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.
Why is Architecture so profoundly ashamed with formalism. Our profession is full of people in the formalist closet. I find it absurd that architects need to justify every move they present with some deep and resonant ideology or purpose. John Frazer does a wonderful job of this. Reading his writing was like staring at a moth eaten shirt; holes everywhere. He begins his writing with “An evolutionary architecture investigates fundamental form-generating processes in architecture, paralleling a wider scientific search for a theory of morphogenesis in the natural world. It proposes the model of nature as the generating force for architectural form. The profligate prototyping and awesome creative power of natural evolution are emulated by creating virtual architectural models which respond to changing environments” (pg. 9). Something right there about natural and virtual carrying the same weight doesn’t settle well. Later in writing he proceeds with “A clear distinction is intended between sources of inspiration and sources of explanation. When natural science is used for explanation or illustration, it is essential that the science is correct and that the analogy is valid. But when it is used for inspiration and as a take off point for thought experiments, it matters less, and misunderstood or even heretical ideas can provide much imaginative stimulus” (pg. 12). For most of his writing Frazer is justifying the analogy of natural process to that of design process by saying that his architecture can emulate nature but yet he makes this distinction that really all he is doing is using these natural processes to simply generate form. He’s animate about the analogy and its “awesome power” to create architecture of evolution capable of coping with society’s complexities and chaos. In one of his closing statements he writes that the demise of society is man’s “self conscious obsession with uniqueness”. It seems to me that Frazer is suffering from such a case by emulating nature.
Unlike Frazer, Robert Smithson claims that trying to emulate natural is a huge feat to take on. He writes “there’s a need to try to transcend one’s position. I’m not a transcendentalist, so I just see things as going towards a … well it’s very hard to predict anything; anyway all predictions tend to be wrong. I mean even planning, I mean planning and chance almost seem to be the same thing”.
So where does this leave us in the profession of architecture, where are days are spent planning for society that is ever changing? Perhaps our ideas of architecture should not be so much geared towards this ideal view of nature as some awesome vital force but instead view nature as being the all encompassing world around us; “our spaceship earth”.
In this sense looking at Warner’s writing could be helpful. She states “the work of metamorphosis performed by artists today in every medium often aim at transvaluing their subject, and raising the esteem of the mode through which they are taking form. They offer reformulations of ethical value, and in attempting this refashioning of traditions, re-assess the inherent character of change and mutability themselves” (pg. 27). I can’t help but think back to our discussions of slums and their emergent qualities. How can architecture learn from such real life processes of the built environment to create architecture capable of the evolution that Frazer strives for?
Metamorphosis
In the Marina Warner reading the myth of Er is used as an example to describe the meaning of the word. In the myth heroes choose their fate for their next life. The heroes future metamorphoses in some ways to correspond to their past character. The souls are deathless and migrate from one form to another. The idea of changing from one form to another is described by Marina Warner as metamorphosis.
“Metamorphosis now evokes a vision of endless, creative energy and movement, ranging from chaos and degeneration to the possibility of almost infinite refinement and transfiguration.” It sounds like the route towards utopia. (Week four.)
The seventeenth- and eighteenth-century botanists used the word metamorphosis as the vital principle of natural processes of generation, growth, evolution and decay. Metamorphosis is now taking place all around us. It governs the organic development of all living things, and the individual transformations that take place in everyone’s life, Warner writes. She further suggests that the word has metamorphosed itself through history. Partly as it has encountered with science and the theory of evolution. “It now evokes images of not just of shape shifting but of a smooth, organic unfolding of forms in time and space – a process imitated in the computer technique ‘morphing’.”
With all the advanced technologies of the 21st century there is a potential extent of metamorphosis. Cloning, stem cell research, cyborg prostheses, transplantation of animal organs, genetic modifications of both foods and ultimately of ourselves. As the reading points out, these are very complex issues. Are we heading towards dystopia?
“Metamorphosis now evokes a vision of endless, creative energy and movement, ranging from chaos and degeneration to the possibility of almost infinite refinement and transfiguration.” It sounds like the route towards utopia. (Week four.)
The seventeenth- and eighteenth-century botanists used the word metamorphosis as the vital principle of natural processes of generation, growth, evolution and decay. Metamorphosis is now taking place all around us. It governs the organic development of all living things, and the individual transformations that take place in everyone’s life, Warner writes. She further suggests that the word has metamorphosed itself through history. Partly as it has encountered with science and the theory of evolution. “It now evokes images of not just of shape shifting but of a smooth, organic unfolding of forms in time and space – a process imitated in the computer technique ‘morphing’.”
With all the advanced technologies of the 21st century there is a potential extent of metamorphosis. Cloning, stem cell research, cyborg prostheses, transplantation of animal organs, genetic modifications of both foods and ultimately of ourselves. As the reading points out, these are very complex issues. Are we heading towards dystopia?
Metamorphosis vs. statics
Marina Warner opens her discussion of metamorphosis by proceeding in a historical fashion to explain the origins of metamorphosis as a concept in mythology and its etymological roots in the physical sciences. Warner goes on to say that our understanding of the word itself continued to change as it interacted with the physical sciences, especially with the case of evolutionary theory. What began in the realm of supernatural and spiritual trickled into theories of natural order, slowly increasing its ‘breadth and depth’ as more and more modes of physical metamorphosis become available. The variable applications of the word are exemplified as Warner articulates:
“Oddly enough, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s career, from Pumping Iron to the Terminator to Governor of California, typifies one trajectory of metamorphosis in contemporary culture, in its most menacing form” (p.21)
“An ancient ambivalence still governs any blurring of boundaries between human and beast. Yet this fantastical merging of categories is increasingly becoming a reality as the arts of cloning and genetic modification advance.” (p.21)
What becomes evident is how embedded the concept of metamorphosis is in culture of the human race. There has been a keen awareness of it in literature, philosophy, science, spirituality, and more recently graphical/experiential representation & architecture. However, simultaneously there is also a consistent fear of metamorphosis in culture. Change, in the form of metamorphosis is oft perceived as unnatural and undesired. Hybrid entities are often frowned upon and outcasted, whether it’s the The Golden Ass or someone with a xyy chromosome mutation leading to hermaphroditism.
