New Mediums of Media
The word media describes the conveyor of an object of the senses and the understanding of the object through the senses. Media can be further broken into sub categories of multimedia and hypermedia. With multimedia we can not only move from linear to non-linear modes of communication, but can also utilize new modes of communication. With hypermedia we also use new mediums such as hypertext to break from traditional linear models discovered by Ted Nelson in the sixties.
The word also has close ties to the word medium from its latin roots which suggest the words importance as a conveyor from one source through our senses into our brain. However the tricky part is that it has been shown over and over again the ease at which the senses can be manipulated to identify with a false truth. This was demonstrated by Charles Wheatsone and his stereoscope. He was able to demonstrate through the stereoscope that “the eyes afford no dependable reports of objects, and that, in fact “the objects of visions are but mere phantasmagoria of the organ of site.” A powerful statement that evokes thoughts of Plato’s allegory of the cave and dwellers seeing only and illusory world of shadows.
We find out so much more about the process of stereoscope in the article from “phantom to perfect vision.” For the first time we have a recording of history that can be three dimensionally accessed at any time. The new three dimensional image is created by placing similar photos next to each other to force the eye to read both and create a new image. Wheatstones describes this as “depth perception resulted from the mind’s forced coalescence of dissimilar photos.” The difficulty is that this image cannot be recreated by mans hand in the form of geometry and drawings that the mind can associate with as objects. The new form came from nature and a high degree of fine-grain detail for the mind to be lost in. This vision is called binocular vision, seeing two objects at once with the new eyes.
JCR Licklider also realized the limited capacity of our senses as a medium of information and thus proposed a ‘Man-computer symbiosis.” The idea went beyond just tools like the stereoscope to a more integrated system where media and mind become one. An new kind of interactivity with our environment that no longer was an enhancement, but rather a whole paradigm shift through computers and the body. Finally in Laws of Media the very notion that media as a tool has propelled the human being to new heights is challenged. The argument is that the speculative nature of understanding the tools or the environment in which the tools become effective is where the real ingenuity of the media is displayed. Thus it is concluded that it is the artist that is able to move beyond the “servo-mechanistic” quality of the technocrat and harness the power of the tool into a new media to elevate the human condition.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Thursday, May 3, 2007
an emergent interface
Truth be told, my undergraduate education at berkeley has mainly consisted of doing, building, tasks that involved making. Exposure to various contemporary architectural theories, on the other hand, has been very limited. My understanding of various 'hot' words like sustainability, or emergence, is from banter among students, which in most cases result in misunderstanding the word, or only gaining a fraction of its true meaning. Studio instructors might encourage certain books/readings, but most of those are design examples and precedence that will help a student's design and production. Arch 130 is the only core-class that broadly covers theory, but it doesn't reach contemporary theory. And even then, it is not a required class - I for one, chose to take Arch 140, 150, and 160 instead, classes that focused on lighting, structure, and construction. Last semester in Anthony Burke's and Bob Shepherd's 101, the instructors actually set aside time for critical discourse of what came close to theoretical, since the studio, 'Protocology', was an experimental one. In addition we had a fairly active blog that allowed students to voice their thoughts and questions. For me, this was one of the few times that I had a chance to 'discuss', and even then the conditions were far from ideal. This is not to say I have any regrets about my education, afterall, design is a highly hands-on field. But the fact is, academic/theoretical discourse in the architecture program simply does not exist, double-especially for undergraduates.
Having said that, it has been unexpected to be given the chance to pick at just 12 words for the whole semester. My initial skepticism gave way to the realization that each of these words was an entry point into a much greater network of knowledge that could be explored. The words themselves are mere words, but the ideas and theories that they related to, is the real meat of the course - and juicy is the meat. No other course has clarified for me so much the influences of the last century that have more or less directly led us to our current perspectives and situations - from the overwriting vision of a few good men as the progenitors of 'Modern', to Bucky's responsibility for popularizing 'system' and synergy, to Mclauhan who completely altered the way we understood media. But even more important, is the state of the immediate and eventual future. In this regard, my two words of choice are Emergence and Interface.
Emergence is a popular word in contemporary architecture, and one that I've misunderstood for quite some time. But for the first time I can understand it as a way of thinking about not just architecture, but the very nature of systems, or problems. The idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts breaks the limits of conventional problem solving approaches like multi-variable equations and statistical analysis. Also the notion of growth is embedded in the word, through which the evolutionary change of say, animals, or cities, can be interpreted. With growth also comes change, and the idea of metamorphosis, as a means for a dynamic model for the built environment.
Part of me believes that architecture cannot escape the influence of modernism completely in the physical domain, such that the experiential and the virtual domains become fertile grounds for the generation and maturation of new ideas. Without the restraint of the physical, the built environment takes on a whole new form and function. Just the same, the role of the architect would be forever changed. Virtual environments could eventually render the physical existence obsolete, and that is when 'interface' would encompass everything. While the idea is a bit far-fetched (or not), as a society we are increasingly 'plugged-in' to all sorts of media. The architect cannot ignore the ability of media to create new experiences, and perhaps, slowly the the role of the architect will shift towards designing the interface? Or as Frazier calls it, 'code-script' - for an input based architecture that will allow the resultant to evolve and adapt. For me these exciting territories are definitely worth exploring.
Having said that, it has been unexpected to be given the chance to pick at just 12 words for the whole semester. My initial skepticism gave way to the realization that each of these words was an entry point into a much greater network of knowledge that could be explored. The words themselves are mere words, but the ideas and theories that they related to, is the real meat of the course - and juicy is the meat. No other course has clarified for me so much the influences of the last century that have more or less directly led us to our current perspectives and situations - from the overwriting vision of a few good men as the progenitors of 'Modern', to Bucky's responsibility for popularizing 'system' and synergy, to Mclauhan who completely altered the way we understood media. But even more important, is the state of the immediate and eventual future. In this regard, my two words of choice are Emergence and Interface.
Emergence is a popular word in contemporary architecture, and one that I've misunderstood for quite some time. But for the first time I can understand it as a way of thinking about not just architecture, but the very nature of systems, or problems. The idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts breaks the limits of conventional problem solving approaches like multi-variable equations and statistical analysis. Also the notion of growth is embedded in the word, through which the evolutionary change of say, animals, or cities, can be interpreted. With growth also comes change, and the idea of metamorphosis, as a means for a dynamic model for the built environment.
Part of me believes that architecture cannot escape the influence of modernism completely in the physical domain, such that the experiential and the virtual domains become fertile grounds for the generation and maturation of new ideas. Without the restraint of the physical, the built environment takes on a whole new form and function. Just the same, the role of the architect would be forever changed. Virtual environments could eventually render the physical existence obsolete, and that is when 'interface' would encompass everything. While the idea is a bit far-fetched (or not), as a society we are increasingly 'plugged-in' to all sorts of media. The architect cannot ignore the ability of media to create new experiences, and perhaps, slowly the the role of the architect will shift towards designing the interface? Or as Frazier calls it, 'code-script' - for an input based architecture that will allow the resultant to evolve and adapt. For me these exciting territories are definitely worth exploring.
Metamorphosis and emergent
Metamorphosis and emergent
Both words are initially used in biology. And both terms implicate process of development. During the designing, we are always searching for new approach or new method to express our idea. And metamorphosis is one of the concepts which we usually use for explanation of new idea.
Sometimes, as I read the UN studio’s MOVE, architects brings two much connection to explain their idea with words. Even though he keeps using the word ‘hybrid’, I can’t quite match the word with his project. When we use the concept of the word, it really implicate the meaning that words. However, it’s not easy. Specially, in contemporary architecture, people are so interested in merging of concept.
Hybrid, metamorphosis, emergency seem to be in this category. However, those words also seem not to have clear definition when we use for the concept. When we want to explain the innovative or complicated situation of our project, we brought these cool words.
