New topic, stemming from Reading 10 discussion

I think that the easier it is to achieve something, the less valuable the thing becomes. This applies to commodities, relationships, services, etc. It's like the book we're reading for this class, talking about anticipation - the time of desire; that is where pleasure builds. I wonder if that applies more to females then men, you know, since a lot of men just don't understand the necessity of 'foreplay'. Is it a biological inheritance that women enjoy 'the wait' (not just for sex) more than men? Can enjoyment be quantified? Or, does removing the time of desire quicken the achievement of pleasure? (It could be a bit of both, depending on the context, ie 'a quick fuck' vs 'making love')... What do you think?

Arjun Appadurai speaks of the “Mediascape” as the distribution, production and dissemination of information through the medium of newspapers, television, film, magazines etc. Arjun contends that the Mediascapes supply the world with a “repertoire of images, narratives, and ethnoscapes.” Furthermore, this complex repertoire makes it difficult for the public to decipher between a realistic and a fictional landscape thus one is encouraged to “construct imagined worlds.” There is a distance between what we perceive via the mediascape on the “screen” of information. I suppose what Arjun is implying is that because there is a disjuncture between what is seen and what is actually there in space-time, constructs of assumptions are made. In this sense it is almost like a catch 22 situation, wherein we make constructs in our minds of the world from a distance because that is what we think it is like, but then because we think it we apply it. We perpetuate our imagined world. In effect we impose our imagined world into actual constructs and create what we perceive. Catch 22, we think it therefore we see it, therefore it is. A perfect example of this is how we interpret what we read on the Internet. The other day Judith informed me of an article on the Net that wrote of a man that was bombed by the police in the U.S for appearing suspicious. I have preconceived notions about the justice system and the police force, therefore I found it easy to believe that this was true. The story, fictional or not, perpetuated the imagined construct I have created in my head of the U.S When this occurs as a collective of people I think our constructs become reality.

I think everyone with the capacity to dream, has a unique utopia envisioned in their minds eye. All of these respective utopias are all valid for each individual but I doubt that any of them would be appropriate as an ‘universal’ utopia. In his writings on "Globalization, The polotics of identity and social hope” Richard Rotry mentions that we have lost our hope for utopia. Concepts like the free market and democracy are considered starting points, or rules to follow to obtain the ultimate utopia, a classless society. I think that utopia is not something that has been forgotten by the masses, but set aside because it is deemed fictional within the context of our global consumerist society. Personally I find the idea of utopia hard to take seriously considering the exponential amount of circumstances that would have to coincide so that EVERYONE’S beliefs were respected. I think it was extremely naive of our predecessors to believe that world issues could be solved through solely political or economical means. Because, when you get down to it, politics and economics are part of the problem. Political disagreements and economic inequalities contribute to our current condition between utopia and dystopia because they often ignore or dismiss beliefs, rules or occurrences that do not directly affect them.
I agree with Rotry on his basic methods for creating a classless society. Our situation requires a historical narrative in which to reference past situations and solutions, learn about them and consequently from them in order to construct a method for approaching problems today and in the future. This type of process is common in many contemporary guidelines, like the building code. Although there are still many faults within building code rules and regulations I think that the basis for them is a step closer to Utopia than concepts like the free market. One positive aspect of the building code is that each guideline is based on local situations and local histories. For example fire codes were not rigorously enforced until after until after the great fire in 1904 in Toronto. I do not suggest that our lives be constrained and governed by strict codes and regulations, I am merely pointing out the devices which guide the creation of the building code and how those could have positive influences on our everlasting quest for a classless society.

It has been my understanding that the difference between shade and shadow is that the latter is a 2-dimensional surface, while the former is a volume of space. So, one can occupy shade, but not a shadow. While thinking about how to access light from my studio project, which is shaded by the TD tower, I realized that 'shade,' as a volume of shadowed space, doesn't exist!! What exists instead, is a realm that has the potential to project shadow onto a surface. But the air itself doesn't receive 'shadow' (except, perhaps at the scale of air particles, but I will have to look into that). I realized this when I was imagining myself on-site, looking North, and thinking (in the imagination), 'why can't I see the edge of the shaded region when I look up at the sky?' And my answer (encouraged by Evan, with whom I was discussing this phenomenon) was that there is only an edge of shade through shadow, which requires an object (or high humidity) in order to project its image; shade is really only an area of potential shadow.

How does this relate to theory? I think that the reason I was confused had to do with the method that I have studied shadows: 'shadow-studies' - diagramatic drawings of shaded (shadowed) regions, always shown in 2-dimensions (plan, elevation, sometimes axo). I have actually been substituting knowledge of a phenomenon with the lessons learned from a specific means of representation! So, I have a question for the group: can we learn something different about the projects we design through the different ways of 'representing' them? (Ie, would the project that you're currently working on develop or change if you choose a means of representation other than your current one(s)? Or, is the design purely in the brain and would turn out relatively the same, regardless of the means used to bring it into reality?

