The creation of awe and surprise. The " What happens when you do this" approach. The " don't ruin it, I don't want to know how this architecture turns out" routine. Architecture seems to be.....trying to have fun ( of course in a strict and calculated, systematic way?!) Fun according to Me and the Foreign Office Architects is " exploring the processes of construction and engineering on a variety of levels", along with "avoiding preconceived effects". This seems exciting to me because this is the equivalent of an architect creating a 'blind-contour' drawing ( some what in real time). The results of such drawings are never what you would expect, which is exactly what the Foreign Office Architects are going for.
I applaud FOA for their fresh take on architectural construction and exploration of material. Clearly their ideas are in danger by conventional processes, mediocre clients and mistrust by the public. I feel that they need to begin to educate the masses on new technologies in order to reduce the the amount of resistance that innovative architecture runs into. There should also be a resurgence of the idea that much of the new technologies that are on the rise come from the reconstitution of older techniques and ideas that have been refurbished.
I feel that the future of FOA's approach relies heavily on technology, and for good reason. The Roller-Coaster Construction much like the real thing can only go as far as the innovative material can stretch. One can only hope that the construction of new materials will lead architecture to defying the laws of physics and expanding the threshold of our imaginations
Monday, February 23, 2009
Surface Manipulation_Fender turns into Ribbon
I started my investigation by altering the position of the generating curves along a two dimensional plane. I achieved the results of the first row by fanning-out the five generating curves (clock-wise) pushing each curve out away from the center. The next step of the investigation led me to explore what effect comes about when the generating curves are rotated along a linear axis at 90 degrees ( clock-wise).
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Death Cube "K"
Vidler's Warped Space explores modernism in Architecture through sociological, psychological and aesthetic means. Vidler establishes the underlying connection between the human psyche and architecture. This realm seems to be the most potent due to its ability to lend itself to ambiguity, metamorphosis and "pseudo self-diagnosis". It is also fitting that Vidler references Franz Kafka's work.
The notion that architecture has come to a point of cracking the code of modernism leads one to believe that a new architecture is on the rise. To me, Morphosis seems to be on the leading edge of the architectural wave(at this point). They have appeared to have identified the difference between "Modernity" and "Modernism". The question is, what type of architecture does this leave use with? Is it purely psychological architecture, or "Psycho-Architecture"? Or is it just paradoxically sound architecture, which sounds good on paper but looks and feels like crap. What I think this leads to is an architectural theory that proposes the reevaluation and reconstitution of the visual and agreed upon psychological definitions of an architectural era, as a result giving rise to a new form of architecture built on "firm ground".
Vidler states, "few architects have sought to revise the structures of the fundamental building blocks of modernism-the office building, the apartment house, and their ancillary functions". I find this statement to be very true. Although I do not think it is the fault of the architects, because by the time you become an architect its too late. It is the responsibility of the professors to keep the momentum of architectural exploration going, to always challenge the young arch-students. Dead architecture doesn't challenge, it posses. It takes over like rigormortis . Architecture of the past may be close to the answer, but we all know it isn't something you can ever get completely right.
The notion that architecture has come to a point of cracking the code of modernism leads one to believe that a new architecture is on the rise. To me, Morphosis seems to be on the leading edge of the architectural wave(at this point). They have appeared to have identified the difference between "Modernity" and "Modernism". The question is, what type of architecture does this leave use with? Is it purely psychological architecture, or "Psycho-Architecture"? Or is it just paradoxically sound architecture, which sounds good on paper but looks and feels like crap. What I think this leads to is an architectural theory that proposes the reevaluation and reconstitution of the visual and agreed upon psychological definitions of an architectural era, as a result giving rise to a new form of architecture built on "firm ground".
Vidler states, "few architects have sought to revise the structures of the fundamental building blocks of modernism-the office building, the apartment house, and their ancillary functions". I find this statement to be very true. Although I do not think it is the fault of the architects, because by the time you become an architect its too late. It is the responsibility of the professors to keep the momentum of architectural exploration going, to always challenge the young arch-students. Dead architecture doesn't challenge, it posses. It takes over like rigormortis . Architecture of the past may be close to the answer, but we all know it isn't something you can ever get completely right.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Greg Lynn_Anexact forms_Blobs
Greg Lynn_Probable Geometries_Blob Tectonics
Lynn's essays lie in blatent contrast with the general population of architectural enthusists that wallow in the stagnant shadow of Vitruvius. Lynn's introduction to the idea of "Anexact Yet Rigorous " forms (Blobs), provides yet another opportunity for architecture to add to it's vocabulary thus strengthening its foundation. Lynn describes "Anexact yet Rigorous" forms as a form that "can be described with local precision yet can not be wholly reduced". This can be understood as the equivalent of comparing a drop of water to the ocean. Or as Lynn states, "a complex relationship irreducible either to the contradiction of the many or the holistic unity of the one". Lynn's concepts have the creative potential that architecture needs but is muddled by the same static langauge that is held in the "writing" in architecture that Lynn condemns in his essays. Lynn's theories should not be thought of as neither valid nor invalid. They should be assimilated into the whole of the architectural language. Lynn's definition only comes into existence when coexisting with the notion of the complete and pure forms of exact geometries.
Lynn's essay can be understood as a call for the reevaluation of what it means to be an "Architect" and what "Architecture" can redefine itself as. Lynn states that "architecture prefers to begin with ideal forms whereas material science, food science, geology, astronomy, and the life sciences begin with the amorphous". This leaves us with the capacity to shift the role of the architect to that of a scientist, giving way to the exploration of many other new forms, spaces and concepts. then can be viewed as explorers in a field of endless possibilities instead of disciples in a cult.
Lynn's concept of the "BLOBs" provides a conceptual model of flexibility and fluidity when dealing with the subject of image, morphology, and behavior. But the blob's physical appearance can be incorporated onto any rigid geometry that has the same shape and volume. This leaves me to question, how "blobby" do you have to be to get the same general effect of the blob.
Lynn's essays lie in blatent contrast with the general population of architectural enthusists that wallow in the stagnant shadow of Vitruvius. Lynn's introduction to the idea of "Anexact Yet Rigorous " forms (Blobs), provides yet another opportunity for architecture to add to it's vocabulary thus strengthening its foundation. Lynn describes "Anexact yet Rigorous" forms as a form that "can be described with local precision yet can not be wholly reduced". This can be understood as the equivalent of comparing a drop of water to the ocean. Or as Lynn states, "a complex relationship irreducible either to the contradiction of the many or the holistic unity of the one". Lynn's concepts have the creative potential that architecture needs but is muddled by the same static langauge that is held in the "writing" in architecture that Lynn condemns in his essays. Lynn's theories should not be thought of as neither valid nor invalid. They should be assimilated into the whole of the architectural language. Lynn's definition only comes into existence when coexisting with the notion of the complete and pure forms of exact geometries.
Lynn's essay can be understood as a call for the reevaluation of what it means to be an "Architect" and what "Architecture" can redefine itself as. Lynn states that "architecture prefers to begin with ideal forms whereas material science, food science, geology, astronomy, and the life sciences begin with the amorphous". This leaves us with the capacity to shift the role of the architect to that of a scientist, giving way to the exploration of many other new forms, spaces and concepts. then can be viewed as explorers in a field of endless possibilities instead of disciples in a cult.
Lynn's concept of the "BLOBs" provides a conceptual model of flexibility and fluidity when dealing with the subject of image, morphology, and behavior. But the blob's physical appearance can be incorporated onto any rigid geometry that has the same shape and volume. This leaves me to question, how "blobby" do you have to be to get the same general effect of the blob.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)