From in-class reading, metamorphosis brings the idea about response and entropy. This world could explain the space which is formed by not only architect but also users. Changing space or developing the phase of space is the idea of metamorphosis.
Also emergency mentions the space of users. Planners usually ignore the real situation of the living space. They just look at the city as system. However, problems from simplicity to disorganized complexity are also phenomenon in city and architect should deal with this situation. However, architects are not god, and they can’t control all over. And how much architect could give the space control to users and should architect expect how much will it be different form their original design?
It’s always hard but interesting question about the role of architect. However, architecture is merging with other fields. It also gives more idea to architect, and not only for completed architecture but also on-progress architecture is meaningful. I just think the space for people and adjusting the use of people’s need is the goal of metamorphosis and emergency
Both words are initially used in biology. And both terms implicate process of development. During the designing, we are always searching for new approach or new method to express our idea. And metamorphosis is one of the concepts which we usually use for explanation of new idea.
Sometimes, as I read the UN studio’s MOVE, architects brings two much connection to explain their idea with words. Even though he keeps using the word ‘hybrid’, I can’t quite match the word with his project. When we use the concept of the word, it really implicate the meaning that words. However, it’s not easy. Specially, in contemporary architecture, people are so interested in merging of concept.
Hybrid, metamorphosis, emergency seem to be in this category. However, those words also seem not to have clear definition when we use for the concept. When we want to explain the innovative or complicated situation of our project, we brought these cool words.
From in-class reading, metamorphosis brings the idea about response and entropy. This world could explain the space which is formed by not only architect but also users. Changing space or developing the phase of space is the idea of metamorphosis.
Also emergency mentions the space of users. Planners usually ignore the real situation of the living space. They just look at the city as system. However, problems from simplicity to disorganized complexity are also phenomenon in city and architect should deal with this situation. However, architects are not god, and they can’t control all over. And how much architect could give the space control to users and should architect expect how much will it be different form their original design?
It’s always hard but interesting question about the role of architect. However, architecture is merging with other fields. It also gives more idea to architect, and not only for completed architecture but also on-progress architecture is meaningful. I just think the space for people and adjusting the use of people’s need is the goal of metamorphosis and emergency
Media / Metamorphosis
Jungmi Won
Speculating meanings of words focused on the aspect of city would be crucial for expanding our thoughts. In spite that reviewing and analyzing city has its limits because we have views of architectural bases, reading its logic is essential to set up our position toward present and future because our every occupation will perform inside of logic of city.
To read our present urban environment and to expect future city, ‘Media and Metamorphosis’ would be key words. City is more than sum of its multiple layers. In the era of information, in the era that speedy flow of media actively affects people’s life and consideration, measuring physical territories and expecting its application in the certain boundary would naïve strategy in terms of creating new settlement. Identifying invisible flow, scrutinizing character of media is definitely difficult process because it is a work challenging and testing our territory of knowledge and common spatial sense. Architects are familiar with creating an idea and applying it into a product. We tend to become uncomfortable if we don’t have a morphological solution. But, in the level of city, those words would be accepted with different values.
‘Media’ is not only the word representing delivering information. In the level of city, media itself can represent city. Also, city can be made by power of media. Media is result of human intellectual activity and city is operated by human intellectual performance in terms of social, economical, political reasons. Media can generate different level of spaces and experience inside city because it is deeply involved in the city life. For instance, enclosed space for experience a media provides different timeline and perception about reality to audience. The city consisted of this kind of media spaces would be totally different level of environment in term of city life. In our era that tremendous amount of information and contents exchange and spread through mass media, our reality is being affected by its power in relation to physical settings especially more in the city. Therefore, speculating the word, metamorphosis with the eye view related in ‘Media’ would be more appropriate in term of provoking profound thoughts rather than matching the word to architectural process.
Speculating meanings of words focused on the aspect of city would be crucial for expanding our thoughts. In spite that reviewing and analyzing city has its limits because we have views of architectural bases, reading its logic is essential to set up our position toward present and future because our every occupation will perform inside of logic of city.
To read our present urban environment and to expect future city, ‘Media and Metamorphosis’ would be key words. City is more than sum of its multiple layers. In the era of information, in the era that speedy flow of media actively affects people’s life and consideration, measuring physical territories and expecting its application in the certain boundary would naïve strategy in terms of creating new settlement. Identifying invisible flow, scrutinizing character of media is definitely difficult process because it is a work challenging and testing our territory of knowledge and common spatial sense. Architects are familiar with creating an idea and applying it into a product. We tend to become uncomfortable if we don’t have a morphological solution. But, in the level of city, those words would be accepted with different values.
‘Media’ is not only the word representing delivering information. In the level of city, media itself can represent city. Also, city can be made by power of media. Media is result of human intellectual activity and city is operated by human intellectual performance in terms of social, economical, political reasons. Media can generate different level of spaces and experience inside city because it is deeply involved in the city life. For instance, enclosed space for experience a media provides different timeline and perception about reality to audience. The city consisted of this kind of media spaces would be totally different level of environment in term of city life. In our era that tremendous amount of information and contents exchange and spread through mass media, our reality is being affected by its power in relation to physical settings especially more in the city. Therefore, speculating the word, metamorphosis with the eye view related in ‘Media’ would be more appropriate in term of provoking profound thoughts rather than matching the word to architectural process.
Final words
The reasoning for my choice of words is not based on the insight I gained of architecture through these words.
The word Hybrid has given me a clearer understanding of contemporary architecture in terms of its fascination with continuous and flexible surface. As explained in earlier writings I was confounded by the fervor that critiques of project took in terms of rationalizing connections and space with continuous surfaces. The assumption is that this physical continuity permits flexibility of use, a factor in today’s discussion that is extremely pertinent when it comes to limited resources and with cities’ estimated growth. I suppose the question that this word has left me asking is, if this vocabulary in contemporary architecture that we see rationalizing flexibility is simply a formal move. Does it really have the capacity for change? Does the articulation of a “smart surface” really define new functions that can change over time? In this critical moment and future of architecture I appreciate the effort in the field.
For a word that I disdained in terms of describing the organization of cities, I have come to value the word fabric in another light. It has shown me that by understanding the factors that organize space in our cities, it can be fundamental to the flexibility that hybrid strives for. Hertzberger describes the structure of cities as the basis for the capacity of buildings to accommodate difference over time. For him the weft of fabric has the ability to express the cultural diversity and needs of society. Can we view this weft in terms of façade and skinning of this structure? Can a strong bone structure, carry the “dress” of the time? How related is this apparel to the apparel that we has humans wear daily. This brings to light another question; the role of fashion and style in the profession. The relevance of fashion and architecture is a strong one. If we look at our clothing as the closest layer of shelter to our bodies, it seems evident that an understanding of the relationship between clothing and body can enlighten the relationship of the larger scale of building to man. Corbusier was aware of this with his “Man is a measure of all things”. In another sense, architecture can also look towards fashion in terms of its fascinating ability to enrapture all audiences. The seduction of the fashion industry is one that some would say has more influence over man’s decision than his own morals. Take for example the fundraising Live Strong bracelets that Lance Armstrong founded in order to make “cancer a national priority”. A few years back I found these accessories to fashion on every other person walking the streets of
Break the rules…one more word.
Systems. Not a day goes by that I do not consider this word. System morphed from an understanding of building components to a comprehension of all thoughts and beliefs as interconnected. I find that any word in our list can relate back to another. No kidding, they all originated in one place. Get the manual.”
sha_two words
So, two words. Looking back on the readings and responses over the course of the semester, I'm very surprised at how cohesive they all feel, as an exploration of the city, and these new ideas about urbanism. Obviously I've been a little consumed by the relationship of urbanism and the internet as a global city, with pockets and hubs, infrastructure and slums, so that's sort of biased each of my responses. But overall, there's a sense of guided exploration, something I was not expecting. Words like fabric and system or media and interface surprised me in their relevance to the idea of cities. I don't usually read architectural theory, so I responded the most to the more literary articles, like McKibben's or Fuller's (and I've heard the exact opposite reaction, which is quite nice to know).