Hey guys, here are the links I've been mentioning:
www.futurefeeder.com (fusions of technology and architecture)
http://graffitiresearchlab.com (click on laser tag - how long before that is taken over by advertising?)

Recently I watched Kevin Kelly (an expert in digital culture) talk about the similarities between the evolution of biology and technology. But there was one question he asked that I think relates to Rosters article, that is, what does technology want? What is technology’s ultimate goal? Roster states, “the technological universe is impervious to the here and there. Rather, the natural place for its operations is the entire human environment.” Does this mean that technology wants to be apart of the entire human environment? Does technology strive to become the human environment? If technologies natural place is within the human environment, what are the effects of technology becoming the human environment? On some level technology has already succeeded in becoming the environment as in the case of CAVES and other virtual reality interfaces. I think that technology’s prime objective is to organize and simplify life so that to get to Z from A you no longer have to go through the entire alphabet of processes. Keeping this in mind, does that mean technology has the capacity to simplify the processes of life to the degree that to live is to die?

“The issue therefore is no longer the “crisis of modernity,” the progressive degradation of common ideals, the proto-foundation of History’s meaning benefiting narratives which are more or less linked to the autonomous development of an individual, but rather a crisis of the narrative itself. That is, the crisis of an official discourse or mode of representation bound until now to the universally recognized capacity to assert, describe and inscribe reality.” –Paul Virilio

Virilio speaks of a crisis of non-narrative, and that there is no overriding language of representation that will speak to, in a sense, the masses. However, Virilio also speaks of the monotony of urban development today, which for me indicates that there is most certainly an overriding discourse, which is evident in how we construct our cities. Aren’t suburbs, mass communication systems, and transportation networks indications that there is a universal understanding of how to conduct oneself in the environment, and that there are representational norms that describe reality? Certainly the communication networks are seemingly infinite and in a constant state of renewal, but the rules don’t seem to change, one is simply an extension of the other. Perhaps the crisis of narrative is not that there is no narrative, but rather that it is constantly being updated. The competitive and non-committal nature of our economic culture implies that something can always be manipulated, whether it is a computer program, or a neighborhood. However, those slight improvements can cause fundamental shifts in the nature of the “game”, whereby the users need to shift at the same pace in order to maintain a sense of equal negotiation with the narrative. Are we suffering from a loss of narrative or are we just not educating ourselves of the new way in which to recognize the narrative?

Here's an excerpt from a conversation with a friend earlier tonight (posted with permission). What do you guys think about these topics? Aside from the topics, I find it interesting that through msn, you can carry on multiple conversations at once, not just with different people, but with a single person. And that the timeframe of those conversations is non-linear (you can answer a question a few minutes later without having to say 'oh, about that question...'. Also interesting is how easily and quickly a private conversation can become public: copy, paste!

10:57:26 PM jan: hmmm. and I don't think making a building look like a speeding train is the answer...that kind a shit bugs me
10:57:58 PM bobbie: yes i don't think a building should 'look like' anything
10:57:59 PM jan: that and the buildings that look like they've exploded to reference decontruction
10:58:34 PM bobbie: what do you mean by reference deconstruction
10:59:14 PM jan: ah, I mean in sociological terms...the idea of multiplicity and plurality
10:59:27 PM bobbie: which means...
10:59:36 PM jan: and those buildings that look like exploded glass
11:00:53 PM jan: perhaps I can't really explain it all that well
11:01:27 PM bobbie: try
11:01:57 PM jan: I suppose it just bugs me when superficial changes to the form of a building are made into philosophical treatises about the break down of society or dystopian visions
11:02:59 PM bobbie: superficial meaning... facade?
11:03:13 PM jan: yah
11:03:44 PM bobbie: yes but for the most of us, we enter very few buildings, i think that how most of us experience architecture is through the facade
11:03:51 PM bobbie: (us meaning general public)
11:04:07 PM bobbie: i think facade can be meaningful
11:04:30 PM jan: a very interesting point
11:04:48 PM jan: but on what level and purpose is the facade important?
11:05:08 PM bobbie: it shapes the environment in which it is placed
11:05:14 PM jan: is it important to create a friendly pedestrian space?
11:05:35 PM jan: or is it to tell the pedestrian what's inside?
11:05:40 PM bobbie: i don't think you can isolate elements of a space - they all work together
11:05:59 PM bobbie: i don't think the facade necessarily has to mimic the inside
11:06:49 PM bobbie: but it is the skin, the interface between 'outside' and 'inside' (that's what I've been learning, anyway) and can be a poetic statement, or socially charged, or whatever
11:07:43 PM jan: I guess I'm trying to fit what I learned from oneredpaperclip to the idea of arch and what it can be?
11:07:59 PM bobbie: i think we're all asking 'what can architecture be'
11:08:13 PM bobbie: hence being in school, where you're afforded time to do so
11:08:21 PM bobbie: (through projects)
11:08:42 PM jan: is endlessly fiddling with the facade meaningful, relevant to today's issues and needs?
11:08:45 PM bobbie: but then again, you know my thoughts on architecture as an 'institution'
11:08:53 PM bobbie: yes
11:09:01 PM jan: yes, and you know mine
11:09:30 PM bobbie: isn't that how you manipulate and begin to approach the question you just asked
11:10:29 PM bobbie: it's like the outside really is the inside... all these facades in an urban environment.... an in-between out and in... the outside is semi-framed by facades... like walls
11:11:05 PM bobbie: and how a street 'looks' certainly affects how people 'feel'
11:11:16 PM jan: it would be awesome to re-evaluate the function of arch for a project
11:11:25 PM bobbie: and i think there's more to it than visual aesthetics...
11:11:38 PM jan: ...including the facade...yes
11:11:50 PM bobbie: it's like every time you introduce an 'object' into a space, space (air, pressure, etc) gets displaced
11:12:02 PM bobbie: so the form affects the 'feel' of the space
11:12:15 PM bobbie: and accoustics
11:12:27 PM bobbie: and haptic senses
11:12:58 PM bobbie: it contributes to the creation of an 'envinronment', hence the term 'urban environment'

