Thursday, 25 October 2007
Monday, 15 October 2007
EVERYTHING IS ARCHITECTURE
Once, when giving a man the address this site, I described my blog as everything I’m into besides architecture (this isn’t really true but it’s a start). He responded with “but isn’t everything Architecture…” EVERYTHING IS ARCHITECTURE. Next he asked me to define architecture, in three words. It actually went something like “three words, ok go”. Me (at least my initial reaction, appropriate for such a vague conversation): thing, built, for people. Ensue and insert an ongoing philosophical debate here:
I was stumped. I knew that I disagreed, but it’s almost impossible to win an argument against such a statement. It’s akin to an argument like “Everything is Art”. I told him I’d get back to him. Staying up all night, working on some of my own godforsaken architecture, I thought ok well if I can’t simple say why everything is NOT architecture I’ll try to refute this argument.
What isn’t architecture?
Food is not architecture
Love is not architecture
… yea no joke, that’s all I could concretely argue. Both, I believe, would exist if man had never found some means of sheltering himself from the environment, controlling his environment, creating historically dependent forms of culture etc etc.
So next I started asking passers by (imagine me in studio at 6 am asking the other slightly delirious archi-nerds to define Architecture).
Me: Forrest Popkin, define Architecture.
Fo Pop: Well, everything is Architecture.
(jaw drops… are we really all brainwashed?)
Me: Cole Major, define Architecture
I don’t remember Cole’s exact words but his ideas were somewhere between mine and Forrests/my antagonist’s however he agreed to an extent that philosophically Everything is Architecture.
Others were asked but my point is, I was shocked to find how many people believed this dooming statement.
I started thinking about this again this weekend and the more I thought the angrier I got. Seriously, I was angry.
EVERYTHING IS NOT ARCHITECTURE!
First of all, I hate generalizations. Yes, we all do it and it’s important to make judgments because it enables us to understand the world. Generalizations are convenient and organized. That’s fine. But, when we start laying down these philosophies we turn off the part of our brain that is open to reinterpretation. I think people in our society need to constantly reassess and reevaluate our MO and we don’t. We pick our beliefs and down that path we trample. This preludes my approach to life:
1. The two ways we must form opinions and interpret the world
a. Everything
First we must understand that things are related, and more importantly that most relationships (and sometimes the most important relationships) are beyond our perception. The best decisions are made/ ideas are had when we are understanding and analyzing cause and effect, symbiotics, past-present-future. (This argument will get confusing now. I’m doing my best.) In order to understand relationships we have to be able to define the parts… think a nice proportional venn diagram. My issue is that this Everything is Architecture mantra kills the proportions. From the get go we are putting ourselves inside the Architecture bubble of the diagram, and viewing the other bubbles from within it. This disables us from thinking purely objectively (no I don’t think that purely objective thought is possible but we should try to get as close as possible, right). I went to see Across the Universe last night. It was great and my favorite thing about seeing anything “designed” (i.e. any kind of art) that isn’t architecture is that I can take the things I’ve learned by studying architecture and use them to interpret decisions made by the makers. The movie was beautifully filmed, and I appreciated so many more artistic aspects of it based on some of the things I understand now after all of my recent architectural education. But this movie is not fucking Architecture and it shouldn’t have to be because it’s a beautiful FILM, and I’ll use some of the inspirations from seeing it to influence my own designs… they are symbiotic and not synonymous.
b. Architecture
Second (and this ties into the former) we must be able to isolate institutions. I think that to make a philosophy credible it must be definable. Music is fundamentally perception of sound. Dance is synchronized movement. Pizza is flat and made with dough and layers of toppings. I want to know why it is special. What makes this thing a thing to be discussed, developed, investigated and revered. Everything is Architecture totally denigrates Architecture and honestly, eff that because I love it and hate it for what it is as an entity separate from art and music and sociology and psychology and dance even though I think that all of these things have crucial symbiotic relationships with Architecture. You’ve totally ruined it for me. You’ve made me want to say… well if Everything is Architecture then I want nothing to do with it. There’s no way to achieve “Everything”. Its almost easier to revolt against it. You made me want a world without Architecture. How could you?
2. Linguistics
a. Everything (msword says… “eve·ry·thing pron
1. all the items, actions, or facts in a given situation
2. used to emphasize that somebody or something is the most important person or thing there is
Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.”)
Everything is a word for a reason. It’s all encompassing and that’s a concept scary enough in itself. That’s why I hate these “Everything is…” ideas. Everything is the only everything. Lets not confuse things.
b. Architecture (msword says…”ar·chi·tec·ture n
1. the art and science of designing and constructing buildings
2. a particular style or fashion of building, especially one that is typical of a period of history or of a particular place
3. the design, structure, and behavior of a computer system, microprocessor, or system program, including the characteristics of individual components and how they interact
Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.)
I forgot to mention that I came up with my own definition of architecture, less vague than the three words aforementioned.
Architecture is the historically specific manifestation of man’s ability to live on earth.