In many cases people prefer stability over metamorphosis – views of life that eliminate unpredictability. Religion is one such way to impose regularity and absolutism. As a species we have been obsessed over the course of history, and especially in the last century, with models of prediction and organizing randomness – the pre-entropic concept of a ‘mechanistic world view’. As Robert Smithson points out, architects, with “this attitude of set design solutions throughout the world” (p.2) fit nicely in that category: “Architects tend to be idealists, and not dialecticians. I propose a dialectics of entrophic change.” (p.2)
That brings us to John Frazer’s attempt to frame architecture from an evolutionary/ metamorphic stance. In this natural model, “Architectural concepts are expressed as generative rules so that their evolution may be accelerated and tested. The rules are described in a genetic language which produces a code-script of instructions for form-generation.” (p.9). This stands in direct opposition to the result & product oriented view of architecture currently so prevalent. In this proposed model, we as designers would be less concerned with a final form (output) of a building, but much more concerned with the instruction set (inputs) that begin to generate and influence the output. This puts architecture more along the lines of hardware and software design. A processor may have millions of transistors but only a few hundred instructions. But it can dynamically adapt to almost infinite variables so that you can render an image or encode a video without being aware of the inner workings. But the nature of the instruction – how the core communicates with the memory controller or how it allocates cache, will drastically affect how the resultant experience is for the end user.
Architects have the tools available to begin exploring new morphological typologies but the real problem lies in the mode of thought of society as a whole (incl. construction industry). As a society we are very much “goal-directed” in our approach. In any given profession the bottom line is the result, the end product, a static finale. Architecture is much more readily understood and appreciated as an image, an icon, than an endless series of permutations. But just as true we are beginning to realize that static modes of analysis (in all fields of study) are incapable of accounting for entropic change. Shifting programs, the morphing fabric of the city, could be better understood through the dynamic model. Such is the draw of the great unified theory.
Metamorphosis
Architecture 209X, Spring 2007
Words and Cities: The rhetoric and meaning of statistically improbable phrases
Nicholas De Monchaux
Qing Wang
Metamorphosis
The definition of metamorphosis is quite clear. According to the article, it comes from Greek and means cross-form, namely, transformation from one form to another form. Now we deal with the controversial topic like form and transformation. It is not issue only architects concerns. It almost involved all the visual creative activities. It has been discussed for centuries by the philosophers. A static form is hard to understand in terms of that it only shows the results of the forming not process. Transformation gives the opportunities for us to witness the changing form. It shows the magic how form has been generated or evolved. The invisible force which shapes the form has been seen by this process. It is so intriguing that numerous films and paintings try to capture as much detail as they can to anatomize, unfold and expose to the viewers. Unfortunately, these slowing down images are never true enough to represent the natural transformation. People are familiar with
metamorphosis_cindy moon
Metamorphosis could understand as a changing moment or responsive situation or environment. Theses articles are talking about how architecture deals with volatile contemporary circumstance momentary experience.
Metamorphosis comes from Greek and it means changing from one form to another. The meaning of changing brings so many interpretations and it includes layer of self-reference (1, Marina Warner) In this concept, everything changes and nothing dies. So it could expend and self-modified to adjust the environment. Because of transformation concept, it also used in philosophy to understand personal identity. As KAFKA wrote about metamorphosis, it couldn’t need to be transformation of appearance. It also contains transformation of self consciousness; it’s more about potential extent of metamorphosis.
In the article ‘A natural model for architecture’, the author mentions responsive environment and soft architecture. To adjust evolutionary environment, flexible approach is requested. And some kind of possibility of alteration enables because the development of technology could apply to architecture and it helps to create self-organizing system.
In other hand, entropy could be or not be metamorphosis. In Robert Smithson’s opinion, on going aspect of things be a kind of entropic architecture or de-architecturalization. Because architecture try to manifest it and architect seems to be idealists and not dialecticians. But certain mistakes cause entropy and people could experience marvelous and energetic juxtaposition occur.
Metamorphosis comes from Greek and it means changing from one form to another. The meaning of changing brings so many interpretations and it includes layer of self-reference (1, Marina Warner) In this concept, everything changes and nothing dies. So it could expend and self-modified to adjust the environment. Because of transformation concept, it also used in philosophy to understand personal identity. As KAFKA wrote about metamorphosis, it couldn’t need to be transformation of appearance. It also contains transformation of self consciousness; it’s more about potential extent of metamorphosis.
In the article ‘A natural model for architecture’, the author mentions responsive environment and soft architecture. To adjust evolutionary environment, flexible approach is requested. And some kind of possibility of alteration enables because the development of technology could apply to architecture and it helps to create self-organizing system.
In other hand, entropy could be or not be metamorphosis. In Robert Smithson’s opinion, on going aspect of things be a kind of entropic architecture or de-architecturalization. Because architecture try to manifest it and architect seems to be idealists and not dialecticians. But certain mistakes cause entropy and people could experience marvelous and energetic juxtaposition occur.