Simultaneity translated by Florian Koehl.

I attended Thursday’s lecture by Florian Koehl who spoke of simultaneity. The lecture stimulated a lot of excitement for me about architecture. I have been finding more and more that I am attending these lectures and leaving with the sense that I don’t fully “get it”; I am missing something. I have always found architectural theory to be a fascinating topic, but often it is inaccessible to me as it can take a long time for me to process its relevance. There is no immediacy of recognition. However with Koehl’s lecture I felt that the way in which he integrated theory into practice was brilliant. Sometimes it’s hard for me to imagine how theory can be tangible, how a concept or a philosophy can be something that is felt by the human body. His description of precedents for simultaneity; the work of Gordon Matta-Clarke, as one example, struck me and I immediately was able to understand how he perceives this term manifesting architecturally. I suppose the excitement for me lies in the fact that as designers we can manifest our perception of theory via architecture. It doesn’t even matter if you agree or not in the meaning or the relationship to the theory, just the idea that we have the opportunity. The notion that a cityscape can be this dynamic and potent setting where interstitial space serves as a bridge, connecting meaningful thought, is so incredibly interesting. His lecture made me understand the reality of what we are trying to do in school, and that theory can be accessible, it can be synthesized into useful architecture.

Want and Need what do we do more of?


So I have been thinking the last couple if days about want and need in reference to architecture as well as in terms of relation to other human beings. I was wondering if the two are the same or if they are different. Could we survive with out a companion or do we tell ourselves we need one? Or do we want one? Could we survive without architecture or do we tell ourselves we need it? Or want it? How does this apply to the individual? I need to express myself on a regular basis and I want to do this through the means of a companion and through the means of architecture.... or do I really want to? Does my personality direct me to this conclusion or are there other influences? Who tells me what I need or what I want. More over who decides these two things? And who validates them? You, me, the masses, who?

Encoding Decoding

Hall talks about the occurrence of misunderstandings because of a ‘lack of equivalence” between the communicating parties. Do you think this ‘lack of equivalence’ occurs between architects and users? If so, why?

If communication is achieved through the articulation of codes, some natural and some constructed, what are the natural codes of architecture?

Holl claims that an event can only be experienced through communication. However, can an idea exist as an event, without a physical manifestation? Furthermore, is it possible for an event to be non-communicative?

Holl states that, “Broadcasting must yield encoded messages in the form of meaningful discourse, because a message can’t have an effect if it is not meaningful.” What does the consumer experience if the meaning is not consciously understood but still present?

How does the production of meaning in the architectural design phase become circulated and redistributed into the formation of physical space?

In the architectural communication process what does it mean to consume encoded space? Can one consume the space without occupying it, for instance by looking at a photograph?

Is architecture a means of communication? Or is it its own entity, beyond literal (denotative or connotative) readings? Why do we apply communicative theory to architecture? Can architecture exist as something other than a derivative of, or subscriber to literary communication?


The ecstasy of communication

Opinion:
In the Baudrillard article, Roland Barthes is referenced, saying that we no longer have a logic for driving but a “subjective logic of possession and projection,” due to a loss of fantasy for the speed and power status of the car. It is possible that this loss of fantasy is due in part to the rise of digital media; we no
longer depend on our minds to fantasize, but rather rely on technology to do it for us. We have created a pseudo fantastical universe by allowing digitization to penetrate our consciousness. What are some other possible sources for the loss of fantasy?