Still fairly vague, I know, but I think that “historical” and “man” are really crucial in this definition because Architecture defines our adaptation and sophistication at a specific point in time and it’s made a the human scale, always, even if it doesn’t appear so.
…
Sarah Stein: "it's my own personal struggle, is what it is."
I was stumped. I knew that I disagreed, but it’s almost impossible to win an argument against such a statement. It’s akin to an argument like “Everything is Art”. I told him I’d get back to him. Staying up all night, working on some of my own godforsaken architecture, I thought ok well if I can’t simple say why everything is NOT architecture I’ll try to refute this argument.
What isn’t architecture?
Food is not architecture
Love is not architecture
… yea no joke, that’s all I could concretely argue. Both, I believe, would exist if man had never found some means of sheltering himself from the environment, controlling his environment, creating historically dependent forms of culture etc etc.
So next I started asking passers by (imagine me in studio at 6 am asking the other slightly delirious archi-nerds to define Architecture).
Me: Forrest Popkin, define Architecture.
Fo Pop: Well, everything is Architecture.
(jaw drops… are we really all brainwashed?)
Me: Cole Major, define Architecture
I don’t remember Cole’s exact words but his ideas were somewhere between mine and Forrests/my antagonist’s however he agreed to an extent that philosophically Everything is Architecture.
Others were asked but my point is, I was shocked to find how many people believed this dooming statement.
I started thinking about this again this weekend and the more I thought the angrier I got. Seriously, I was angry.
EVERYTHING IS NOT ARCHITECTURE!
First of all, I hate generalizations. Yes, we all do it and it’s important to make judgments because it enables us to understand the world. Generalizations are convenient and organized. That’s fine. But, when we start laying down these philosophies we turn off the part of our brain that is open to reinterpretation. I think people in our society need to constantly reassess and reevaluate our MO and we don’t. We pick our beliefs and down that path we trample. This preludes my approach to life:
1. The two ways we must form opinions and interpret the world
a. Everything
First we must understand that things are related, and more importantly that most relationships (and sometimes the most important relationships) are beyond our perception. The best decisions are made/ ideas are had when we are understanding and analyzing cause and effect, symbiotics, past-present-future. (This argument will get confusing now. I’m doing my best.) In order to understand relationships we have to be able to define the parts… think a nice proportional venn diagram. My issue is that this Everything is Architecture mantra kills the proportions. From the get go we are putting ourselves inside the Architecture bubble of the diagram, and viewing the other bubbles from within it. This disables us from thinking purely objectively (no I don’t think that purely objective thought is possible but we should try to get as close as possible, right). I went to see Across the Universe last night. It was great and my favorite thing about seeing anything “designed” (i.e. any kind of art) that isn’t architecture is that I can take the things I’ve learned by studying architecture and use them to interpret decisions made by the makers. The movie was beautifully filmed, and I appreciated so many more artistic aspects of it based on some of the things I understand now after all of my recent architectural education. But this movie is not fucking Architecture and it shouldn’t have to be because it’s a beautiful FILM, and I’ll use some of the inspirations from seeing it to influence my own designs… they are symbiotic and not synonymous.
b. Architecture
Second (and this ties into the former) we must be able to isolate institutions. I think that to make a philosophy credible it must be definable. Music is fundamentally perception of sound. Dance is synchronized movement. Pizza is flat and made with dough and layers of toppings. I want to know why it is special. What makes this thing a thing to be discussed, developed, investigated and revered. Everything is Architecture totally denigrates Architecture and honestly, eff that because I love it and hate it for what it is as an entity separate from art and music and sociology and psychology and dance even though I think that all of these things have crucial symbiotic relationships with Architecture. You’ve totally ruined it for me. You’ve made me want to say… well if Everything is Architecture then I want nothing to do with it. There’s no way to achieve “Everything”. Its almost easier to revolt against it. You made me want a world without Architecture. How could you?
2. Linguistics
a. Everything (msword says… “eve·ry·thing pron
1. all the items, actions, or facts in a given situation
2. used to emphasize that somebody or something is the most important person or thing there is
Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.”)
Everything is a word for a reason. It’s all encompassing and that’s a concept scary enough in itself. That’s why I hate these “Everything is…” ideas. Everything is the only everything. Lets not confuse things.
b. Architecture (msword says…”ar·chi·tec·ture n
1. the art and science of designing and constructing buildings
2. a particular style or fashion of building, especially one that is typical of a period of history or of a particular place
3. the design, structure, and behavior of a computer system, microprocessor, or system program, including the characteristics of individual components and how they interact
Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.)
I forgot to mention that I came up with my own definition of architecture, less vague than the three words aforementioned.
Architecture is the historically specific manifestation of man’s ability to live on earth.
Still fairly vague, I know, but I think that “historical” and “man” are really crucial in this definition because Architecture defines our adaptation and sophistication at a specific point in time and it’s made a the human scale, always, even if it doesn’t appear so.
…
Sarah Stein: "it's my own personal struggle, is what it is."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