Matter and Change
“The beautiful is a manifestation of natural laws that otherwise had remained hidden forever.” - Goethe
Two views of metamorphosis are presented in these articles. One is that of the shape shifting discrete change, and the other of a continuous, organic presence of change. The concept of metamorphosis is traced by Warner from Ovid to Darwin. “The concept has itself metamorphosed through history, partly as a result of its encounter with science – expecially with the theory of evolution. It now evokes images not just of shape shifting but of a smooth organic unfolding of forms in time and space.” (Warner, 18)
Frazer talks of an evolutionary architecture whose content is not in expression, but in a code-script. Analogous to DNA building blocks. It is not the expression that evolves, but the coding. The expression is a result. ‘genetic language of architecture’ is an evolving continuous phenomena - metamorphic. “Our architectural model, considered as a form of artificial life, also contains coded manufacturing which are environmentally dependent, but as in the real world model it is only the code-script which evolves.”( Frazer, 14) Frazer uses the computer to test a simple rule to its evolution into form. “Very large numbers of evolutionary steps can be generated in a short space of time, and the emergent forms are often unexpected.” (Frazer, 9) These forms may very well be the type of beauty Goethe was speaking of. While the intense computation in Frazers method has come under scrutiny, he assures us that the seed, the Cotyledon, if you will, is human, sublime. “The prototyping, modeling, testing, evaluation and evolution all use the formidable power of the computer, but the initial spark comes from human creativity.” (Frazer, 19)
In an alternative presentation of metamorphosis, we see a less idealized vision of change is presented in the idea of entropy. Like Humpty Dumpty, entropy represents a “…closed system which eventually deteriorates and starts to break apart and there’s no way that you can really piece it back together again… T]he irreversible process will be in a sense metamorphosed, it is evolutionary, but it is not evolutionary in terms of any idealism.” (Smithson, 1-2)
Smithson echoes sentiments similar to Gould’s non-idealistic view of evolution. “I don’t think things go in cycles. I think things just change from one situation to the next, there’s really no return.” (Smithson, 4)
Warner’s sentiments in recalling the shape-shifting metamorphoses of myth (Greek not Russian) are a stark contrast. “The core of this strange and ghostly myth offers the promise of another chance at happiness… [Metamorphosis] governs personal fate and identity that in some profound way, you are what you make yourself.” (Warner, 15) But given recent development in thinking, Warner even admits the conflicts now apparent in the ‘story of the unified integral self’ (ibid. 29)
I’m fascinated how computational evolutionary theory leads a tortuous path to Heraclitus. Really the first dialectic philosopher, he is famous for allegedly claiming you can’t cross the same river twice. In an evolutionary view, surely one can’t cross the same river twice because one is not the same, and the river is not the same, though both participate in a continuous identity. One is the same one but one is always changing. In it’s most basic form, there is matter and there is change. Smithson accepts this notion of change as constant, unavoidable, irreparable. So as our cites go through irreparable changes, so to must the code-script for those cites change and respond to the also changing needs. Our cites too could benefit from the metaphor of digital genetics.
Two views of metamorphosis are presented in these articles. One is that of the shape shifting discrete change, and the other of a continuous, organic presence of change. The concept of metamorphosis is traced by Warner from Ovid to Darwin. “The concept has itself metamorphosed through history, partly as a result of its encounter with science – expecially with the theory of evolution. It now evokes images not just of shape shifting but of a smooth organic unfolding of forms in time and space.” (Warner, 18)
Frazer talks of an evolutionary architecture whose content is not in expression, but in a code-script. Analogous to DNA building blocks. It is not the expression that evolves, but the coding. The expression is a result. ‘genetic language of architecture’ is an evolving continuous phenomena - metamorphic. “Our architectural model, considered as a form of artificial life, also contains coded manufacturing which are environmentally dependent, but as in the real world model it is only the code-script which evolves.”( Frazer, 14) Frazer uses the computer to test a simple rule to its evolution into form. “Very large numbers of evolutionary steps can be generated in a short space of time, and the emergent forms are often unexpected.” (Frazer, 9) These forms may very well be the type of beauty Goethe was speaking of. While the intense computation in Frazers method has come under scrutiny, he assures us that the seed, the Cotyledon, if you will, is human, sublime. “The prototyping, modeling, testing, evaluation and evolution all use the formidable power of the computer, but the initial spark comes from human creativity.” (Frazer, 19)
In an alternative presentation of metamorphosis, we see a less idealized vision of change is presented in the idea of entropy. Like Humpty Dumpty, entropy represents a “…closed system which eventually deteriorates and starts to break apart and there’s no way that you can really piece it back together again… T]he irreversible process will be in a sense metamorphosed, it is evolutionary, but it is not evolutionary in terms of any idealism.” (Smithson, 1-2)
Smithson echoes sentiments similar to Gould’s non-idealistic view of evolution. “I don’t think things go in cycles. I think things just change from one situation to the next, there’s really no return.” (Smithson, 4)
Warner’s sentiments in recalling the shape-shifting metamorphoses of myth (Greek not Russian) are a stark contrast. “The core of this strange and ghostly myth offers the promise of another chance at happiness… [Metamorphosis] governs personal fate and identity that in some profound way, you are what you make yourself.” (Warner, 15) But given recent development in thinking, Warner even admits the conflicts now apparent in the ‘story of the unified integral self’ (ibid. 29)
I’m fascinated how computational evolutionary theory leads a tortuous path to Heraclitus. Really the first dialectic philosopher, he is famous for allegedly claiming you can’t cross the same river twice. In an evolutionary view, surely one can’t cross the same river twice because one is not the same, and the river is not the same, though both participate in a continuous identity. One is the same one but one is always changing. In it’s most basic form, there is matter and there is change. Smithson accepts this notion of change as constant, unavoidable, irreparable. So as our cites go through irreparable changes, so to must the code-script for those cites change and respond to the also changing needs. Our cites too could benefit from the metaphor of digital genetics.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Metamorphosis_liwen
Metamorphosis_idealized process in architecture
Liwen Zhang
Throughout John Frazer’s work, An Evolutionary Architecture, I’ve felt an urge to continually question his statements. This is fundamentally attributed to that fact that Frazer’s work relies heavily upon the assumption that evolution is a natural “self-organizing intelligent” process upon which the end result is optimal. However, after having read Gould’s article in class a few weeks back, we come to realize that this is not always the case, Gould have proved that evolution is not always intelligent and purposeful.
Frazer’s work is framed around the idea that “architecture as a living, evolving thing” as Gordon Pask puts it in his introduction of Frazer’s work. This statement is perhaps not so hard to digest and even provocative as we have learned to see our cities in that way. Much of what Frazer advocates has been promoted by my previous studio instructors – in 100B we were told to come up with ‘generative rules”’ which is then applied to an ‘operational logic’ that is eventually creates a building, somehow. In Greg Lynn’s work we read for the word ‘Hybrid’, we learn of an architect’s insecurities with techniques that are so heavily reliant on the use of the computer. Not only is the authenticity of the designer’s creations questioned, but also the process is considered to be superficial because it may be purely formally driven. The need here calls for differentiation, yes emergent forms are “often unexpected” as Frazer puts it, but is this on a purely formal level or can it be performative? Furthermore, how is the ‘performative-ness’ measured anyway?