Opinion:
It was proposed in the reading that there is no longer a connection between our objects and our personal identities. Perhaps we have become disconnected from our objects because we no longer need to rely on our own efforts to obtain them, as we have credit at our disposal; our purchasing power creates a false sense of ownership over objects that we possess only because we have a substantial amount of artificial income.

Opinion:
Depending on the mode of interaction between human and object, perhaps the object exists as mirror AND screen (identity AND use value). For instance, the decision to purchase a 'power car' may be identity-based, and the car is a power symbol when it's parked out front, but once in the driver’s seat, the use-value becomes dominant (but power symbol certainly still exists).

In the blurring of public and private spaces, what happens to the states of the 'individual' and 'collective': are their limits also beginning to overlap, and if so, what does this mean in 'real' terms?

In defining ‘obscenity,’ Baudrillard states that, “It is…what no longer has any secret, [it is] what dissolves completely in information and communication.” What is the value of obscenity in architecture, where architectural obscenity is understood as the clear legibility of form and space (for instance when you can ‘read’ what is beyond the façade from visual cues)?

To what extent does the flattening of the communication surface (speaking of the transition from communicating in a physical area to communicating in cyberspace) affect the understanding of, and interaction with space?

When people communicate through the Internet or other “placeless” forums of communication, are their minds more connected to the physical space or virtual space? In the latter case, would this be considered a “projection” or “extension” of self?

Some points of discussion...

Discussion 1
Coding in the design phase of architecture: from Hall's article, we can extrapolate that it is better to make an attempt at inscribing our designs with meaning than not to do so at all; while there is a risk of being misinterpreted, there is also the possibility that at least some of the message will be 'decoded.' In our time period, what forms of meaning are inscribed into architectural designs? Can those meanings be translated into the 'real' (built) world, and can people then read them in the building itself, or can they only exist in the design phase? (Related to the next question)

Discussion 2
Is architecture more closely related to an 'event' or a 'communicative event'? At what point can architecture be considered an 'event', and at what point is it a 'communicative event'? What happens when (if) these states of being overlap?
Or, to take it further, IS architecture a means of communication?? Or is it its own entity, beyond literal (denotative or connatitive) readings? Why do we apply communicative theory to architecture? Can architecture exist as something other than a derivative of / subscriber to literary communication?

Discussion 3
If, as Hall states, "...the audience is both the 'source' and the 'receiver' of the television message," what does this mean for the designer? Who is the audience of architecture (the client, the general public, other architects, all of the above)? For instance, in the case of an affordable housing project, should the architect design for the non-architecturally educated general public / future inhabitants, defaulting to publically understood typologies ('dominant codes / denotations')?

How can a hierarchy of coding be designed into architecture (coding for the public, coding for the architects, coding for corporations...)?

Discussion 4
Archiectural theory lag in the general public - is the general public not operating within Architecture's 'dominant code,' or, is Architecture not operating within the general public's 'dominant' code?

Discussion 5
What is the value of having 'legible,' or 'denotative' architecture? Is there also value in 'miscommunication' / connatatitive architecture? Can architecture be purely connatative, or are there always denotative cues present?

Discussion 6
Which 'hypothetical position' most applies to architecture: 'dominant-hegemonic position' (dominant and professional codes are easily read by the 'audience'); 'negotiated position' (where there may be some understanding at a global level but not in the local context); or 'oppositional postiion' (where there may be some understanding at a local level, but not at a globla level). Or, asked another way, what are the architectural equivalents of these positions?

Discussion 7
Multiple coding in advertising - isn't this referred to as subliminal advertising? Is there such thing as 'subliminal architecture'?

Okay not everything has to be linked to the architectural context. That's just how I've been thinking about this article, I guess...

Facilitator for ego and vanity? Indicator of cultural values? 'New' means of collective communication? Identity badge? Opiate of the masses (ultimate distraction from real news by focussing on the 'friends' pseudo-news-feed; instigator of social-cause apathy)? An arena for the diffusion of useless information or propaganda? Form of self-empowerment (taking power away from socially-ascribed labels by enabling a public identity-awareness campaign)? Self-indulgence or public forum? Blurring of private-public boundaries? Blurring individual-collective boundaries? A placeless community? A non-place place (your home-page becomes an identifiable place)? FACEBOOK. Let's discuss.

The death of fantasy!

