Part 1: The Unforseen

The Setting of a Scene (a photo from "1:1 Sets of Erwin Olaf" at the Netherlands Architecture Institute")

PERFORMANCE, FORM, & LIMITATION
The preconceived versus the actualization and the transformation of spaces, the perception of others as time goes by.... we design with so many things in mind, but how do they come across to others (those people outside the reach of our voices, capable of formulating distinct opinions- perhaps very different from out own).


Proposed Questions:

• Does infrastructural urbanism only work "in the world of things," escaping the act of representing and imagery?  
• Why is it so easy to forget the material truth of things as we work in the digital realm? ---not only in terms of modeling, but also with diagrams and drawings as well?  What are the advantages and disadvantages of using these methods?
• What do you think of when someone says "form?"  In what sense do we use this word now?
• What is the role of media in relation to architecture?  Why do (did?) architects want to differentiate themselves from media?   

Discussion.....

1.

Kaisha Rose: 

"...How we often see it (roads, dams, infrastructure in general) is different from how a regular person does..."

In terms of day-to-day usage urban design is a very pragmatic proposal to how cities may be ordered to operate.  And yet, I think it would be too much to say that infrastructural urbanism separates itself from representational acts because of this; inherently, through the very funding of these large-scale projects, infrastructure often represents the force with which it has been developed.  The organization of cities into various zones and the seeing of how to efficiently connect them with circulation (or how to limit movement from place to place) has historically been used by city planners and officials for political and/or social causes which underlie the plan.  This was my first reaction to Hayes' writing prior to speaking with Kaisha about the issue.  What she reminded me was this: what I am reading into is based on my knowledge of historicity, design background, and the very fact that I am reading about design in general; what someone completely outside of the architecture field would think as they walk down a street may something else altogether, depending on the time of the day, their mood, and interests in general.  

2.

Kaisha Rose: 

"...We're just detached from it... We end up wanting to make it look right and pretty, rather than really knowing how it would work..."

Detachment from the physicality of projects is often a topic that comes up now-a-days as we become more and more immersed in the digital realm of designing things.  What we found to be the greatest obstacle with working digitally is that we could easily lose sight of how materials really behave and if something would actually produce the architect's intended effect.  There is the freedom to build just about anything, but even this is constraining at times since it becomes somewhat frightening to not know what the limits are; having too many options is difficult too.  We work with case studies in mind to provide ourselves anchors, but in our strive for something new and improved we could lose track of various things, including the physical possibilities and existing contexts.  

3.

Kaisha Rose: 

"...visual....something you can see....something...people, monuments, roads, more like a grid..."

I found how people perceive form over time to be pretty interesting, whether it was formal or pragmatical changed with its relation to how tangible "form" is.  I think Stan Allen's definition of form as something invisible and free-flowing, implied to be entirely opposing to our general perception of it.  Much of the time, the word "form" induces images of something concrete, perhaps constructed with ideas of invisible circulations and light play in mind, but always with images of very physical things.  To look at form in terms of context and to extend the form into the context made us wonder as to where and how a form is defined and makes its presence known.  Is it better to think of form as concentrations of forces?  

4.

Kaisha Rose: 

"...I don't think it can... Media is always secondary to experiencing it (a building, intervention, space). ..You can't really convey that in a photograph, video, or book....each person's experience of a space is unique and you can't tell them what it would be like through media..."

We both agreed that coming to a space and experiencing it for yourself can never really be provided with conventional media, but I couldn't help but think "how then?" after each point.  I kept thinking of how difficult it is for even us, students traveling across Europe for the semester, to seek out all of the great architectural works we've seen in movies, magazines, and books.  If one can not travel to building or plaza, is it wrong for him or her to experience and perceive it through media then?  Of course not; it's a reality in life.  In studio, we are constantly working towards produces images (whether they are renders, photos, models, or technical drawings) which provide the viewer of glimpses as to what the designed would be like; we are thinking of media in different ways, not repulsing it.  I think media is something that ought to be embraced and the limits of which should be experimented, pushed to provide the general public with different ways to experiencing spaces.