Frazer is quick to address the former issue regarding the authenticity of the designer. He thinks that the design process is ultimately reliant on “human skill and for the essential first step of forming the concept”, what he deems as the “initial spark”. I agree with his comments but nonetheless I question if the “initial spark” is all that is needed on our behalf, as implied by Frazer, since then the computer as a “slave [with] infinite power and patience” will do the rest of the work for you. I cannot help that feel that he is idealizing the computational process in design, especially in calling it the “the electronic muse”. The word muse, aside from the convention meaning, in the classical mythology sense means a “goddess presiding over a particular art” (taken from dictionary.com). Thus Frazer is indirectly elevating the role of computer-aided design to that of a goddess.
Liwen Zhang
Throughout John Frazer’s work, An Evolutionary Architecture, I’ve felt an urge to continually question his statements. This is fundamentally attributed to that fact that Frazer’s work relies heavily upon the assumption that evolution is a natural “self-organizing intelligent” process upon which the end result is optimal. However, after having read Gould’s article in class a few weeks back, we come to realize that this is not always the case, Gould have proved that evolution is not always intelligent and purposeful.
Frazer’s work is framed around the idea that “architecture as a living, evolving thing” as Gordon Pask puts it in his introduction of Frazer’s work. This statement is perhaps not so hard to digest and even provocative as we have learned to see our cities in that way. Much of what Frazer advocates has been promoted by my previous studio instructors – in 100B we were told to come up with ‘generative rules”’ which is then applied to an ‘operational logic’ that is eventually creates a building, somehow. In Greg Lynn’s work we read for the word ‘Hybrid’, we learn of an architect’s insecurities with techniques that are so heavily reliant on the use of the computer. Not only is the authenticity of the designer’s creations questioned, but also the process is considered to be superficial because it may be purely formally driven. The need here calls for differentiation, yes emergent forms are “often unexpected” as Frazer puts it, but is this on a purely formal level or can it be performative? Furthermore, how is the ‘performative-ness’ measured anyway?
Frazer is quick to address the former issue regarding the authenticity of the designer. He thinks that the design process is ultimately reliant on “human skill and for the essential first step of forming the concept”, what he deems as the “initial spark”. I agree with his comments but nonetheless I question if the “initial spark” is all that is needed on our behalf, as implied by Frazer, since then the computer as a “slave [with] infinite power and patience” will do the rest of the work for you. I cannot help that feel that he is idealizing the computational process in design, especially in calling it the “the electronic muse”. The word muse, aside from the convention meaning, in the classical mythology sense means a “goddess presiding over a particular art” (taken from dictionary.com). Thus Frazer is indirectly elevating the role of computer-aided design to that of a goddess.
metamorphosis
Metamorphosis/Bin
I am very interested in the term of “entropy”. It means moving towards a gradual equilibrium and it’s suggested in many ways. However, entropy also has been associated with disorder and chaos. Robert Smithson had mentioned that “planning and chance almost seem to be the same thing.” In some degree, architecture practice can be seen as a chaotic system which appears to be random. He then argued, “Geology has its entropy too…so that the irreversible process will be in a sense metamorphosed, it is evolutionary, but it’s not evolutionary in terms of any idealism”. Based on my experience, I feel it has more possibilities for architects to make the system chaotic rather than equilibrium, very much because architects turn to be so “ideal” and “creative”. For example, among this year’s thesis projects in our department, most students intend to solve a certain social chaos by insert another system, most of which have impressive forms. The result is that we add one more system in the chaos. Although we may solve the problem by now, we can hardly predict the problems coming soon. The city is evolutionary. Hence the new system can be a new chaos. We are making more and more architecture debris for the planet. The entropy theory does suggest that the cosmos will die because of unsolvable chaos. Before that the cities may already reach an end. We cherish the pureness of ancient cities because “things just change from one situation to the next, there’s really no return.”
The judgment to great architecture is usually described as “solve the problem in a creative way.” To creative something new is human’s instinct. I haven’t seen any wrong with it. However, to create something new doesn’t necessarily to add something new. If we think reversely, reducing the existing forms may also be something new. Metamorphosis can be a useful term not only for architects to create new forms but also to reduce forms. In that case, architects may design some “returns”. The question is, do we have the courage to say “I haven’t added anything new”? At least I don’t. That may be a weak point of the profession of architecture design.
Despite of the chaos we make, whether architecture should have a stable or metamorphosed form is not the point. What of most significance is that one part of architecture, as an intellectual and creative thinking, should have the sensibility to reflect the changing of the world we are living in. From Newton to Darwin, Leibniz, or whoever it is, their theories can be the catalysts of architecture. As result, the concept of “architecture” changes. As Marina Warner said in the article, “The concept (metamorphosis) has itself metamorphosed through history, partly as a result of its encounter with science. It now evokes images not just of shape-shifting but of a smooth, organic unfolding of forms in time and space.” In this circumstance, architecture itself is a metamorphosis.
I am very interested in the term of “entropy”. It means moving towards a gradual equilibrium and it’s suggested in many ways. However, entropy also has been associated with disorder and chaos. Robert Smithson had mentioned that “planning and chance almost seem to be the same thing.” In some degree, architecture practice can be seen as a chaotic system which appears to be random. He then argued, “Geology has its entropy too…so that the irreversible process will be in a sense metamorphosed, it is evolutionary, but it’s not evolutionary in terms of any idealism”. Based on my experience, I feel it has more possibilities for architects to make the system chaotic rather than equilibrium, very much because architects turn to be so “ideal” and “creative”. For example, among this year’s thesis projects in our department, most students intend to solve a certain social chaos by insert another system, most of which have impressive forms. The result is that we add one more system in the chaos. Although we may solve the problem by now, we can hardly predict the problems coming soon. The city is evolutionary. Hence the new system can be a new chaos. We are making more and more architecture debris for the planet. The entropy theory does suggest that the cosmos will die because of unsolvable chaos. Before that the cities may already reach an end. We cherish the pureness of ancient cities because “things just change from one situation to the next, there’s really no return.”