Roland Barthes professes that we no longer have a logic for driving but a subjective logic due to a loss of fantasy for speed and for machine of the car. Is this loss of fantasy due to the rise of digital media being that we no longer depend on our minds to fantasize but rather rely on technology to do it for us? Have we created a pseudo fantastical universe by allowing digitization to penetrate our consciousness at every level?
It was also said in the reading that the television makes our places of habitation a space to both receive and distribute data, lending telematic power to habitation in a sense. Telematic power implies the ability to regulate things from a distance. Perhaps this condition of dis-contact and over regulation has additionally contributed to our loss of fantasy. We are at a loss for spontaneous projection therefore everything is calculated, controlled and regulated. Everything is a device, even our habitats. Thus given that our homes take on a device like machine character they become predictable, just like many things have because they are products of technology and communication. When we have the ability to predict outcomes our ability to fantasize is compromised. As actors of fantasy we lose currency and are replaced by mere bodies within a telematic system projected to the universe in what Baudrillard refers to as a screen.

I was thinking about what we discussed in the last class in regards to identity mechanisms and generators. It was pointed out that we are in a state of identity crisis today due to an over saturation of referential systems and points of reference. There are so many micro networks, groups and systems from which to draw that what results is an identity due to linkages. I found this explanation to be similar to the manner in which major corporations strategize their expansion or how they target their market. There is a trend in marketing and corporate growth to gain power by association or by merging with multiple corporations to create a super brand. This is in many ways is similar to how we gain our identity, as it seems that through linkages we generate a power structure. Pepsi sponsors Britney Spears who appears in the latest Warner Bros movie, which premiered at Silvercity theatres, which sells Pepsi products. Power of association is at work here. I think our identity grows in a way that is both natural and constructed. I think it is arguable that our constructed identity perhaps prevails. Lifestyle creation and branding is becoming more and more popular. I think we are attracted by the total identity facsimile created by lifestyle branding being that we pull from only one family of identity and take our cues from there. Presently I work for Club Monaco and it has become more and more evident to me how they are not only a brand but they are trying to create a lifestyle/culture. If you are a male and subscribe to the Club Monaco identity you wear our staple Charlie Dress Pant with the white Jagger B, your home is furnished with products from Caban (sister company), you listen to the prescribed Club Monaco CD’s and you tuck your ipod into the leather stitched ipod sleeve. We seem to gain our identity through purchasing power, which is another identity mechanism. The products we associate with link our person to their brand identity and vice versa.

For our dinner and a movie we made sushi and watched the movie “Control Room”. Portrayed as an Iraqi perspective on the media coverage of the War on Iraq, “Control Room” is a documentary that attempts to rectify the tainted image painted by the Bush administration of the News station Al Jazeera. One point made during the movie, which I found to be extremely interesting and depressing was a comment made by the CEO of Al Jazeera that the wars today are often fought and won through the media. He went on to say that today a good general is measured by their ability to control and manipulate the media to their advantage. I could relate this to how architecture is often solely judged on images from the media, such as magazines etc. we are an image happy culture but I think us in the design world are image gluttons. And not only image gluttons but like the CEO of AL Jazeera suggested about a good general, we are image manipulator specialists. We have the abilities to render a design completely fallaciously, and like the “good general” we create these false images to win bids, competitions and clients. I realize that our ‘lies’ do not directly affect peoples lives in regards to life and death but they are still ‘lies’ and I think they should have no place in design, just as they should have no place on the battlefield.

Apologies for my somewhat tardy blog on this topic, however I still wanted to respond to it.
I attended the David Leatherbarrow lecture and found it to be quite thought provoking. His lecture discussed his personal philosophy on the line between what is landscape and what is architecture. He remarked that one difference between landscape and architecture was that the landscape is able to renew itself whereas buildings require repair. But what I found to be of considerable relevance was his concepts of flux and the theorization of landscape. He noted that we create and teach architecture in an environment of construction, when an environment of cultivation would be more appropriate. I thought about that for a while and there is something about his concept of growth that appeals to me. I think the idea of a city or a place that is cultivated implies a sense integration and passive determination that I think is a positive thing. Certainly he is coming from a strong “landscape” perspective, as the land is often cultivated, but also many landscape designers will never live to see the fruits of their labor, as cultivation also implies a time based growth. However I don’t see that as a deterrent by any means, we work within a “results” based vocation, however it would be more interesting if we accepted a slow catalytic approach. The lifetime of our designs should be as much about a process as the act of conceiving it.

“This new image–space is a surrogate reality that can no longer be judged for either its authenticity or its accuracy for its referent is absent.” -Boyer

I find this quote to be regrettably accurate. From my point of view, I would say that there are very few places that are not “image-space”, and that are authentic. It has become our nature to make our spaces marketable, part of that marketability is formulating a description of a place that the public can identify with. We have done this time and time again with communities, districts, zones and crossroads such as Times Square, where in order to communicate a place with others we apply definitions. If a place does not already have an image than we will give it one, in fact we have gotten quite skilled at naming the nameless. We use words like “vibrant”, “open”, “animated”, and “unique” to name place. We live in a world of adjectives and we feel like we know a place through the description of strangers. These “words” have become so commonplace that we start to feel like we really do know a place, not unlike New York for example. For me there wasn’t much difference between actually standing in Times Square than from imagining what it was like in my head. Or perhaps this fictive or cliché description of the place has rendered it un-experiential because you cannot remove yourself from what you have been told it is like. In that sense “authentic” is just another adjective we use to describe place, it holds no further meaning for us, we have exhausted its meaning.