It seems to me the words I've become the most interested in are the ones that raise the question of the boundaries or definitions of design. If I had to choose two, then, I would choose infrastructure and slum -- infrastructure as a new scale of design, and slum as a celebration of a new class of designers. McKibben's article was really powerful to me as a way to convey how distant and unconscious we are of the mechanisms that support us. In Jeannette's class, too, reading about the birth of the Internet through Soft Cities, there is this huge detachment between the environment created and the infrastructure behind it. What this class made me constantly think of, and why I keep returning to infrastructure and slum, was the question of the role of the designer. I wrote in the response to slum, "is myspace the slum of the internet?" and now I'm seeking to draw even more from the online environment. Habraken's Support Structures talked about creating frameworks for fine-grain living, which in a lot of ways is how the internet culture has moved -- instead of service sites like amazon or ebay, you have cultural or social websites (the 2.0 of it all...) like facebook. Even a couple days ago, the infrastructure that the digg founders set up was under attack because of the posting of an illegal crack for HD-DVDs. The founders sought to remove the illegal postings, but digg users 'revolted,' posting up hundreds of blogs and images just containing the code, and then digging them onto the front page. How much control, after the infrastructure is set in place, does the designer have over the environment? I'm fascinated by the squeamishness, the need for control that was uncovered in the slum articles. It seems like the meaning of slum, the significance of it, is that slum is a celebration of a collapse of hierarchy. Infrastructure, then, is almost a surrender of imagination, where the supporting structures become so vast and complex that it becomes impossible to comprehend.
I'm intrigued by a new website I was introduced to, stumbleupon. What fascinates me is that it is similar to other websites that provide 'smart content' based on similar people's preferences (like pandora, or last.fm) but serves up other websites as its content. Stumbleupon actually becomes part of the browser, and I realized how powerful that actually is, that these sort of aggregator or super-sites have evolved so much as an interface to the internet that now they are actually embedded in the browser. Then I realized that google, and all of those little search engines, had already done that, and that search engines were in a way a sort of brute force aggregator.
So, what is the interface of the city? How do we design infrastructure that actually becomes invisible, exceeds imagination, embeds itself in the language of the city? What sort of slums arise -- what sort of social energy, discovery, interaction, and excitement comes out of something like this? And, thinking about it now, isn't that the sort of opportunities that cities themselves represent?
http://blog.digg.com/?p=74
www.stumbleupon.com
It seems to me the words I've become the most interested in are the ones that raise the question of the boundaries or definitions of design. If I had to choose two, then, I would choose infrastructure and slum -- infrastructure as a new scale of design, and slum as a celebration of a new class of designers. McKibben's article was really powerful to me as a way to convey how distant and unconscious we are of the mechanisms that support us. In Jeannette's class, too, reading about the birth of the Internet through Soft Cities, there is this huge detachment between the environment created and the infrastructure behind it. What this class made me constantly think of, and why I keep returning to infrastructure and slum, was the question of the role of the designer. I wrote in the response to slum, "is myspace the slum of the internet?" and now I'm seeking to draw even more from the online environment. Habraken's Support Structures talked about creating frameworks for fine-grain living, which in a lot of ways is how the internet culture has moved -- instead of service sites like amazon or ebay, you have cultural or social websites (the 2.0 of it all...) like facebook. Even a couple days ago, the infrastructure that the digg founders set up was under attack because of the posting of an illegal crack for HD-DVDs. The founders sought to remove the illegal postings, but digg users 'revolted,' posting up hundreds of blogs and images just containing the code, and then digging them onto the front page. How much control, after the infrastructure is set in place, does the designer have over the environment? I'm fascinated by the squeamishness, the need for control that was uncovered in the slum articles. It seems like the meaning of slum, the significance of it, is that slum is a celebration of a collapse of hierarchy. Infrastructure, then, is almost a surrender of imagination, where the supporting structures become so vast and complex that it becomes impossible to comprehend.
I'm intrigued by a new website I was introduced to, stumbleupon. What fascinates me is that it is similar to other websites that provide 'smart content' based on similar people's preferences (like pandora, or last.fm) but serves up other websites as its content. Stumbleupon actually becomes part of the browser, and I realized how powerful that actually is, that these sort of aggregator or super-sites have evolved so much as an interface to the internet that now they are actually embedded in the browser. Then I realized that google, and all of those little search engines, had already done that, and that search engines were in a way a sort of brute force aggregator.
So, what is the interface of the city? How do we design infrastructure that actually becomes invisible, exceeds imagination, embeds itself in the language of the city? What sort of slums arise -- what sort of social energy, discovery, interaction, and excitement comes out of something like this? And, thinking about it now, isn't that the sort of opportunities that cities themselves represent?
http://blog.digg.com/?p=74
www.stumbleupon.com
my two cents...
Fashioning the emergent city
Liwen Zhang
Glancing over the list of words that we have accumulated throughout the course of the semester, I realize what a difficult task it is to have to limit our list of twelve carefully chosen words down to two. Perhaps limit is not the right word to use in this case, as it may be more a task of prioritizing.
Upon further clarifying the task at hand, I decided to allot my two choices to the following: emergence as my first choice, embedded in what I hope is more rational reasoning and fabric as my second choice, where I gave myself more liberties as the logic behind this decision leans toward more personal interests.
Emergence arose as my first choice because I felt that one of the most interesting discussions we have had this semester sprung from Gould and Lewontin’s work in a critique of the adaptationist programme, where our conventional beliefs in the evolution theory are challenged. There are many ways of positioning Gould’s work in relation to the city. An obvious one would be to view it as a fundamental critique of modernist progress substantiated in scientific proof shown in the form of convincing tables and graphs. As designers, Gould’s work reminds us that despite the intricate planning and programming that happens during the design process, the end use of the finished product is not within our control. The one thing that I took from the class that day is realizing that the best public spaces in our cities are ones that are inherently emergent, where spontaneous events and inhabitations occur unannounced in areas where the intended use was perhaps not so.
Looking back on my reading responses throughout the semester, there are multiple occasions upon which I have referenced Gould’s work in relation to the other words. Thus it now appears as a word which serves to bind many of the others words together, forming a unified set of words that can be used in describing the city to come, an emergent one which we as designers may have very little control in.
Where does this leave us then as future designers? This is where the word fabric becomes relevant. Prior to our discussion in class, I have only ever used the term fabric in describing a certain characteristic that pertained to the city. However, through fabric we discuss the agency and power in fashion, one that is often neglected, either consciously by the industry itself or subconsciously by consumers. I know that I have always been interested in fashion, however I never viewed what appeared to me as a superficial interests more critically. It is only after the discussion in class that I begun to put the pieces together per say.
In Hong Kong, and perhaps all mega metropolitan areas as such, the ‘sell-by’ dates in fashion is an uncompromisingly rapid one where the word 'Next’ (the theme of one of the past Biennales) can be appropriated in describing the situation. The various power dynamics and political agency that is attributed to fashion is something that I have yet to grapple with. Upon realizing that the city of the future is inevitably an emergent one, as designers, dare I say it, perhaps one of the ways we can position ourselves (or more pessimistically keep our profession afloat) can be done through the agency in fashion that could then potentially allow for more dynamic forms of social mobility and an architecture that enables it to do so.
Liwen Zhang
Glancing over the list of words that we have accumulated throughout the course of the semester, I realize what a difficult task it is to have to limit our list of twelve carefully chosen words down to two. Perhaps limit is not the right word to use in this case, as it may be more a task of prioritizing.