The judgment to great architecture is usually described as “solve the problem in a creative way.” To creative something new is human’s instinct. I haven’t seen any wrong with it. However, to create something new doesn’t necessarily to add something new. If we think reversely, reducing the existing forms may also be something new. Metamorphosis can be a useful term not only for architects to create new forms but also to reduce forms. In that case, architects may design some “returns”. The question is, do we have the courage to say “I haven’t added anything new”? At least I don’t. That may be a weak point of the profession of architecture design.
Despite of the chaos we make, whether architecture should have a stable or metamorphosed form is not the point. What of most significance is that one part of architecture, as an intellectual and creative thinking, should have the sensibility to reflect the changing of the world we are living in. From Newton to Darwin, Leibniz, or whoever it is, their theories can be the catalysts of architecture. As result, the concept of “architecture” changes. As Marina Warner said in the article, “The concept (metamorphosis) has itself metamorphosed through history, partly as a result of its encounter with science. It now evokes images not just of shape-shifting but of a smooth, organic unfolding of forms in time and space.” In this circumstance, architecture itself is a metamorphosis.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
fabric_ cindy moon
The using the word fabric seems so different in architecture and fashion. In fashion, fabric is about how fashion could be expressed and in urban and architectural view, it’s about the organization of city.
The Quinn’s article mentioned that the production and consumption of space could come from fashion industry. And the fabric of city could be all about form, system of common urban life.
In addition to the meaning of fabric as skin, urban fabric system could also show the concept of ’trasformation over tine takes place Hertzberger, 55). The basic concept of fabric shows the history of city. ‘The Venetian fabric as a coherent whole : it is composed of parts created in different but akin to one another’ (Hertzberger, 60) Merging the time of confliction between gothic and renaissance, the article said we could easily find out parts of city as different in shape, but similar in sturctire. It expressed to living field as it shows relationship between individual architecture space and urban context.
Also fabric is not just appearance but the space of living life. There are so many possibility to change the environmental fabric for citizen. Users are born, live an die in urban space and while they use the space, they change, adapt and translate the space. (Hertzberger, 63) All the phenomenon could change the fabric of space and also it affect the our life
Usually fabric seems to be 2-d appearance in city. And it could be read as form or shape of space. However, the form or shape could be translated for our use of space and it also affects urban fabric. So that’s the reason why Pompidou center which broke the flow or urban appearance is weird in Paris, but also it became the part of city currently because people use and translate it to adapt contemporary part with old historical spaces.
The Quinn’s article mentioned that the production and consumption of space could come from fashion industry. And the fabric of city could be all about form, system of common urban life.
In addition to the meaning of fabric as skin, urban fabric system could also show the concept of ’trasformation over tine takes place Hertzberger, 55). The basic concept of fabric shows the history of city. ‘The Venetian fabric as a coherent whole : it is composed of parts created in different but akin to one another’ (Hertzberger, 60) Merging the time of confliction between gothic and renaissance, the article said we could easily find out parts of city as different in shape, but similar in sturctire. It expressed to living field as it shows relationship between individual architecture space and urban context.
Also fabric is not just appearance but the space of living life. There are so many possibility to change the environmental fabric for citizen. Users are born, live an die in urban space and while they use the space, they change, adapt and translate the space. (Hertzberger, 63) All the phenomenon could change the fabric of space and also it affect the our life
Usually fabric seems to be 2-d appearance in city. And it could be read as form or shape of space. However, the form or shape could be translated for our use of space and it also affects urban fabric. So that’s the reason why Pompidou center which broke the flow or urban appearance is weird in Paris, but also it became the part of city currently because people use and translate it to adapt contemporary part with old historical spaces.
FABRIC
Hertzberger describes fabric as the grid of a masterplan - here the fabric is a top-down implementation and/or overlay in which its threads provides the 'objective pattern' or 'proto-form'. He writes: "The grid functions as a generative framework which contains within it the basic inclination that it transmitted to each solution...not only will the parts determine the identity of the whole, but conversely the whole will contribute to the identity of the parts." Whereas Hertzberger and Habraken's articles dwell upon the idea of urban fabric on a conceptual level, Coates focuses on a more physical implementation of fabrics in architecture and design. He concedes that with the advent of digital technology, it is now possible to explore architecture with the properties of fabric, such as reviving the Baroque style 'beyond the limitations of masonry.' He establishes a link between fabric and skin, speaks of skin's dynamic qualities that are architecturally compelling: "skin has the quality of adapting and stretching, but ultimately it needs flesh and bone to support it. It is true that some textiles are so close to the body that they become a second skin, and on other occasions it is the distance between body and textile surface that makes them wearable." Quinn takes it one step further, or one scale down, directly to the fabric that engages our bodies. Most compelling for me is Quinn's statement "Clothing, as an extension of the skin, can be seen as a heat-control mechanism and as a means of defining the self socially. In these respects, clothing and housing are near twins, though clothing is both nearer and elder; for housing extends the inner heat-control mechanisms of our organism, while clothing is a more direct extension of the outer surface of the body." Using the body as an anchor, 'fabric' can then be freely scaled in relationship to it, from clothing itself to the skin of a building, to the connections of a city.
‘As technology accelerates the interface between fashion and architecture, the synergy between them could even rearrange the patters of human association and community, dislocating and dividing individuals into their own self-contained shells rather than unifying them into a single environment.’ (Quinn, 5)
‘That’s hot.’ (Paris Hilton, Tom Wiscombe)
‘That’s hot.’ (Paris Hilton, Tom Wiscombe)
Fabric will soon be an outdated metaphor for an infrastructure that presupposes coherence. Paris and Tom’s famous declaration is the natural result of the emerging nature of the metaphor of fabric into an idea of fashion and further. With mass housing, digital technology, late-capitalism, and the commoditization of common shelter, the means of understanding our urban fabric, even the metaphor of urban fabric, has to be as flexible as a sheet of Mongolian silk, and maybe, as Nigel Coats might argue, much thicker.
