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...
4 comments:
With regards to “discussion 2” about architecture as an event or a communicative event, I find that architecture becomes an event at its very conception. An event simply refers to a moment of an occurrence. I think that moment can be manifested both physically and emotionally. For instance the moment that one is struck by an idea could be considered an event, particularly if that idea leads to a physical manifestation. That is the very essence of what we as designer do; translate our ideas (events) into physicality (communication). I would argue that architecture becomes a communicative event once that initial idea is released. Once the idea maker speaks, writes, constructs, or draws about it, it then becomes a form of communication, as then you are inviting another form of media into the process.
With regards to “discussion 3” I find that the statement "...the audience is both the 'source' and the 'receiver' of the television message," to be a very accurate description of how the designer has become the audience, source and receiver for architecture. I think that often it is the intention of architecture to make the general public the audience to receive the work, however I think that designers tend to be their own audience. I think that in our universal contemporary culture there no longer exists a “dominant code” like there may have been before. I often find that the coding of architecture is inaccessible to the general public, it seem as though it only really translates to the architectural community therefore the designer is the source and receiver. I don’t view this as a positive condition; in fact I think that there should be greater attention focused toward our coding system of meanings. What is the point of embedding our work with meaning if that meaning will never be recognized? I don’t see the integrity in that. Architecture seems to belong to an elitist coding structure, and I ask for what reason? Are we not designing for the public? Lets do away with the exclusivity.
Why is it that when I explain my projects and studies to my family or other random acquaintances they are confused when I say I am in the faculty of architecture? I think that the general publics view of architecture is almost completely disjointed from what we learn about architecture in the faculty of architecture. It is very odd to me because when other students such as medicine students talk about their studies one can immediately figure out they are in medicine. Oppositely, when an architecture student talks of their studies people often are confused about their field of study. Is this because of the interdisciplinary nature of architecture? Is architectural so disjointed from the general publics view of architecture that it is hard to put the two together? Hall talks about a ‘lack of equivalence’ between the communicating parties contributing to instances of misunderstandings. Does this ‘lack of equivalence’ apply to the architect to general populace communication? The general population does not easily understand our architectural theories. People generally do not know how we perceive space and create relationships, gestures and intentions within a design. Is the message misunderstood because we have encoded it to suit for our “professional code”? The language we use to describe these intentions and added design criteria does not seem to be understood outside of our discipline. Personally I do not think this is a good thing, but maybe it is necessary for the advance and exploration of these theories.
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?
Response:
I think that there is always some notion of legibility and denotation in architecture inherent in its function. A home must at some level denote is function as a home to the public and or the user. So, I think that there is value to the users of the space for the design to be somewhat legible. Also, I do not think it is possible to create a purely connotative design in reality, because of the nature of architecture to provide some function or service. I think that there are some instances where connotation can be valued or interesting in a design. For instance, if one is living in a small environment but the use of mirrors and large windows make the room appear to be larger, I think that is beneficial for the user because it may ease a sense of claustrophobia.
In regards to the audience being both the ‘source’ and the ‘receiver of I message I started to wonder how this is affected by the flattening of the communication surface. If one projected a space into a physical space how would this affect the ‘source’ and the receiver’? If you insert the flatness of the image into a space does this flattened image no longer become flat? What happens when the feed for the projector starts to mimic its surroundings? Or perhaps tell a story of the people who encompass the space physically. So than is this how one is in two different realms at the same time?
What does depth mean in a space? Is it important that we are physically placed in a constructed space or is it important to be placed in a cyber-constructed space. What is the depth factor anyways? Which of the two constructed spaces have more depth to them? What do we place into these spaces that we construct but do not fully understand? What kind of affect than does this have on communication between people? Is depth something that occurs when we break the surface tension between different spaces?
Post a Comment