architecture just got boring.. i thought the whole point of experimental practices was to either produce amazingly new innovations or to fail miserably.. this work (and im only presuming that this is representative of the class) just tends to be only ok....this isnt a criticism of your work, which i think looks quite well done, but the nature of this type of class in general.. just copying itself over and over again... i thought it was about always moving forward...
i think the novak quote is interesting considering hes been out of fashion for half a decade by now, but yet this work still reminds people of it.
i guess technique focused would be fine if that were true.. and again, ezio, i think its a great student work, but whats surprising me is that columbia and this program (MAAD) used to be responosible for always making new an innovative projects and now it seems to produce kinda of a history or computer projects, because this stuff is done every year over and over again. except we see more sls models as the price comes down.. coudl you post your teachers program brief, maybe im missing something
groundhog day... though, I did enjoy a similar class taught by Hernan in Fall 04. part of the point in taking a class rooted in technique is to learn how to develop an expertise in a technique or techniques of your choosing and concurrently express this expertise theoretically. by employing animation software and the ability to shed 'the Cartesian', seminars like this aid in a student's formal development through controlled complexity. i'm seriously beginning to really appreciate how far my mind is being stretched in graduate school (sci-arc). the nitty-gritty of builidngs can be saved for another seminar, the shop, or a real architecture project. what i'd appreciate is ezio posting his 3000 word essay for open critique along with the 1000 frame animation saved in Quicktime movie format (hightly compressed).
Addressing the â€˜viewpointsâ€™ I am reading about a project we know little about-
FIRST There is a difference between being suspicious of a project and being critical about it.
Suspicious says â€œThis looks like something Iâ€™ve seen beforeâ€¦â€
Critical says â€œBecause Iâ€™ve seen something like this beforeâ€¦â€
Suspicious says â€œI donâ€™t understand how you can come up with thisâ€¦â€
Critical says â€œWith a basic understanding of your process I can offer this opinionâ€¦â€
Suspicions are aimed at detracting from work you havenâ€™t tried to understand.
Critiques are aimed at creating a discussion based on some basic understandings of the subject.
SECOND Stop being afraid of technique. Yes, software was used to produce it. Yes, it was probably made with some now common milling technique. No, this is not some alien material composed of in an original color never before seen by the human eye. This does not mean that it is a bad project or even that it is not â€œinnovative.â€
THIRD Do not make some blanket judgment about an institution, in this case Columbia, based on your opinion of a singular project or method. Institutions are built upon both forward-looking projections (experimentation), continuation of contemporary methods, AND refinement of time-tested common techniques. From what I understand, this project samples a little of each of these areas. Experimental practice often can only emerge from successful known techniques.
Itâ€™s fine to hurl judgment and even to open up a healthy debate, but can we all agree to at least base our opinions on an understanding of the topic (or project) at hand rather than attack an image (or worse, the image we have in our head about an image)?
generally speaking, I agree with you - thanks for being the police.
again, I "haven't had a chance to look at the syllabus aside from some blurb about time and where the interiority of the discipline currently lies...will do so soon."
regarding technique, I'm not afraid, just annoyed at the fact that sometimes things fail to move beyond the level of "what kind of material is that", "who did the sls", "what software was used to do the renderings" etc.? I want and expect more.
It's very good work; no attempts at offense. May I see your 3000 word essay as well?
the AD issue i was referring to was 'reflexive architecture' edited by Spiller. Nicholson has an encredible article about Beans (Ben you're a genius, and your house drawings make choral works look pedantic)
The rest of it is Bartlett promotion.
I'm a little confused as to when I said that fabrication is "low-brow". As far as I'm concerned there appears to be nothing in this project that has to do with fabrication (ie, how something would actually be built at full-scale). Granted, a model had to be "fabricated," which may have been a feat in and of itself, but how would this project actually be built if it were to actually be inhabitable? would it be built like the current installation at PS1? Or better yet, would it fall apart like the current installation at PS1? If I had a giant stl printer, could I print myself one of these?
I'd be willing to bet that this studio really didn't have much at all to do with fabrication - it seems to have something to do with the interiority of the discpline, of which I'm still a little unclear as to what that is considered to be.
Is it "The main purpose of the seminar is to produce a critical statement towards the contemporary and near future cultural state of the discipline in relation to the production of Affect."?
- if you had a giant stl printer, would you print in the morning? and with your left hand?
I asked where the laser sintering was done, and am guessing that there is no 'full-scale' to this exercise.
Now if ps1 is up for debate, and I wish it wasn't, I would suggest that the fabrication technique, especially for the canopy elements, were better expressed with the vacuum forming to avoid the creasing.
I like the project, and have said enough. My comparison to Novak was one of interest; let's stay together.
thats cool - thanks for the apology (i hope its for me and not Hernan), though its not really necessary. in a sense I'm just trying to play devil's advocate. And of course, I'm totally making some lame and easy criticism with my fabrication questions...
but seriously now, I'm still wonder what this is and why the perspectival representation...
marketfair, snowi, hotsies, BigAaron, JK664, Steve Fuchs, generic and aaronUF
please respect the fact that I'm working on my final review for the studio and that is the raison I havent been an active participant to this conversation... I believe there is a lot to be said yet, I would propose to continue this 'debate' with our essay posted, after our final review (wednesday 17 Aug). thanks for the comments - the essay is going to be posted at the blog the latest next thursday...