Hertzberger discusses the warp and weft of a fabric and uses the metaphor to describe an interdependent relationship between infrastructure and style, but we can see that the two-dimensionality of the metaphor allows for many other possibilities: Structure and geometry, grids and plans, cohesiveness and variation as in Habraken’s writing. The metaphor serves well for initial understanding, but it also presupposes a necessary relationship between coherence spatial continuity.
Habraken discusses fabric the least literally, and, I would argue, the most insightfully. Tracing the history of the modern American and European urban fabric, societal memory and a collective understanding, a cohesion, is shown to be critically important, even in the case of a massive planning event as shown in the example of Paris. ‘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) This seems to imply that it is the weft of the fabric where architecture finds its agency, and the warp is an emergent phenomena. Hertzberger however argues that the warp and weft are ‘reciprocally generative’, (119) the whole informing the part and the part informing the whole.
This seems a comprehensive means to understand the notion of urban fabric. Until one realizes that given the right means, one could find a big mac on six continents within twelve hours without a map, and likely a Starbucks coffee to wash it down. Mass housing and so-called ‘junk spaces’ have rendered obsolete any notion of urban fabric without an understanding of it as also a discontinuous network.
‘[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. . . They cannot properly be called fields.’ (Habraken, 76-77)
Mark Auge begins Non Places – the Anthropology of Supermodernity with the most familiar scene so that almost everyone reading is reading their own first person account. It is the scene of getting through an airport and into the air, from a generic commercial sector onto banal transportation, arriving at a neutral destination to stay in the same new hotel. ‘The artificiality, fragmentation and transience common to urban spaces are, paradoxically, the cohesive elements binding them together.’ (Quinn, 4) The modern global identity is by definition not bound by local conditions, but it is not undefined in its multiplicity. Instead it is often constrained (to use Hertzberger’s word) by what Koolhaas calls ‘…the architecture of junk space…[which] organizes society’s time and space in accordance with consumer agendas.’ (Quinn, 4)
So if one aims to understand the local urban fabric, it is necessary to understand the global trends and nodal relationships. Our metaphor for fabric must be at once both 600 thread count cotton and a thick net. Continuous at a local scale and nodal in nature. In effect, it must be quantum fabric. It is thus that one could argue that San Francisco and Shanghai have more in common than San Francisco and Portland.
‘But the special can also be constructed by the builders of the common house. Is spatial organization can parallel or sharply contrast the typology common to the field. In all such cases, however, we find meaning in the relation of the two, and an expression of the culture of the age.’ (78)
In most of the developed and developing world, formal and informal, it would be hard to find a newly built work that was not in some way a manifestation of a simultaneously local and global culture. In Habraken’s description of Cairo, we see an dense emerging local fabric of houses, concrete slabs upon pillars, with steel reaching out, waiting for the next floor. In my travels to Ecuador last summer, one of the most vivid scenes I can remember is looking out over the Barrios of Guayaquil, seeing these steel flagposts of optimism. A fabric slowly accumulating as societal memory dictates, but reinforced by a network of global trade and production of steel and concrete. A raw, rugged site, but filled with optimism. I, like the owners of the houses, and the reaching steel, can’t wait to see what’s next.
Fabric: Woven vs Surface
Fabric: Woven vs Surface
The idea of fabric seems to go only skin deep in Nigel Coates article skin/weave/pattern. He presents a proposal for the Rainham Marsh in Essex as a culmination of fabric elements in plan that will layer against other random patterns in section to create a three dimensional environment. As if the collage of random geometric patterns applied from high above in the designers chair would somehow create an “identity built into the local DNA” for that community. In another example the author strews jackets across the room to study the architectural potential of the fabrics folds however he does not delve into the potential of fabrics layers, construction methodologies or veiling characteristics. For Coates, fabric is simple a malleable surface that contains two dimensional patterns that should be applied everywhere. He talks about the three dimensional aspects that can be studied with computer modeling, yet the images are about two dimensional surface slapped on a terrain.
Lebbeus Woods presents a poetic article in “Radical Reconstruction,” however idea for inhabiting the devastated city is a more romantic view of the desolation of place than a viable solution. He states that “wherever the restoration of war devastated urban fabric has occurred in the form of replacing what has been damaged or destroyed, it ends as a parody, worthy only of the admiration of tourist.” Many of the worlds most culturally diverse and vibrant cities were war torn and rebuilt including London, Paris, and Rome. The fact that tourist visit these places do not make them equivalent to visiting Epcot in Orlando because a rich local fabric exist with or without visitors. I agree that the local fabric should not be imitated or superficially memorialized. There is richness to these virgin war zones and his says it beautifully writing, “ there exists within this degraded layer of urban fabric another, more intimate scale of complexity that can serve as there point of origin for a new urban fabric.” The pictures that he is trying to paint are not backed by viable models shown through history and begin to make him sound like another quixotic socialist visionary. These environments have always existed and grow further, yet today we call them slums.
Habraken’s commentary “Palladio’s Children” takes a strong urbanist approach of architectural history. He claims that while the buildings facades change overtime, the guts of the building remain ordered by time honored cultural customs. He asserts that the cities architecture can be broken into type, pattern, system which create the block and ultimately the city. It is this social memory that creates the architecture for even those removed from the architecture community, and that while architects try to stylistically break free, the customs ultimately prevail. While I agree with most of Habraken’s urban commentary on field, the conclusions prognoses seems to be a stretch. He grounds his argument for the departure of the time told thematic variety to a centralized shelter on a massive scale as being a decision of professionals. While it is true that the modernist architects were thinking about how to improve the social condition through large scale housing projects, this could only have been a discussion after large scale industrial buildings were already being built in communist and socialist countries. He mentions this, but as an afterthought leading you to believe that it was primarily the ingenuity of the design professional that revolutionized the new housing type rather than the new economic models, industrialized methods and importantly the radical change in political ideologies.
The idea of fabric seems to go only skin deep in Nigel Coates article skin/weave/pattern. He presents a proposal for the Rainham Marsh in Essex as a culmination of fabric elements in plan that will layer against other random patterns in section to create a three dimensional environment. As if the collage of random geometric patterns applied from high above in the designers chair would somehow create an “identity built into the local DNA” for that community. In another example the author strews jackets across the room to study the architectural potential of the fabrics folds however he does not delve into the potential of fabrics layers, construction methodologies or veiling characteristics. For Coates, fabric is simple a malleable surface that contains two dimensional patterns that should be applied everywhere. He talks about the three dimensional aspects that can be studied with computer modeling, yet the images are about two dimensional surface slapped on a terrain.
