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?