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'
6 comments:
My concern with the MSN trend is not the timeframe of conversation, however an interesting observation, but rather the copy-paste idea. I think one of the major downfalls of conversation via email, MSN, ichat, etc. is miscommunication. The reproduction of language in a digital form creates a “lost in translation” condition. Every time something is copied I think there is a loss to the original. For instance with a photocopy, when a copy is made of an original, then a copy of a copy of a copy, there is a deterioration of the original. The mechanizing agent (photocopier) cannot identify all the information, just as an MSN conversation cannot translate characters of language carried through tone of voice, punctuation, sarcasm and other things of that nature. Often sentences can be completely misread because the manner in which it would have been spoken is not identified by the digital mechanism of the computer. I am curious to see how communication through the computer will start to radically alter our language as another form of technology.
I can relate to Jan’s point that “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.” I find that this idea is associated with the common practice of post rationalizing. I think that some architectural circles are so infatuated with the embedded meaning and grand narrative of architecture that they have begun to welcome post rationalization merely because it is more acceptable than no rationalization. The easiest question to ask is why and the hardest question to answer is why. Why did Archigram create this “blob architecture”? If the answer is for fun, is that an acceptable answer for the grand narrative and embedded meaning enthusiasts? I would say probably not. I think that the over emphasis on the importance of meaning has the potential to degrade the quality of architecture because of the shift in priorities of the design. If meaning and narrative are given more priority than function, ergonomics and user satisfaction than what is the benefit of narrative?
Hey Bobbie I think that was a great conversation you had with Jan. It is really weird looking at someone else’s conversation and trying to place the time, date, and setting. I find it fascinating how you can be talking to someone over Internet and not really be there. I personally find that when I talk through means of MSN that I miss a lot of what the other person is trying to communicate. It is hard to pick up personal expression through MSN. And wow when it comes to break ups on MSN that is a big one. By using MSN we can separate ourselves from the other person on some many levels it is ridiculous. The interface or surface of the commuter allows us to do that. An attitude is developed through the interface of the computer. You are not face to face with the other individual so you give yourself permission to disconnect from that person on an emotional level. At least I think this is true. But when it comes to email I think it is a little different.
Another topic that I enjoyed in your MSN conversation was the notion of ‘inside’ and ‘outside’. The façade acts as the interface between the two but in which order. What is really ‘inside’ and what is really the ‘outside’? I feel that ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ is a state of mind that is awarded in positive and negative terms. And well is there really a need to refer to the space in those terms?
Judith - I'm not a fan of post-rationalization. I think that if you're designing intuitively, why not just admit that? What's up with people requiring 'reasons' for everything - is this a resonating effect of the Enlightenment era? Of course this contradicts what I was arguing over at your house, that there is a difference between Architecture and architecture, and that is 'meaning / theory.' Now I'm not so sure. Maybe an ability to tap into aesthetic / spatial intuition and possibly even genetic inheritance has something to do with it??? Often when I'm designing, I'm not thinking of a grand narrative; I'm just thinking 'and then this will happen, and then this will happen, and then they will see this...' It's more of a mini / intimate narrative than a grand narrative, I suppose. Does that mean that what I design isn't architecture? Or am I subconsciously emanating (and emulating) certain meanings or theories that I have learned in architecture school? Maybe. But then again I don't thik one has to go to architecture school to be a good designer... I guess my point is that I'm no longer sure of the validity of any sort of rationalization in architecture.
Candace - one of my favourite quotes from a book (either One Hundred Years of Solitude or Count of Monte Cristo - can't remember at the moment) goes something like 'they burned the house down to prove it never existed.'
I often think about the difference between inside and outside, usually coming to the conclusion that there isn't a clear one - you can be sheltered from the elements and still be what is normally considered as 'outside;' you can manipulate temperature and air pressures in an 'outside' environment (as I learned in my studio last semester!)... one difference could be 'security,' but even 'inside' our homes we are not truly secure. Perhaps inside is defined as enclosed entirely by surfaces? But even when you're outside, you can be enclosed by surfaces, such as a mossy, tree-filled forest (I was in one this summer, and it actually felt like I was inside, I think because the moss acts and feels like a carpet, dampening noises, and offering a soft, comfortable texture to the area). Spaces are all mini-environments, perhaps they would be better described as such, instead of just 'inside' and 'outside'. On the other hand, most of us can conjure an image of what is meant when each of the terms is spoken; perhaps they are quick means to deliver a vague image of whatever message is being transmitted.
Larraine - maybe people will sway more towards voice-operated programs? Even still, I have always been more comfortable communicating through the written word than through verbal means, possibly due to that year I did correspondance, back in the formative years of development. For me, it's easier to get a point across through writing than through speaking; or maybe that's all in my head!
Post a Comment