Lebbeus Woods presents a poetic article in “Radical Reconstruction,” however idea for inhabiting the devastated city is a more romantic view of the desolation of place than a viable solution. He states that “wherever the restoration of war devastated urban fabric has occurred in the form of replacing what has been damaged or destroyed, it ends as a parody, worthy only of the admiration of tourist.” Many of the worlds most culturally diverse and vibrant cities were war torn and rebuilt including London, Paris, and Rome. The fact that tourist visit these places do not make them equivalent to visiting Epcot in Orlando because a rich local fabric exist with or without visitors. I agree that the local fabric should not be imitated or superficially memorialized. There is richness to these virgin war zones and his says it beautifully writing, “ there exists within this degraded layer of urban fabric another, more intimate scale of complexity that can serve as there point of origin for a new urban fabric.” The pictures that he is trying to paint are not backed by viable models shown through history and begin to make him sound like another quixotic socialist visionary. These environments have always existed and grow further, yet today we call them slums.
Habraken’s commentary “Palladio’s Children” takes a strong urbanist approach of architectural history. He claims that while the buildings facades change overtime, the guts of the building remain ordered by time honored cultural customs. He asserts that the cities architecture can be broken into type, pattern, system which create the block and ultimately the city. It is this social memory that creates the architecture for even those removed from the architecture community, and that while architects try to stylistically break free, the customs ultimately prevail. While I agree with most of Habraken’s urban commentary on field, the conclusions prognoses seems to be a stretch. He grounds his argument for the departure of the time told thematic variety to a centralized shelter on a massive scale as being a decision of professionals. While it is true that the modernist architects were thinking about how to improve the social condition through large scale housing projects, this could only have been a discussion after large scale industrial buildings were already being built in communist and socialist countries. He mentions this, but as an afterthought leading you to believe that it was primarily the ingenuity of the design professional that revolutionized the new housing type rather than the new economic models, industrialized methods and importantly the radical change in political ideologies.
Fabric - Anders
Fabric
In the “Palladio's children” reading Habraken talks about spatial organization as the greatest quality in a field. How they are able to combine coherence and variation. The cultural preference has great influence on the urban fabric. In today’s global society where the cultural preference and building technique is getting unified what will happen to the urban fabric? Will a newly planned urban area in China look just like one in America? Are the variations between cities becoming the buildings instead of the urban fabric?
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Fabric__rather off topic but nonetheless...
Fabric
Liwen Zhang
When reading the variety on interesting texts that are posted for the word fabric this week, I felt especially drawn to Bradley Quinn’s piece, The Metropolis, which attempts to bring out the parallels between fashion and architecture.
Having lived most of my life in Hong Kong, an urban metropolis with hyperdensity (of people, cultures, buildings, fashion, trends…etc), the term “culture of hypervisibility” in particular resonated to me. There is definitely a codified surveillance present when you walk through the streets of Hong Kong, where the term “eyes on the street”, as Jane Jacobs would say, is taken to a whole new level – hypervisibility in an area of hyperdensity.
In Hong Kong, fashion is definitely what Quinn would argue as “walking signifiers” of “urban space”. This coupled with the city’s inherent need for speed and efficiency, brings about an intense and accelerated circulation of commodities. The competitive nature of the market in Hong Kong demands products to be consistently recalibrated to not only achieve high turnover rates but also to keep up with demanding consumers. The city has, in a certain sense, gone beyond what Quinn describes as “glorified consumption zones” unto what Walter Benjamin would call a “place of pilgrimage to the fetish Commodity”.
What is interesting about Quinn’s article in this context is how he relates fashion to contemporary discourse in architecture, namely Augé’s non-places and the Foucaultian notion of the ‘heterotopia’ (perhaps not really contemporary discourse in architecture, but nevertheless has a huge impact on how we think about the city). In Ananya Roy’s ED 100 course, we learn of heterotopias to be impossible, ambiguous and imaginative spaces that are not easily pinned down. Aside from the many examples given by Quinn of spaces that could be heterotopias (such as parks, theatres, galleries, libraries), we learn of the camp as another genre of heterotopic space. The example given in class is the detainment camp in Guantanamo Bay, where despite being a US territory, the prisons at the camp exist outside of US laws and jurisdiction. Thus vile acts of violence happen unaccounted for in such spaces. Roy described it to be a “strange extension of American power”, where the prisons are spaces of exception and desubjectification , where there is a suspension of one’s status as a subject. After that particular lecture I felt quite depressed – Roy was basically suggesting that the prison or refugee camp is now a paradigmatical space which questions the way we think about cities and perhaps even serves as a marker to the end of the city. This rather longwinded description has a connection to the Quinn reading, I promise – I basically wanted to bring out a certain contrast to Quinn’s overly optimistic and perhaps even superficial reading of the “potential uses of heterotopic spaces” – as warehouse turned catwalk for high fashion. I understand that it is not the goal of Quinn’s work at all to talk about human desubjectification, however I cannot help but see a vast contrast in the application of the notion of heterotopia illustrated between the two examples.
In our current networked society which requires architecture and planning to respond in hybrid ways, the idea of heterotopia is perhaps fitting – programmatic organization of space then becomes ambiguous and multifaceted. However, as Quinn briefly mentions, this may result in fragmentation of space and culture. How do we as architects and planners then respond to spaces like Guantanamo Bay, where fragmentation has basically taken up a life of its own?
Liwen Zhang
When reading the variety on interesting texts that are posted for the word fabric this week, I felt especially drawn to Bradley Quinn’s piece, The Metropolis, which attempts to bring out the parallels between fashion and architecture.
Having lived most of my life in Hong Kong, an urban metropolis with hyperdensity (of people, cultures, buildings, fashion, trends…etc), the term “culture of hypervisibility” in particular resonated to me. There is definitely a codified surveillance present when you walk through the streets of Hong Kong, where the term “eyes on the street”, as Jane Jacobs would say, is taken to a whole new level – hypervisibility in an area of hyperdensity.
