost perfectly today. Here in architecture school we have the opportunity to learn more about homeless issues and the great need for additional services or what kind of budget issues the schools deal with annually and the compromises they make in unhealthy, unsustainable portable classrooms.
ReplyDeleteI believe Michael Reynolds would be a perfect example of pushing the envelope as an architect and bucking the system of building codes by thinking outside of the box with sustainability ideas and concepts. He did not budge in his beliefs and sense of empowerment, although he was shot down time and again by politicians and stringent beliefs in the structure of tradition. Michael's struggle that realized gain in 2007 with the construction of the very first earthship will impact generations to come, allowing the design and concept to morph into an all-encompassing virtual design. How amazing it would be to empower low-income or homeless people to participate and construct their own sustainable living... the gift that would keep on giving.
ReplyDeleteScott Burns
ReplyDeleteJennifer that would be a great program to have set for people to be able to legally create their own housing, but there are to many risks involved unfortunately are you thinking of things that would be recycled and pieced together sort of what they do now or a type of structured plan that gives them access to new materials that are used to adapt them to a certain site? or maybe the site is irrelevant and they are mobilized or collapsable?
I agree with the general census that the way we build isnt yet proven in the world during the longetviety we would all love to design for. If there was a way to show and convince people that the building codes dont always mean that the building will be a good building. The design will obviously stand but the architecture wont neccessarliy be appealing. To build a visually appealing building along with challenging the building code we need to look more at nature to see how the simpler species design.Transcribe
ReplyDelete