Thursday, 27 December 2007
"The thing that is troubling me lately is how to enjoy life/architecture now. We're screwing up the planet, smearing everything good about it. Should we just sit and worry about impending doom? How do I enjoy today when I know we're screwed in the future? If there is a meaning to life, and I believe that there is, how do we find it? How do we do the right thing with what we have in the situation we're in? Will opportunities come? or are they made? Do you get what i'm saying? Things just seem so overwhelming when you look at the big picture, a big picture that has a dramatic OH SHIT moment at the end of it. How can i get around this? Any ideas?"
Saturday, 8 December 2007
Read. Ponder. Share. Challenge me.
I'm struggling with my architecture this semester. I've embraced green ideas and strategies and believe so fundamentally that this is the new modernism; a greater response to International Style and Industrialization. Mostly I'm struggling with forms and appearance. I'm not obsessed with "ideal" forms but I don't feel that my building designs embody my ideas. My buildings become containers for ideas, rather than the ideas themselves. I just don't know how to do the latter. In the Apartment Project I was aware of this shortcoming, but my jury either didn't pick up on it or never mentioned it. In the Library Project we just completed they did. He said it's almost as if I didn't need to talk about the building, that the other issues and ideas I was exploring were another aspect of architecture that we don't always appreciate fully. So of course I'm thinking, yea buddy ok well this is 402 studio I had to make a building, and I asked him how I could have both (because I'm not going to stop looking at cultural exigencies but I have to be a better designer-- because thats just how I am). He said "simplify", in many more words. I thought about it and I agree, totally valid and I can do that. I think I get it. This is a skill I haven't practiced, especially not in Courtney's studio where we work hard to generate and explore concepts but less on editing and refining them.
Now I'm reading Cradle to Cradle which says that the goals if the International Style were social as well as aesthetic, which has evolved into "a bland, uniform structure isolated from the particulars of place--from local culture, nature, energy, and material flows...[which] reflect little if any of a regions distinctness of style."
I believe in this (green) as a movement because I believe in architecture's ability to catalyze and embody social changes. That's why this needs to be a movement and this movement will inevitably need to be a "style" (think "style" as in imageability).
What is this image?
It seems obvious to say it's place specific. Does it embody the contemporary place or does it embody what we believe the place should be? (ie. does it look like DC now or does it look like what I feel DC should look like)
Is there a more specific form than: long rectangular bar building with greater exposure in the N/S directions.
In his lecture for Emerging Green Builders, Prof. Etlin talked about new green buildings looking "machine-like". This is odd to me considering that loads of 21st century architecture is based on the machine metaphor. I need some examples to know exactly what he has in mind. So if the machine is the metaphor for Modernist aesthetics, and arbitrary expression is the aesthetic for post-modernist/contemporary architecture, what is the metaphor for green revolution architecture? Is it biomimicry?
How obvious does this metaphor need to be? I ask this because I feel that, at least for now, building users need to understand the breadth of possibilities for sustainable architecture but also how it works so it can influence their own environmental consciousness. I think it was less necessary for everyone to understand that the Unite d'Habitation was a ship... I mean it reflects some communistic ideas about dense living which I'm all for but I'm talking about buildings that scream "I'm carbon positive and look how comfortable you are."
"Consider this: all the ants on the planet, taken together, have a biomass greater than that of humans. Ants have been incredibly industrious for millions of years. Yet their productiveness nourishes plants, animals and soil. Human industry has been in full swing for little over a century, yet it has brought about a decline in almost every ecosystem on the planet. Nature doesn't have a design problem. People do." Cradle to Cradle. 16.
Now I'm reading Cradle to Cradle which says that the goals if the International Style were social as well as aesthetic, which has evolved into "a bland, uniform structure isolated from the particulars of place--from local culture, nature, energy, and material flows...[which] reflect little if any of a regions distinctness of style."
I believe in this (green) as a movement because I believe in architecture's ability to catalyze and embody social changes. That's why this needs to be a movement and this movement will inevitably need to be a "style" (think "style" as in imageability).
What is this image?
It seems obvious to say it's place specific. Does it embody the contemporary place or does it embody what we believe the place should be? (ie. does it look like DC now or does it look like what I feel DC should look like)
Is there a more specific form than: long rectangular bar building with greater exposure in the N/S directions.
In his lecture for Emerging Green Builders, Prof. Etlin talked about new green buildings looking "machine-like". This is odd to me considering that loads of 21st century architecture is based on the machine metaphor. I need some examples to know exactly what he has in mind. So if the machine is the metaphor for Modernist aesthetics, and arbitrary expression is the aesthetic for post-modernist/contemporary architecture, what is the metaphor for green revolution architecture? Is it biomimicry?
How obvious does this metaphor need to be? I ask this because I feel that, at least for now, building users need to understand the breadth of possibilities for sustainable architecture but also how it works so it can influence their own environmental consciousness. I think it was less necessary for everyone to understand that the Unite d'Habitation was a ship... I mean it reflects some communistic ideas about dense living which I'm all for but I'm talking about buildings that scream "I'm carbon positive and look how comfortable you are."
"Consider this: all the ants on the planet, taken together, have a biomass greater than that of humans. Ants have been incredibly industrious for millions of years. Yet their productiveness nourishes plants, animals and soil. Human industry has been in full swing for little over a century, yet it has brought about a decline in almost every ecosystem on the planet. Nature doesn't have a design problem. People do." Cradle to Cradle. 16.
Monday, 19 November 2007
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."
Tuesday, 18 September 2007
things
I bought a polaroid camera at Value Village. Its not very good so I decided to start taking it out on my bike rides to experiment with natural lighting.
I've noticed that I'm always sort of sad on my way home. On my way out the road is just mine. On the way back its whatever.. obligations... responsibility, etc.
Thankfully I always seem to get hit with the picture for the day. Only one is my rule. I never look for it, and if it doesn't come then no picture. It always has so far. I take it then put it back in my bag, and its something to be excited about when I get back. I'm taking over the fridge. Maghan and Sarah are down :)
oh, and this...
RIP Polar Bears...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/15/arctic.nwestpssg/index.html
I've noticed that I'm always sort of sad on my way home. On my way out the road is just mine. On the way back its whatever.. obligations... responsibility, etc.
Thankfully I always seem to get hit with the picture for the day. Only one is my rule. I never look for it, and if it doesn't come then no picture. It always has so far. I take it then put it back in my bag, and its something to be excited about when I get back. I'm taking over the fridge. Maghan and Sarah are down :)
oh, and this...
RIP Polar Bears...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/15/arctic.nwestpssg/index.html
Sunday, 2 September 2007
premier Charleston visit
friends made on the train
Kevin plays football for FCU and now loves Broken Social Scene, esp 'Anthem...'
"can you put these over in the front room, it's kind of embarrassing having an empty wine rack" gilly
Rhian is my favorite subject
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