Travel,

I guess just to start off a general discussion is a question that I have been pondering the last week.

The question is about travel and what it means to everyone. Do you think to travel you need to physically relocate your body and mind or do you think you can just relocate one of the two?

I have been thinking about this for the last while and I am not really sure. I could definitely agree reasonably either way but I am not really sold on any of my arguments presently.

And further more to add to the discussion is what gives us the right then to build buildings on sites we do not have 100% understanding on. Leon mentioned time after time that local knowledge is the best knowledge but is it? Everyone has his or her own perspective on the issue. So is it our job as architects to sift through worlds of information and decode what we see? Who gives us the right?

But I am really interested in is your definition of travel and how than do we project our definition of travel onto a project.

Out With the Old?

The other night Spencer Trombley and I had a discussion about the reluctance of those in the world of architecture to accept the progression from one style of architecture to the next, particularly from modernism to postmodernism. The modernist resistances against the ever-present shift towards postmodernism exhibits something about the ideals and presumptions inherent in the modernism style. I think that modernism is exposing itself as a limiting factor, as a boundary containing the amount of exploration and creativity permitted in the architecture world. Spencer and I discussed what our basic conceptions of post-modernism were and came to one broad attempt at defining postmodernism: the acceptance and celebration of all forms of spatial exploration (including modernism). What was interesting to me in regards to this present state of architectural style was the occurrence of resistance, and the reactions to that resistance towards deconstructivism. I believe that resistance and “thresholds of change” occur because of our ever-pressing search for conclusions, as a society and as a discipline. We start revolutions and write manifestos with the intention of changing the current state of things. We set goals, but in design rarely do we accomplish them. I think we are unable to reach our goals for three main reasons. Firstly, our goals are sometimes unreachable because of their associations with a utopia. These goals are blindly optimistic because they do not consider the greater context of things. Secondly, our goals are ever evolving and ever regenerating. With each new style of architecture and each new mind introduced to that style brings alternate perspectives, these perspectives are the catalysts for the manipulation of goals. Le Corbusier and Mies Van Der Rohe were both modernist architects but struggled for different modernist beliefs. Thirdly, the goals within each realm of architecture are often contradictory. For example, the Universal Style was intended to be a universal architecture to be accepted around the globe. But, the materials, form and functional program did not coincide with that agenda. Lastly, we never find closure or a sense of accomplishment in our work. Not once have I heard in my learning of architecture that “this building satisfies every aspect of the DeStijl (or brutalism, or Romanesque etc).” I think deconstructivism's proposal of a mosaic of styles and attitudes should provide for an interesting palette for reliving future designers from the burden of solving the ever pressing question of what is the best architecture?

I didn't understand the difference between sign and symbol so Joel explained it to me. If I understood him correctly then here are the definitions: a sign is composed of a signified and a signifier, whereby the signifier is the form (for instance, a sketch) of the signified; the signified is the 'concept' the the signifier (sketch) is trying to convey. So, if you draw a sketch of "shoe", the sketch is the signifier, and the concept of :shoe" is the signified. So, there are two components to sign. Symbol, on the other hand, is a form from which the meaning is inseparable. The example Joel gave was that a polyester dress in the 1960s was a symbol of mod fashion, whereas a polyester dress now refers to the concept of 'hey, remember that mod style that happened back in the 60s, i like those dresses,' however the original meaning of 'mod' no longer applies, and is even destroyed. Here, the dress is a sign. Joel further explained that fashion no longer exists as 'symbol' - it's a sign; it's a commodity. Now with Joel's generous clarification, I will comment on the reading after I read it again...
(T.A. $$ for Joel? mmmm?)

I think this article makes some very valid points about our culture today, being that it is a post-industrial consumerist culture. What I find valuable is the discussion on Wal-mart and how their business philosophy exemplifies the nature of our culture. I think it is interesting to look at corporations such as Wal-mart in a variety of perspectives. From a typical finance and business perspective Wal-mart is an extremely successful business. It behaves exactly how a corporation was designed to behave. Divide and conquer. I think that many in the business world tend to be narrow minded in their traditional Adam Smith belief that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. When an American corporation grows, expands and becomes profitable, America's economy also grows with it. I just don't believe this to be so, and the article proves that by stating that the introduction of Wal-mart to a small town literally renders that community uneconomical by obliterating any and all other competition, i.e. the death of the small business.