Upon further clarifying the task at hand, I decided to allot my two choices to the following: emergence as my first choice, embedded in what I hope is more rational reasoning and fabric as my second choice, where I gave myself more liberties as the logic behind this decision leans toward more personal interests.
Emergence arose as my first choice because I felt that one of the most interesting discussions we have had this semester sprung from Gould and Lewontin’s work in a critique of the adaptationist programme, where our conventional beliefs in the evolution theory are challenged. There are many ways of positioning Gould’s work in relation to the city. An obvious one would be to view it as a fundamental critique of modernist progress substantiated in scientific proof shown in the form of convincing tables and graphs. As designers, Gould’s work reminds us that despite the intricate planning and programming that happens during the design process, the end use of the finished product is not within our control. The one thing that I took from the class that day is realizing that the best public spaces in our cities are ones that are inherently emergent, where spontaneous events and inhabitations occur unannounced in areas where the intended use was perhaps not so.
Looking back on my reading responses throughout the semester, there are multiple occasions upon which I have referenced Gould’s work in relation to the other words. Thus it now appears as a word which serves to bind many of the others words together, forming a unified set of words that can be used in describing the city to come, an emergent one which we as designers may have very little control in.
Where does this leave us then as future designers? This is where the word fabric becomes relevant. Prior to our discussion in class, I have only ever used the term fabric in describing a certain characteristic that pertained to the city. However, through fabric we discuss the agency and power in fashion, one that is often neglected, either consciously by the industry itself or subconsciously by consumers. I know that I have always been interested in fashion, however I never viewed what appeared to me as a superficial interests more critically. It is only after the discussion in class that I begun to put the pieces together per say.
In Hong Kong, and perhaps all mega metropolitan areas as such, the ‘sell-by’ dates in fashion is an uncompromisingly rapid one where the word 'Next’ (the theme of one of the past Biennales) can be appropriated in describing the situation. The various power dynamics and political agency that is attributed to fashion is something that I have yet to grapple with. Upon realizing that the city of the future is inevitably an emergent one, as designers, dare I say it, perhaps one of the ways we can position ourselves (or more pessimistically keep our profession afloat) can be done through the agency in fashion that could then potentially allow for more dynamic forms of social mobility and an architecture that enables it to do so.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Slums: The Metamorphosis of the Cities outskirts.
Slums: The Metamorphosis of the Cities outskirts.
Metamorphosis is a word that I will be following in the near future. Our previous readings of Marina Warner, Robert Smithson and John Frazer demonstrate interest in the word amongst the architecture community. To me, the word is becoming relevant as the post modern era begins to fade into a new era or possible eras that people are constantly trying to discover. It is difficult to determine if the styles and buzz words of today will generate a more permanent philosophy or the future will rather become a multiplicity of agendas.
The readings demonstrated the authors feelings that architecture is making a fundamental change assisted by computers and new discoveries in the sciences which will change the way we think and design. Architecture has cross pollenated to many other disciplines which has been both inspiring and insulting. Many star architects or architects with authority ground architectural ideas in fields where they maintain a poor fund of knowledge. To be honest the later has left me questioning the transmigration of architectural thought as it basis itself so esoterically in other fields that are so far removed from the basic experience of the built environment. I hope that the transformation of architecture attempts to empathize with the human condition rather than impose the latest buzz word into another quixotic design.
Another word that will stay with me for the rest of my life is slums. While Mike Davis seems to try too hard to invoke our emotions, never the less the numbers are a reality and a quantity that no one should rest easily with. It was also interesting to hear Janice Perlman arguing through a different paradigm on the nature of slums however I tend to question almost all of her statements towards slums as being an elaborate academic argument. There is no doubt in my mind that this will be the major issue of design within our lifetime as world populations double to unprecedented levels and more of the worlds rural populations migrate to the outskirts of cities.
There can be no peace, sustainability, or happiness while there is such a disproportionate allocation of resources within the world. And perhaps it is too late. Maybe we have crossed a threshold of comfort through technology that the world cannot sustain for such large populations. Curbing population growth and economic models are not our expertise so we must struggle to help uplift communities out of abject poverty through a balanced approach of economic incentives and design. In this sense I do think that architects should be interdisciplinary so that they can understand these problems more holisticly. Economics and infrastructure seem to be the most pressing in this regard. I would hate to think that architecture can only benefit the top percentile that it generally caters to. If architecture is meant to uplift and protect the human condition then it has possibly reached such an elitist pinnacle that these qualities have lost there meaning. Therefore I would argue for the need of architecture to ground itself into a more socially conscious and sustainable planet.
Metamorphosis is a word that I will be following in the near future. Our previous readings of Marina Warner, Robert Smithson and John Frazer demonstrate interest in the word amongst the architecture community. To me, the word is becoming relevant as the post modern era begins to fade into a new era or possible eras that people are constantly trying to discover. It is difficult to determine if the styles and buzz words of today will generate a more permanent philosophy or the future will rather become a multiplicity of agendas.
The readings demonstrated the authors feelings that architecture is making a fundamental change assisted by computers and new discoveries in the sciences which will change the way we think and design. Architecture has cross pollenated to many other disciplines which has been both inspiring and insulting. Many star architects or architects with authority ground architectural ideas in fields where they maintain a poor fund of knowledge. To be honest the later has left me questioning the transmigration of architectural thought as it basis itself so esoterically in other fields that are so far removed from the basic experience of the built environment. I hope that the transformation of architecture attempts to empathize with the human condition rather than impose the latest buzz word into another quixotic design.
Another word that will stay with me for the rest of my life is slums. While Mike Davis seems to try too hard to invoke our emotions, never the less the numbers are a reality and a quantity that no one should rest easily with. It was also interesting to hear Janice Perlman arguing through a different paradigm on the nature of slums however I tend to question almost all of her statements towards slums as being an elaborate academic argument. There is no doubt in my mind that this will be the major issue of design within our lifetime as world populations double to unprecedented levels and more of the worlds rural populations migrate to the outskirts of cities.
There can be no peace, sustainability, or happiness while there is such a disproportionate allocation of resources within the world. And perhaps it is too late. Maybe we have crossed a threshold of comfort through technology that the world cannot sustain for such large populations. Curbing population growth and economic models are not our expertise so we must struggle to help uplift communities out of abject poverty through a balanced approach of economic incentives and design. In this sense I do think that architects should be interdisciplinary so that they can understand these problems more holisticly. Economics and infrastructure seem to be the most pressing in this regard. I would hate to think that architecture can only benefit the top percentile that it generally caters to. If architecture is meant to uplift and protect the human condition then it has possibly reached such an elitist pinnacle that these qualities have lost there meaning. Therefore I would argue for the need of architecture to ground itself into a more socially conscious and sustainable planet.
Two Last Words _ Forrest
I don’t think this class should be represented in two words. If anything the class can be summed up with one word from week 3: system. Each other word being a permutation or typology (or ecology) of the system. But since we have to discuss two words, the second word I am going to pick—green—was not an assigned word. I think in the comparison of the two words is where much of the future of architecture will be decided.
For architecture to have efficacy it needs to respond to the forces involved in both its inception and use. Many systems shape both the cities and buildings. Many of the words we have discussed in this class are either those systems (infrastructure and media) or the result of these forces (emergence, slums, fabric, utopias, hybrids, etc.). Interestingly, we did not discuss any word having to do with the abstract system of money, which has the greatest effect on how a city or building is constructed. Nonetheless, understanding these forces as a set of interrelated forces is crucial in a world that is increasingly networked at a global scale. The word system implies nascent relationships to be uncovered and discussed—for me this was really the essence of the class.