In Hong Kong, fashion is definitely what Quinn would argue as “walking signifiers” of “urban space”. This coupled with the city’s inherent need for speed and efficiency, brings about an intense and accelerated circulation of commodities. The competitive nature of the market in Hong Kong demands products to be consistently recalibrated to not only achieve high turnover rates but also to keep up with demanding consumers. The city has, in a certain sense, gone beyond what Quinn describes as “glorified consumption zones” unto what Walter Benjamin would call a “place of pilgrimage to the fetish Commodity”.
What is interesting about Quinn’s article in this context is how he relates fashion to contemporary discourse in architecture, namely Augé’s non-places and the Foucaultian notion of the ‘heterotopia’ (perhaps not really contemporary discourse in architecture, but nevertheless has a huge impact on how we think about the city). In Ananya Roy’s ED 100 course, we learn of heterotopias to be impossible, ambiguous and imaginative spaces that are not easily pinned down. Aside from the many examples given by Quinn of spaces that could be heterotopias (such as parks, theatres, galleries, libraries), we learn of the camp as another genre of heterotopic space. The example given in class is the detainment camp in Guantanamo Bay, where despite being a US territory, the prisons at the camp exist outside of US laws and jurisdiction. Thus vile acts of violence happen unaccounted for in such spaces. Roy described it to be a “strange extension of American power”, where the prisons are spaces of exception and desubjectification , where there is a suspension of one’s status as a subject. After that particular lecture I felt quite depressed – Roy was basically suggesting that the prison or refugee camp is now a paradigmatical space which questions the way we think about cities and perhaps even serves as a marker to the end of the city. This rather longwinded description has a connection to the Quinn reading, I promise – I basically wanted to bring out a certain contrast to Quinn’s overly optimistic and perhaps even superficial reading of the “potential uses of heterotopic spaces” – as warehouse turned catwalk for high fashion. I understand that it is not the goal of Quinn’s work at all to talk about human desubjectification, however I cannot help but see a vast contrast in the application of the notion of heterotopia illustrated between the two examples.
In our current networked society which requires architecture and planning to respond in hybrid ways, the idea of heterotopia is perhaps fitting – programmatic organization of space then becomes ambiguous and multifaceted. However, as Quinn briefly mentions, this may result in fragmentation of space and culture. How do we as architects and planners then respond to spaces like Guantanamo Bay, where fragmentation has basically taken up a life of its own?
Urban fabric- Digging inside ot it
Jungmi Won
N.J. Habraken examined urban fabric at the aspect of social memory and transformation of the city. With this article, I came up with a question about the eye view seeing urban fabric. In spite that he dealt with transforming issue of city, is it valuable or even possible to think a city as an urban fabric itself? When we think our face, fabric of our face is only a tissue covering bone structure. One’s appearance is already decided in the level of bone figure. Then, if urban fabric makes a character or impression of a city, don’t we have to focus on its structure, energy flow or inner layer than fabric to scrutinize its route of transform?
Ram Koolhass said that ‘Not only are large of its surface occupied by architectural mutations, utopian fragments and irrational phenomena, but in addition each block is covered with several layers of phantom architecture in the form of past occupancies…’ e in his book, Delirious NY. He saw NY as a city covered with fabric expressing desires.
Urban fabric is a subject that we can approach in terms of transformation and it is the main figure of city. But, I cannot shake off a thought it is a superficial approach without level of somewhat software. It’s because I keep thinking the radical transforming of city like Lebbeus. ‘In the spaces voided by deconstruction, new structure can be injected. Complete in themselves, they do not fit exactly into the voids, but exist as spaces within spaces, making no attempt to reconcile the gaps between what is new and old, between two radically different system of spatial order and thought.’ (2page, Radical reconstruction)
Also, with this phrase, ‘Healing is not illusory, cosmetic process, but something that-by articulating difference-both deeply divides and joins together’. I come up with a sentence ‘The professionals of the city are like chess players who lose to computers…We have to imagine 1,001 other concepts of city; we have to take insane risk; we have to dare to be utterly uncritical; we have to swallow deeply and bestow forgiveness left and right. (P971, What ever happened to Urbanism?)
What we see in the city is how we pursue. I wish urban fabric can be accepted as a result not a phenomenon.
N.J. Habraken examined urban fabric at the aspect of social memory and transformation of the city. With this article, I came up with a question about the eye view seeing urban fabric. In spite that he dealt with transforming issue of city, is it valuable or even possible to think a city as an urban fabric itself? When we think our face, fabric of our face is only a tissue covering bone structure. One’s appearance is already decided in the level of bone figure. Then, if urban fabric makes a character or impression of a city, don’t we have to focus on its structure, energy flow or inner layer than fabric to scrutinize its route of transform?
Ram Koolhass said that ‘Not only are large of its surface occupied by architectural mutations, utopian fragments and irrational phenomena, but in addition each block is covered with several layers of phantom architecture in the form of past occupancies…’ e in his book, Delirious NY. He saw NY as a city covered with fabric expressing desires.
Urban fabric is a subject that we can approach in terms of transformation and it is the main figure of city. But, I cannot shake off a thought it is a superficial approach without level of somewhat software. It’s because I keep thinking the radical transforming of city like Lebbeus. ‘In the spaces voided by deconstruction, new structure can be injected. Complete in themselves, they do not fit exactly into the voids, but exist as spaces within spaces, making no attempt to reconcile the gaps between what is new and old, between two radically different system of spatial order and thought.’ (2page, Radical reconstruction)
Also, with this phrase, ‘Healing is not illusory, cosmetic process, but something that-by articulating difference-both deeply divides and joins together’. I come up with a sentence ‘The professionals of the city are like chess players who lose to computers…We have to imagine 1,001 other concepts of city; we have to take insane risk; we have to dare to be utterly uncritical; we have to swallow deeply and bestow forgiveness left and right. (P971, What ever happened to Urbanism?)
What we see in the city is how we pursue. I wish urban fabric can be accepted as a result not a phenomenon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)