There has been a development in the measure of a countries economic success that is not primarily based on monetary values. The HDI (human development index) is a measure of a countries well-being, that unlike the presently accepted GDP (gross domestic product), considers labor, resources and finances devoted to things like war, securities, etc. a debit to the nation rather than a credit. In other words if a business that sells personal weapons and home security products has a very successfully year financially that is actually bad for the economy as is implies that there are greater issues at steak and a need to defend oneself. I would consider the growth of a company like Wal-mart to be a debit on the countries economy as the result of it profitability means the loss of jobs and financial stability for others.

i recently attended the Jean Trottier lecture regarding the design process and the influence of digital media technology. Jean questioned the value of relying of CAD programs and other digital image making programs during the design process. He seemed to side with the notion that digital media hinders the design process. One of his reasonings was that the human body becomes disconnected from the lines of the image, as the hand is not physically dictating it, and another was that scale becomes somewhat lost on a computer image. I think there are certainly qualities to a hand drawn image that cannot be replicated on the computer, however CAD has many abilities that hand drawing does not. In terms of scale I dont think either hand nor computer can really provide an accurate scale description, only the actual 1:1 representation can do that. In regards to process making with the computer i think there are possibilities that have not been explored. We tend to use the computer to genereate final images, however it can just as easily be used to generate a narrative of process work by simply reinterpreting how it is used. I think by denying the importance of the computer in everyday life, especially in the education system is dangerous. It is obviously a valuable medium and i think we are sending our graduates out into the real world unprepared for the demands of the workforce.

Howdy fellow blog mates!

Larraine and I were talking about watching some of the movies which have been comming up in the readings as well as having a loverly dinner together. Sofar fridays and/or saturdays seem to be the best day to hold these events. What do you think ladies? This is not limited to our group members, feel free to invite other people from the theory class. The first date for this movie-dinner will be on February Second (sorry Candace if you are still away, we can wait until you return if you prefer). See ya soon. Judith

Popular Capitalism and Popular Culture

14 David Harvey< Aesthetics of ethics seriously

What do we do when we get confused about life…. apparently we turn to aesthetics. When we are unsure about scientific and moral reasoning, gaps are created and we fill them in with aesthetics-good to know.

So is this in some form why we shop? Because images take over narrative and well, once there is no narrative, why not buy products that aim to fill in the gaps. And time, what about time…. now I am overwhelmed about time. Because there is a loss in the sense of time and space, I no longer know how to even locate myself within a hotel.

*As societies have pushed forward in time, a measurement of confidence in era has been signified and assessed by the “width of the gap between scientific and moral reasoning”- David Harvey, what does this mean. How can you measure confidence of an era if you did not belong to the era? Well how can you argue with this assessment when it is a theorization? Characteristically, as humans we fill in the gaps of unknown information because in some shape or form it follows a pattern. Similar to the patterns found on Mars I think…anyways… Maybe this assessment of an era's confidence has worked a couple times because the conditions were suitable for a meta-narrative capitalism. But how about now-current day- what guarantee do we have that this is even the right way to asses. I guess the question is what information is missing between scientific and moral reasoning that is linked to the past, present, and future. We need to fill in the gaps but not just one person all of us but how when we are only capable of retaining so much information.

Lets go shopping!

i-glut

In his article on “Postmodernism and Consumerist Society” Fredric Jameson states that it is common for our society to obliterate historical data as quickly as possible from our attention, he titles this occurrence our historical amnesia. The media is suggested to be the main instrument in aiding us to forget our past through maintaining a constant flow broadcasting the present. I do not believe that our society is as eager to forget as Jameson insists. I think that our society does not have a problem with remembering our past; we have holidays, parades and celebrations reminding us of our past. I think that this “historical amnesia” that Jameson speaks of comes from the bulge of information introduced into our lives by the Internet. In previous generations traditional and cultural knowledge was passed down through local cultural ties. Now, because of the Internet we have access to a global library of traditional and cultural information. The cultural filters of our families and communities do not have as much of an effect on what we learn and assimilate into our values. We are faced with an information overload. I do not think any mind is capable of retaining and understanding all of the information provided by the Internet, and this is why I suggest that we do not choose to forget our history; we are unable retain all of the information presented to us without proper filters. How should we respond to the absense of these important knowledge filters? How can we reintroduce them into our daily lives without feeling constrained or sheltered?

-Judith


“Postmodernism and Consumer Society”

13 Fedric Jameson.

Individualism/death of that?

A vision of the modernist was to launch a “unique self and private identity, a unique personality and individuality, which can be expected to generate its own unique vision of the world and to forge its own unique, unmistakable style”-Fedric Jameson. So did it not? How about Postmodernism what did it contribute to individualism? Collage personality, pastiche personalities.