However, when things become increasingly complex and systems tangle into an overwhelming web, people fall back on a singular word. Green is such an example. The word is ubiquitous in media; just today I read about how Steven Jobs plans to make Apple more “green.” The logo is a grandma smith apple green imprinted in a recycled looking paper, an unsettling mixture of branding and corporate green washing that is (at least superficially) immediately understandable. The word “green” has been subjected to such reductions, as its immediate symbolism to the public is its greatest strength and weakness: while it represents honest intentions its easy application can be hugely deceptive. The reality behind the idea of “green” is that, no matter how complex systems become, we live in a closed system. At a global scale, we are increasingly seeing the social, political and environmental effects of ignoring this fact.
As architects, we must constantly question both our understanding of the systems at play as well as how these systems are understood and evaluated. I am skeptical that any design can fully master all forces at play, but I am even more skeptical that a (green) checklist can effectively deal answer this inadequacy. When dealing with cities and architecture, understanding a word’s power—either as a set of relationships (system) or a representation of a collective idea (green)--is essential in the practice of architecture.
For architecture to have efficacy it needs to respond to the forces involved in both its inception and use. Many systems shape both the cities and buildings. Many of the words we have discussed in this class are either those systems (infrastructure and media) or the result of these forces (emergence, slums, fabric, utopias, hybrids, etc.). Interestingly, we did not discuss any word having to do with the abstract system of money, which has the greatest effect on how a city or building is constructed. Nonetheless, understanding these forces as a set of interrelated forces is crucial in a world that is increasingly networked at a global scale. The word system implies nascent relationships to be uncovered and discussed—for me this was really the essence of the class.
However, when things become increasingly complex and systems tangle into an overwhelming web, people fall back on a singular word. Green is such an example. The word is ubiquitous in media; just today I read about how Steven Jobs plans to make Apple more “green.” The logo is a grandma smith apple green imprinted in a recycled looking paper, an unsettling mixture of branding and corporate green washing that is (at least superficially) immediately understandable. The word “green” has been subjected to such reductions, as its immediate symbolism to the public is its greatest strength and weakness: while it represents honest intentions its easy application can be hugely deceptive. The reality behind the idea of “green” is that, no matter how complex systems become, we live in a closed system. At a global scale, we are increasingly seeing the social, political and environmental effects of ignoring this fact.
As architects, we must constantly question both our understanding of the systems at play as well as how these systems are understood and evaluated. I am skeptical that any design can fully master all forces at play, but I am even more skeptical that a (green) checklist can effectively deal answer this inadequacy. When dealing with cities and architecture, understanding a word’s power—either as a set of relationships (system) or a representation of a collective idea (green)--is essential in the practice of architecture.
Two Words for the Future
Architecture 209X, Spring 2007
Words and Cities: The rhetoric and meaning of statistically improbable phrases
Nicholas De Monchaux
Qing Wang
Two Words for the Future
The two words I will choose are Hybrid and Media. The hybridization of culture will be the inevitable tendency of our time. The media will accelerate this process. It is Undeniable that our time is overwhelmed by information created by mass media. The traditional TV, newspaper, movie impacted the perception and the personal value judgment. People actually learn from TVs and take whatever they learn to use on the real life. People believe what are reported in the newspaper. The review on a magazine can influence the public opinions. The fashion on the screen will be duplicated in the real life. The plot of a movie will be repeated innumerous in the real conversation. Eventually, people like what media tells them to like. Furthermore, the computer-based new media, internet reforms our society, our perception more than TVs. Through this new media, people find another alternative subjectivity. People can have a second change to choose what kind person they want to be, just like in online game “second life”. People can make, build tools and buildings and sell them to other people in a virtual world. The virtual money can be transfer into the real money. Some people’s lives have been already shifted by this new media. They spend more time in this media than in real world. They actually “live” in it. The media not just affects our real life, it replaces our life. People physically live in this real world but mentally habitat in the virtual world. This separation makes human being become the hybridized animal. This separation can be derived up to the ancient myth of
The hybridization also happens between different cultures. Today, it is impossible to say that one single culture is developed by itself. The notion of orthodox culture has been shifted into multi-culture or hybrid culture. The ambiguity of western and eastern culture was largely accepted by the mass media.
Closing Comments - Emergent Fabric of the Slums
Words and Cities, Closing Comments
One might argue that it is not our words, but our actions, that are of relevance to the cities of today and tomorrow. Without words though, one would have a tough time making that argument.
Before this class, I had no idea that the word fabric was appropriated from building craft to cloth, and not vice versa, or that in Italian, the word tessuto or tissue, which has quite a different implication to us, is used. Words, expecially metaphors it seems, have conceptual potency that drive ways of thinking, and thus action. Before this class, I thought emergence was a buzzword more abused than sustainability to justify the inexplicable. As of last year, but no longer, Wikipedia's entry for emergence ended with 'Often the word is used in place of something more meaningful.' It's definition and conceptual relevance, it would seem, has emerged.
We started the semester witha word with perhaps longest tenure as a word relevant to architecture, 'Modern'. While I still find this meaning of this word (and of all other words for that matter) to be elusive, it seems to me that the Modern purified and refined its environs, while the contemporary, for lack of a better word, emerges from its environs. ‘In the history of architecture, the emergence of downtown fabric as we have known it for more then a century did not come from an act of volition but from a condition thrust upon the profession.’ (Habraken, 71) While this may seem a historicist way of thinking, we can embrace the power of digital media and look at the factors of growth in much greater detail. We can see a much clearer picture of the organized complexity. In my mind, the most intirguing example of this that we have discussed is the informal settlements and cities. These places became real, no longer the 'rackets' and places of crime discussed by Mike Davis. The people “have the aspirations of the bourgeoisie, the perseverance of pioneers, and the values of patriots... What they do not have is an opportunity to fulfill their aspirations.” (Perlman, 21) Seeing the shear ubiqity of slums (3.3 Billion without clean water), alongside the pictures of the cared for homes in Colors magazine, one has to believe in these people's pride and discover that that there is something essential to these places, something fundamental in the emergent infrastructures that develop, both political and physical.
In the early 20th century, the informal sector (at the time, I would argue all lower class urbanity) met with a tidal wave of prescriptive modernism in the form of mass housing. Shlomo Angel and Stan Benjamin discussed “the largely unsuccessful attempt to take housing solutions from developed societies and modify them for application in the developing world... It has the great advantage of fitting well into elite middle-class aspirations. But it fails on three important counts; lack of realism…a complete misunderstanding of people’s needs and poor use of available resources” (Angel & Benjamin, 20) In the discussion of Fabric, Habrakken offers us a way of understanding why modern housing attempts have largely failed. ‘[Mass housing] represented a new process broadly applied to the ongoing piecemeal transformation of the fine grained fabric. . . Fine grained transformation in response to life, itself, was effectively excluded. . . Mass housing did not evolve out of historical ways of building. Nor did it embody universal cultural understanding.’ (Habraken, 76-77)
The distinction between Modern with a capital 'M' and contemporary can be seen as a [not-so-]simple one-and-many distinction. The Modern seems to me to embrace the singular: A singular concept, a singular beauty, a singular truth. The contemporary meanwhile, accepts complexity, multiplicity and mess. The emergent fabric of the slums is a messy one, but not a mess to be cleaned. It is one to be accepted, embraced, studied, understood, and incrementally improved and developed, but not replaced, for surely it will be the fabric that contains most of the worlds housing within our lifetimes.
One might argue that it is not our words, but our actions, that are of relevance to the cities of today and tomorrow. Without words though, one would have a tough time making that argument.