Both periods have unique characteristics that are reflected in each individual person. Individualism is defined as a term used to describe a moral, political, or social outlook that stresses human independence and the importance of individual self-reliance and liberty. Individualists promote the unrestricted exercise of individual goals and desires. They oppose most external interference with an individual's choices - whether by society, the state, or any other group or institution. Individualism is therefore opposed to holism, collectivism, communalism, and communitarianism, which stress that communal, group, societal, racial, or national goals should take priority over individual goals. Individualism is also opposed to the view that tradition, religion, or any other form of external moral standard should be used to limit an individual's choice of actions.- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism

So is there really no such thing as individualism? Are the theorists right that in competitive capitalism there was such thing as individualism but today in corporate capitalism there is no such thing? Or was it just a myth so we would all feel like individuals and not cattle. Referring back to Wikipedias definition of individualism there is no such thing. The definition would mean we never have contact with other humans. It is true that we all have characteristics of one another but what make us individual I feel are our perspectives and our imaginations. No one can ever have the same perspective or same imagination as the next person. Just because we think we all see green we do not. Everyone sees the color in a different variation. Even if we dress the same and on the most part look the same, it does not mean we are the same. We all embody different information regarding the past present and future. Like Judith had mentioned there is too much info for one individual to obtain. When placed together we create a collective, a wealth of potentially shared knowledge. We are not incapable of having a unique vision of the world but by having a collective we are able to have variations of information that transpires into some form that brings us past ourselves. It does not make us non-individualistic but reminds us there is more than I.

-Candace

Criticized for being unwilling to participate in an integrated design approach, and berated for emphasizing importance of 'design' or 'concept' over 'sustainable' criteria, architects took a beating at the LEED class tonight.

To discuss the issue of 'integrating disciplines,' a comic pyramid was shown with the client and project co-coordinator at the top, engineer and (?) on the second tier, architect and contractor on the third tier, and sub-contractor and (?) on the bottom tier (question marks indicate forgotten elements). The point was that these usually separate disciplines need to work together, possibly through the aid of an un-biased (is there such thing as 'un-biased' - subject for another topic perhaps) third party. I suppose the pyramid would be arranged differently depending on which discipline representative you talk to, but for me, architecture doesn't belong in a hierarchy, rather it is a critical cog in an interconnected web of conceptually separate camps: engineering, building systems services, politics, business, etc in one camp, and philosophy, psychology, environmental psychology, cultural studies, history, sociology, etc in another.

LEED accredited projects (at least the ones shown in class) contribute little or nothing to addressing the second camp of disciplines. They are more akin to tenement housing of the cold-war era! The philosophy for LEED is that if a material, or design feature is not 'needed,' it should not be included, in order to reduce consumption and waste. I think this is a failure on the part of the LEED writers: where is the section against experiential pollution, or the one that describes the role of aesthetics in personal well-being (closely related to identity, and in turn culture, and even productivity)? The section on 'lighting' briefly quantifies how lighting design is related to productivity; why are qualitative elements absent? Why do we 'need' numbers to 'prove' the value of Architecture and design experiments? Why are historical lessons, experiences, and intuitive senses (that tell us a building is stark, cold, sad, lonely, and unlivable) missing from discussions? Despite the stern demands for integrated design by LEED professionals, LEED projects are lacking (or limited) in just that!

Complementary to physical well-being, emotional well-being is an important basis of any collective living. I call for a 'sustainability' that not only aims to sustain a physically livable planet through quantifiable data, but also aims to sustain the well-being of societies through qualitative elements!

Should 'sustainability' be described through words, packaged in a book and taught to classes of eager idealists? Is it the responsibility of the architect to provide physical evidence of holistically sustainable projects? Should such an endeavor be taken on by a third party? My view is that the architect has the potential for developing, promoting and propagating such a manifesto, but not the time. Perhaps it is a matter of education, beginning at the elementary school level.... let's discuss.

Judith, Debra and i had an interesting conversation in the car last night about our nation's economy, or for that matter any nation's economy. I think it is pretty well established that most modern economies are based on the monetary system, therefore it is reasonable to assume that the decision making process is almost entirely concerned with money and profit. What we found to be a concern was that it is really the Corporation that are governing nations. Soon in the Olympics, instead of it being team Canada it will be team GM, etc. It really is just a facade that governments have control over their nations, as more likely it is the large corporations that have all the control over the government. If it really were the government controlling everything then we would have many more sustainable products and services at your disposal than we do now. We could very well all be driving electric, or fuel cell powered vehicles, but the car manufacturers influence the government to not let that happen out of fear for the economy. We are a disposable culture, where products are built not to last so that companies can profit more form the public constantly having to replace their products. I question what the need for borders or nationality will be in the future when corporations are all we can identify with.

hello group:

welcome to the blog. that is all i have to say!!!