Before this class, I had no idea that the word fabric was appropriated from building craft to cloth, and not vice versa, or that in Italian, the word tessuto or tissue, which has quite a different implication to us, is used. Words, expecially metaphors it seems, have conceptual potency that drive ways of thinking, and thus action. Before this class, I thought emergence was a buzzword more abused than sustainability to justify the inexplicable. As of last year, but no longer, Wikipedia's entry for emergence ended with 'Often the word is used in place of something more meaningful.' It's definition and conceptual relevance, it would seem, has emerged.
We started the semester witha word with perhaps longest tenure as a word relevant to architecture, 'Modern'. While I still find this meaning of this word (and of all other words for that matter) to be elusive, it seems to me that the Modern purified and refined its environs, while the contemporary, for lack of a better word, emerges from its environs. ‘In the history of architecture, the emergence of downtown fabric as we have known it for more then a century did not come from an act of volition but from a condition thrust upon the profession.’ (Habraken, 71) While this may seem a historicist way of thinking, we can embrace the power of digital media and look at the factors of growth in much greater detail. We can see a much clearer picture of the organized complexity. In my mind, the most intirguing example of this that we have discussed is the informal settlements and cities. These places became real, no longer the 'rackets' and places of crime discussed by Mike Davis. The people “have the aspirations of the bourgeoisie, the perseverance of pioneers, and the values of patriots... What they do not have is an opportunity to fulfill their aspirations.” (Perlman, 21) Seeing the shear ubiqity of slums (3.3 Billion without clean water), alongside the pictures of the cared for homes in Colors magazine, one has to believe in these people's pride and discover that that there is something essential to these places, something fundamental in the emergent infrastructures that develop, both political and physical.
In the early 20th century, the informal sector (at the time, I would argue all lower class urbanity) met with a tidal wave of prescriptive modernism in the form of mass housing. Shlomo Angel and Stan Benjamin discussed “the largely unsuccessful attempt to take housing solutions from developed societies and modify them for application in the developing world... It has the great advantage of fitting well into elite middle-class aspirations. But it fails on three important counts; lack of realism…a complete misunderstanding of people’s needs and poor use of available resources” (Angel & Benjamin, 20) In the discussion of Fabric, Habrakken offers us a way of understanding why modern housing attempts have largely failed. ‘[Mass housing] represented a new process broadly applied to the ongoing piecemeal transformation of the fine grained fabric. . . Fine grained transformation in response to life, itself, was effectively excluded. . . Mass housing did not evolve out of historical ways of building. Nor did it embody universal cultural understanding.’ (Habraken, 76-77)
The distinction between Modern with a capital 'M' and contemporary can be seen as a [not-so-]simple one-and-many distinction. The Modern seems to me to embrace the singular: A singular concept, a singular beauty, a singular truth. The contemporary meanwhile, accepts complexity, multiplicity and mess. The emergent fabric of the slums is a messy one, but not a mess to be cleaned. It is one to be accepted, embraced, studied, understood, and incrementally improved and developed, but not replaced, for surely it will be the fabric that contains most of the worlds housing within our lifetimes.
Fabric_Forrest
A common thread in all of the “fabric” readings was a constant reference of the body as the fundamental unit of construction. From this primary measure, layers—increasing in scale—relate the fields of fashion, architecture, and urban planning. Quinn’s article “The Fashion of Architecture” starts with the first unit added to the body: clothing. Comparing architecture and fashion seems natural, as Quinn states, “the organization of space has always been the essence of both fashion and architecture; fashion’s architectuality unfolds in its containment of space while architecture continues to be fashioned by its relationship to the human form.” Under this definition, I am interested in ways that architecture can adopt more of fashion’s roles, namely beginning to fit the body itself rather than the programs that emerge from the use of the body (i.e. Galen Cranz’s Body Conscious Design class).
In the article Skin / Weave / Pattern, the idea of a building’s skin becoming a fabric is addressed. It is interesting to think about all the fabrics within a common house: curtains, lampshades, carpet—all mediate a relationship of sensory factor x to the body. Using textiles as a metaphor for architectural skin, the same characteristics of performative clothing can be applied to architecture’s skin, with the same results on the body. Lebbeus Woods scales up the word fabric again in his article “Radical Recontruction.” In this article, the city is regarded as a fabric and again the metaphor of the body is applied. Using the metaphor of the body, this urban fabric can “scab” and “scar.”
These articles present a sort of unified metaphors that describe a basic design philosophy. Starting with the body, life needs layers to sustain itself. The cell has a cell wall; the systems of the body (respiratory, circulatory, etc.) have a skin. Our body can mediate its relationship to the external world through layers of clothing. We change this layer’s meaning and performance to deal with social and climactic interactions. Architecture, too, deals with form and function is how its layers are constructed. And finally, the city forms the macro-fabric through which we move and interact. I think that the extent to which the architectural layer adopts meaning or performance is one of the most intriguing aspects of architectural design. In our world of decreasing resources, should architecture even compare itself to fashion, which is involved mostly with meanings and references that do not necessarily relate to performance? Or should architecture pretend like meanings do not exist and design simply to perform? I think how these two desires are mediated is a field rich in potential in architectural design.
In the article Skin / Weave / Pattern, the idea of a building’s skin becoming a fabric is addressed. It is interesting to think about all the fabrics within a common house: curtains, lampshades, carpet—all mediate a relationship of sensory factor x to the body. Using textiles as a metaphor for architectural skin, the same characteristics of performative clothing can be applied to architecture’s skin, with the same results on the body. Lebbeus Woods scales up the word fabric again in his article “Radical Recontruction.” In this article, the city is regarded as a fabric and again the metaphor of the body is applied. Using the metaphor of the body, this urban fabric can “scab” and “scar.”
These articles present a sort of unified metaphors that describe a basic design philosophy. Starting with the body, life needs layers to sustain itself. The cell has a cell wall; the systems of the body (respiratory, circulatory, etc.) have a skin. Our body can mediate its relationship to the external world through layers of clothing. We change this layer’s meaning and performance to deal with social and climactic interactions. Architecture, too, deals with form and function is how its layers are constructed. And finally, the city forms the macro-fabric through which we move and interact. I think that the extent to which the architectural layer adopts meaning or performance is one of the most intriguing aspects of architectural design. In our world of decreasing resources, should architecture even compare itself to fashion, which is involved mostly with meanings and references that do not necessarily relate to performance? Or should architecture pretend like meanings do not exist and design simply to perform? I think how these two desires are mediated is a field rich in potential in architectural design.
summary
Summary /Bin
Before taking this class, I am a 100% architecture idealist. My interest only lied in a narrow design field. Although I was told that architects have little power in the real practice and market, I was happy for having “avant-garde” ideas and tried to be an “academic person”. While now, at the end of this semester, I have a broader perspective and understanding of our profession in contemporary time. And I think academic knowledge can be used in a very different way.
The most impressive topic to me is about the future of cities and architecture. We are now at a cross road of history, just as we had experienced several times before. Massive changes are happening every day. If I have to pick two words to define the direction, I would say “sustainability” and “media”. (in contemporary time “digitalism”).
The shamed thing to admit is that I am not interested in “sustainability” at all. I even refused to sign my name on a sheet from Elena which asks for more sustainability class in Berkeley. Maybe that is because I classify “sustainability” an engineering issue more than a design issue. And I think we need more theoretical and design improvement in Berkeley. However, I definitely believe it is a very important word and will dramatically influence architecture and cities. Globalizm, energy crisis, accelerating development, all of these social issues ask us, not only architects but the whole society, to rethink the strategy of maintaining our living. I will always remember Nicholas’s argument that “It is not a game to win but a game to keep playing.”
“Media” is another word I think will change the world. Brick, concrete, steel are media, as well as computer. History proved that architecture changes when the media change. Actually many words, such as “animation”, “hybrid”, “metamorphosis”, are based on “media”. Without the digital technology, I don’t think architects would involve themselves in these discourses. I admire my previous instructor David Erdman, and many others in this field. To me, they are real “avant-gardes” of our time, though I won’t like the cities full of Greg Lynn forms. Fortunately, the most important thing about media is not only can they change the forms of architecture, but also the way we design and think, and hopefully can change people’s life in a good way, which I am personally very interested and want to learn and explore more in this unique digital age.
“Sustainability” and “media” are most about social consciousness and science respectively. They seem now two parallel directions. However, Designing with social consciousness by new science and technology is what I’d like to do. How to develop and interact the two is probably our future. Apparently architects have a long long way to go.
Before taking this class, I am a 100% architecture idealist. My interest only lied in a narrow design field. Although I was told that architects have little power in the real practice and market, I was happy for having “avant-garde” ideas and tried to be an “academic person”. While now, at the end of this semester, I have a broader perspective and understanding of our profession in contemporary time. And I think academic knowledge can be used in a very different way.
The most impressive topic to me is about the future of cities and architecture. We are now at a cross road of history, just as we had experienced several times before. Massive changes are happening every day. If I have to pick two words to define the direction, I would say “sustainability” and “media”. (in contemporary time “digitalism”).
The shamed thing to admit is that I am not interested in “sustainability” at all. I even refused to sign my name on a sheet from Elena which asks for more sustainability class in Berkeley. Maybe that is because I classify “sustainability” an engineering issue more than a design issue. And I think we need more theoretical and design improvement in Berkeley. However, I definitely believe it is a very important word and will dramatically influence architecture and cities. Globalizm, energy crisis, accelerating development, all of these social issues ask us, not only architects but the whole society, to rethink the strategy of maintaining our living. I will always remember Nicholas’s argument that “It is not a game to win but a game to keep playing.”
“Media” is another word I think will change the world. Brick, concrete, steel are media, as well as computer. History proved that architecture changes when the media change. Actually many words, such as “animation”, “hybrid”, “metamorphosis”, are based on “media”. Without the digital technology, I don’t think architects would involve themselves in these discourses. I admire my previous instructor David Erdman, and many others in this field. To me, they are real “avant-gardes” of our time, though I won’t like the cities full of Greg Lynn forms. Fortunately, the most important thing about media is not only can they change the forms of architecture, but also the way we design and think, and hopefully can change people’s life in a good way, which I am personally very interested and want to learn and explore more in this unique digital age.
“Sustainability” and “media” are most about social consciousness and science respectively. They seem now two parallel directions. However, Designing with social consciousness by new science and technology is what I’d like to do. How to develop and interact the two is probably our future. Apparently architects have a long long way to go.
Forrest_Metamorphosis
The very word metamorphosis challenges the traditional notion of architecture as static. Maybe the seemingly ingrained idea that architecture is static—from Vitruvian principles of “firmness, commodity, and delight” to teaching current architectural structures as “statics”—is what should be offered as a “new” way of understanding architecture. This would be an interesting architectural project, because if you look at history, architecture cannot resist metamorphosis. Robert Smithson describes this condition through entropy. Commanding a wide array of related examples, Smithson spins a poetic description of how things all are subject to change. I personally most liked how Smithson saw things planned and things happenstance had little difference—both are shaped by the forces of reality. However, to Smithson, entropy is different than metamorphosis in that entropy is the wearing down of one thing into another, whereas metamorphosis also considers things being reconstructed into something new. Most importantly, though, is approaching change as an element to be observed rather than judged, in order to work within its constraints.
Warner’s article entitled “metamorphosis” began by addressing the word’s roots (pun intended) in mythology. I remember reading Ovid in Latin, where Daphne was transformed into a tree. The situation behind this myth is interesting with respect to Smithson, because Daphne’s problem was a result of neither good nor bad, but rather just the human trait of arrogance. Since it was not her arrogance (but rather Eros) but was her transformation, it is impossible to derive any lesson (the planned) from the story. Rather, the only thing that can be learned is that things do change for whatever reason, which is why it is an etiological myth, or one used to explain to the Greeks why things were a certain way not bound to logic or meaning. In this sense, it is the paradigm of Smithson’s idea of entropy.
All architecture is subject to these abstract whims. Even the most “firm” architecture, like geology, eventually weathers and erodes. Nothing is guaranteed to be permanent yet it is an outstanding goal in architecture. This is certainly the overriding motif in Frazer’s An Evolutionary Architecture, where he argues new tools (namely computers) can be used to harness the transformative potentials of architecture. I think the false idea of permanence is a distinctly western (/judeo-christian) notion that follows the metaphor of the body; since or corporeal existence is not permanent, a false permanence is religiously constructed. Architectural permanence parallels this hope by suggesting that spiritually permanent people can erect static structures where the reality is quite different: temporary bodies can only set in motion temporal buildings that are destined to encounter some change.
Warner’s article entitled “metamorphosis” began by addressing the word’s roots (pun intended) in mythology. I remember reading Ovid in Latin, where Daphne was transformed into a tree. The situation behind this myth is interesting with respect to Smithson, because Daphne’s problem was a result of neither good nor bad, but rather just the human trait of arrogance. Since it was not her arrogance (but rather Eros) but was her transformation, it is impossible to derive any lesson (the planned) from the story. Rather, the only thing that can be learned is that things do change for whatever reason, which is why it is an etiological myth, or one used to explain to the Greeks why things were a certain way not bound to logic or meaning. In this sense, it is the paradigm of Smithson’s idea of entropy.
All architecture is subject to these abstract whims. Even the most “firm” architecture, like geology, eventually weathers and erodes. Nothing is guaranteed to be permanent yet it is an outstanding goal in architecture. This is certainly the overriding motif in Frazer’s An Evolutionary Architecture, where he argues new tools (namely computers) can be used to harness the transformative potentials of architecture. I think the false idea of permanence is a distinctly western (/judeo-christian) notion that follows the metaphor of the body; since or corporeal existence is not permanent, a false permanence is religiously constructed. Architectural permanence parallels this hope by suggesting that spiritually permanent people can erect static structures where the reality is quite different: temporary bodies can only set in motion temporal buildings that are destined to encounter some change.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
sha_metamorphosis
in my first reading of the warner piece, i read the comparison of the jellyfish as a metamorphosis of Medusa, something transfigured physically but remaining true to its essence. what is interesting, then, is that the jellyfish is so insubstantial it becomes a sort of "emanation" of the seas "currents and eddies". in this sense it is almost so essentialized (metamorphosized?) that it is not even conscious -- it is not intentionally poisonous or murderous, it just is poison. the 'unknowability' of the jellyfish is partially its seductiveness, but also its danger.
frazer is excited by this 'resilient strangeness' as a way to bring architecture into new territory, by using computing power as an opportunity to iterate and generate thousands of varieties, morphing buildings to hopefully find an unexpected optimization. there are dynamic systems that have been cropping up -- the unseen video, a dynamic flash video that changes based on your weather and location, is one that pops into my mind -- but frazer seems to be excited specifically about the chance of a better among the dynamic mutations. it reminds me a lot of the idea of cultivating crops, pairing or attempting to isolate a mutation.
my housemate actually found himself in a similar situation last semester. the assignment was to create a pacman game, and code the ai for the pacman. his pacman was driven by a set of priorities that changed based upon the current situation (i have to eat a dot, i have to eat a capsule, i have to avoid a ghost, i have to eat a ghost because i just ate a capsule, i have to turn as little as possible, etc...). frustrated by his intuitive attempts to place priority (avoiding ghosts is a priority highest, eating dots is high, eating capsules is incidental), he wrote a program to evolve his pacman -- gradually changing each parameter, brute force, and logging which pacman did the best. eventually his pacman was extremely streamlined, and its priorities were completely unexpected (turns out his pacman became a hunter with almost absurdly risky behavior, constantly letting ghosts get close, then finding a capsule and eating all the ghosts). what he found, though, to his disappointment, was that his pacman became unintentionally site specific. his pacman had become so optimized for the test map, that when a random map was loaded, his pacman would do poorly.
it is precisely that specificity that would make frazer's idea of cultivating architecture so interesting. it would be very exciting to test and generate a building -- iterating through a 'large number of evolutionary steps', then sifting through the results for unexpected, emergent forms.
(though it seems like you could essentially pass a building through a series of wind, sun, noise, etc... simulators and come up with variations that optimize or maximize building efficiency, i'm not sure if frazer is completely content with using building parameters as metrics for evolutionary vigor. he first describes computers as tireless slaves, then later as an electronic muse -- but he holds that the initial creative spark is still our own. where does the design stop and the algorithm take over? is the design process simply choosing the right parameters and metrics?)
( www.theunseenvideo.com )
frazer is excited by this 'resilient strangeness' as a way to bring architecture into new territory, by using computing power as an opportunity to iterate and generate thousands of varieties, morphing buildings to hopefully find an unexpected optimization. there are dynamic systems that have been cropping up -- the unseen video, a dynamic flash video that changes based on your weather and location, is one that pops into my mind -- but frazer seems to be excited specifically about the chance of a better among the dynamic mutations. it reminds me a lot of the idea of cultivating crops, pairing or attempting to isolate a mutation.
my housemate actually found himself in a similar situation last semester. the assignment was to create a pacman game, and code the ai for the pacman. his pacman was driven by a set of priorities that changed based upon the current situation (i have to eat a dot, i have to eat a capsule, i have to avoid a ghost, i have to eat a ghost because i just ate a capsule, i have to turn as little as possible, etc...). frustrated by his intuitive attempts to place priority (avoiding ghosts is a priority highest, eating dots is high, eating capsules is incidental), he wrote a program to evolve his pacman -- gradually changing each parameter, brute force, and logging which pacman did the best. eventually his pacman was extremely streamlined, and its priorities were completely unexpected (turns out his pacman became a hunter with almost absurdly risky behavior, constantly letting ghosts get close, then finding a capsule and eating all the ghosts). what he found, though, to his disappointment, was that his pacman became unintentionally site specific. his pacman had become so optimized for the test map, that when a random map was loaded, his pacman would do poorly.
it is precisely that specificity that would make frazer's idea of cultivating architecture so interesting. it would be very exciting to test and generate a building -- iterating through a 'large number of evolutionary steps', then sifting through the results for unexpected, emergent forms.
(though it seems like you could essentially pass a building through a series of wind, sun, noise, etc... simulators and come up with variations that optimize or maximize building efficiency, i'm not sure if frazer is completely content with using building parameters as metrics for evolutionary vigor. he first describes computers as tireless slaves, then later as an electronic muse -- but he holds that the initial creative spark is still our own. where does the design stop and the algorithm take over? is the design process simply choosing the right parameters and metrics?)
( www.theunseenvideo.com )
Metamorphosis
Metamorphosis or maybe Transmigration
Marina Warner takes us far back in history from the greek era leading to build a description of metamorphosis as a complex transmigration of the soul and body. She talks at length about metamorphosis being a transmigration defining metamorphoses as “all souls are deathless, and migrate from one form to another.” Again heavily grounded in Platonic thought and even unabashedly referencing so many of his descriptions in the Republic. It is clear that she thinks positively of these historic figures as a source of authority and even as a sort of spirituality in her “sage Pythagorus.” The form on the outside is described as a “pliant wax stamped with new designs.” These are also principles behind most eastern philosophy and seems to be one that she likens to. She implies that it is only now that society is embracing the souls relationship to the body as a metamorphosis of nature by citing the De larf (The Larva) example. The discussions tend to be spiritually all encompassing or perhaps a unified theory/philosophy. She does this by piggybacking plato’s allegory of the cave, and describing life through a flux of a “time-bound dimension” and “the way we imagine the world” as being truer to reality than life itself. Finally this metamorphosis can be achieved through imagination and new scientific developments where formally it was only in the hands of the “gods.”
The dialectics of entropic change are the concern of Robert Smithson in his interview with Alison Sky. He starts the conversation with many well know fictional and factional stories such as Humpty Dumpty and water gate to ground a complex issue into common knowledge. He continues to build his sources as well by mentioning well known figures such as Buckminister Fuller and Norbert Weiner to establish a authority and legitimate framework for his discussion. His conversation goes into what seems like tangents moving rapidly from strip mines raping the earth to architecture and economics sharing the same paradigm. This may of course be a salute to his very notion of entropy existing through far extremes somewhere between “wasteland” and “tranquility,” so the discussion should exist through a multiplicity of differing topics.
John Frazer builds a case for an evolutionary morphology through a set of commentaries on the nature, science and architecture. Interestingly in the forward, Gordan Pask starts by saying that the book “records” the present state and future “research,” binding the book into a scientific model. As with the other two readings, Frazer embraces the state of flux that the descriptions of morphology creates. For example he praises unity as being a state of “coherence and diversity admixed in collusion” never to be mistaken for uniformity. Nature also plays a huge role for the future of architecture and therefore the principles for design should be thought as an instantiation rather than case specific. By that I mean that he wants the architect to create “instructions” for all design rather than a “blueprint” for a specific set of plans. His conclusions are not about a specific formal morphology, but rather a series of commentaries on nature and science, and how they can inspire the inner logic of architecture.
Marina Warner takes us far back in history from the greek era leading to build a description of metamorphosis as a complex transmigration of the soul and body. She talks at length about metamorphosis being a transmigration defining metamorphoses as “all souls are deathless, and migrate from one form to another.” Again heavily grounded in Platonic thought and even unabashedly referencing so many of his descriptions in the Republic. It is clear that she thinks positively of these historic figures as a source of authority and even as a sort of spirituality in her “sage Pythagorus.” The form on the outside is described as a “pliant wax stamped with new designs.” These are also principles behind most eastern philosophy and seems to be one that she likens to. She implies that it is only now that society is embracing the souls relationship to the body as a metamorphosis of nature by citing the De larf (The Larva) example. The discussions tend to be spiritually all encompassing or perhaps a unified theory/philosophy. She does this by piggybacking plato’s allegory of the cave, and describing life through a flux of a “time-bound dimension” and “the way we imagine the world” as being truer to reality than life itself. Finally this metamorphosis can be achieved through imagination and new scientific developments where formally it was only in the hands of the “gods.”
The dialectics of entropic change are the concern of Robert Smithson in his interview with Alison Sky. He starts the conversation with many well know fictional and factional stories such as Humpty Dumpty and water gate to ground a complex issue into common knowledge. He continues to build his sources as well by mentioning well known figures such as Buckminister Fuller and Norbert Weiner to establish a authority and legitimate framework for his discussion. His conversation goes into what seems like tangents moving rapidly from strip mines raping the earth to architecture and economics sharing the same paradigm. This may of course be a salute to his very notion of entropy existing through far extremes somewhere between “wasteland” and “tranquility,” so the discussion should exist through a multiplicity of differing topics.
John Frazer builds a case for an evolutionary morphology through a set of commentaries on the nature, science and architecture. Interestingly in the forward, Gordan Pask starts by saying that the book “records” the present state and future “research,” binding the book into a scientific model. As with the other two readings, Frazer embraces the state of flux that the descriptions of morphology creates. For example he praises unity as being a state of “coherence and diversity admixed in collusion” never to be mistaken for uniformity. Nature also plays a huge role for the future of architecture and therefore the principles for design should be thought as an instantiation rather than case specific. By that I mean that he wants the architect to create “instructions” for all design rather than a “blueprint” for a specific set of plans. His conclusions are not about a specific formal morphology, but rather a series of commentaries on nature and science, and how they can inspire the inner logic of architecture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)