For a limited amount of time, I am banning concept diagrams and process drawings because they are giving my students too many reasons to rationalize bad building design. If it works, I will make it a permanent practice.
Instead, I will ask some decent site plans, floor plans, sections and elevations and maybe a perspective or two with a model, clearly indicating how the building you designed is architecture.
If you say the building technologies became too complex to explain through those drawings alone, then, why don't you show us how you enter your building, dammit.
How about just banning (or simply not counting or reviewing) unclear/ incoherent/ meaningless diagrams that students can't cogently (verbally) connect to their process/ project? It's tempting for students to think any ink spilled onto paper is a worthy concept diagram, I know. Why not turn it into a short assignment, for a single, meaningful sketch they must briefly describe and defend?
to be fair, our homeboy Eisenman who wrote some stuff on diagrams said 'i want the person to try to find the entrance, this engages them with the architecture....the architecture is then noticed'....some ohio state conf...
citizen, yes very much so.
Olaf, I agree with the homeboy and definitely looking to find. I do look for architecture in the design of buildings.
I'm asking in my studio not to solicit building ideas derived from the concerns of other matters but architecture of buildings. There's is a defined vocabulary. I want my students be able to directly identify it and process architecture of buildings explicitly.
You are doing your students a disservice by narrowing their definition of architecture to just the building. There is a reason architects make a distinction between architecture and buildings to begin with. Diagrams are a crucial part of the process of design. Building that in plans and sections comes after. I can only hope that you are aware of the importance of students learning the process of design in architecture school in addition to (and arguably even prior to) the process of building. Architects must produce ideas, and diagrams are but one way (currently a relatively effictive way) of creating those ideas and then communicating them. To ban that is just absurd.
I am not stopping the process of design, just the meaningless diagrams leading to false ideas about building design. Directly engaging building design with plans, elevations, sections, perspectives models.., is nothing new. That idea is still valid and practiced. It didn't necessarily produced architects with lesser skills.
It may sound like I am limiting the process, but my intention is cut to the chase. Think about what doors that might open for the students.
"----, Building that in plans and sections comes after"
I don't agree with you. Those are backbones of the building design development..
diagramming is just a process of putting ideas into visual form, they are not intended to represent a final design and they shouldn't. Any creation based in thoughtful making is important to the process.
who cares if those diagrams lead to a building design that looks like the lines? That is just as arbitrary as any other method of generating a project from nothing, albeit, that is the most naive, 1:1, creation of a project you can get, it could still be decent, regardless of the steps it took to get there. Most architects prefer a more intellectual, abstract approach.
Orhan, what is your workflow? As an instructor you can push an agenda, but to limit students in developing their own methods of project generation and thinking is dumb.
Orhan, what is your workflow? As an instructor, you can push an agenda, but to limit students in developing their own methods of project generation and thinking is dumb.
I don't think let students on their own is effective teaching. the teacher has to set the perimeters of that development. within those, there are plenty of rooms to develop individual takes, it can go anywhere they want to go, i don't restrict that in school, they will have others to learn from. why not something different? a different approach.
i am also reading this on the side of our discussion here.
and, you also take that finger out of your anus before calling people dumb. i am not an open season for you or likes of you.
I'm not teaching architecture, but HS level graphic design, and I have my student do diagrams and analysis drawings AFTER they tell me their design is finished. If it's a great design, the diagrams will be just as strong. I've found it to be a valuable tool to check for clear understanding of design. Have you thought of simply moving the diagram process?
sidenote; is olaf and chris teeter same person? i have a healthy love and hate relationship with both. i think i saw that building traveling through kentucky. i don't remember if i was driving or in a greyhound in an altered state. thanks for the reminder.
Sarah Hamiltn: Post rstionalizing design is the worst thing you can advise a student to do...
Orhan- you said that you are banning concept diagrams; now that I showed you Perry's work, you are back peddling amd saying that his works are site plans... No- they are abstractions( represntations/diagrams) filled with analysis and information.... Rather than banjing daigrams, you should ban litral translations of fiagrams into building forms. You should encourage the extraction of analysis and information from diagrams as a means of informing the qualitati e and quantitative aspects of the end producy.... And do yourself s favor- you are a respected academician... Either be precise about what you mean, or dont say shit and then back peddle... Otherwise you appear to be a fool...
The television thing isn't a diagram, as I learned to define it in school. Of course a graphic like that shouldn't become the basis for architectural form, that's just stupid.
Diagramming is something different. It's about distilling ideas down to their simplest form, and separating parts out of a complex whole so that they can be understood. Someone who is teaching design should know the difference between architectural diagramming and info graphics. It's worrisome that you don't.
Diagramming first, then plans and sections, or physical models. Then more diagramming -repeat.
Are you posting student work on architect? Because if you are, you should get reamed.
now that I showed you Perry's work, you are back peddling amd saying that his works are site plans... No- they are abstractions( represntations/diagrams) filled with analysis and information....
no back paddling here, my idea stands as stated. i am certainly familiar with p. culper's work. probably long before you studied architecture. not only familiar with his work but also familiar with his mentor's. representative or abstract properties of drawings themselves is another thread. site plans should contain a lot of analysis and information. i said i would support that.
Either be precise about what you mean, or dont say shit and then back peddle... Otherwise you appear to be a fool...
do you also realize my thread title ends with a question mark? and it is a proposition to begin with.., a proposition to experiment.
first it was a finger first, now a fist... did you think i was writing a step by step ikea installation instructions? is that the kind of writing you like to read?
And, personal proclivities aside, I still say that you don't seem to know what diagramming is, if you mistake the T.V. graphic for an architectural diagram.
anonitect, you Texas cop wanna be. no it's not a student work. I url'd it anonymously from the internet and used it as an example.
Sarah, I really like what you are doing. asking students to trace their intuative decisions. you are a creative teacher.
architectural diagram is something I want to eject from designing a building as an experiment. many times it is confusing and unnecessary. might lead to a weak building idea.
Orhan if you eliminate the architectural diagram / sketch what will replace it in the design process? How will your students get from a design idea to site plans, floor plans, sections and elevations?
I agree that using a diagram as a literal form is weak and should be discouraged (I think that's what you're trying to say, it's as clear as mud)' however rather than banning diagrams outright, maybe you should be teaching your students WHY it's a bad idea to design this way.
You know - do your job and all that. Just a thought.
they will directly start working on a site plan. they will attempt a response to the site by the program of the plan and its positioning. so, the plans will start simultaneously and will be adjusted progressively. there will be discussions on the zoning data, codes, occupations and program descriptions as expressed on the design drawings. direct pre design of the building will start without wasting time on celestial intersections and how they organize the plan on a corner across from burrito king with a donkey logo and next lot being the metro plaza with thousand people an hour as the specific density. c'mon get real.. sketches will be made, steps will be recorded, relevancy to architectural subject matter will be encouraged. we will discuss direct incisions on urban fabric, response, repose and validity of decisions made. i can add more.. text is welcome as the verbal descriptions aiding drawings. this is sort of adulthood of architectural project development. i want my students to be aware of it even it is for one semester.
it is almost midnight in l.a and i still got other stuff to write. good night, bar is closed! have fun with your work at the office tomorrow. i bet your bosses would chew your ass if they see you diagramming concepts and stuff on the project time they budgeted for architectural documents and building planning. i am starting a competition project tomorrow which will keep me and four other people busy for next ten days. a lot of decisions to be made in a short amount of time. no time to waste on lofty concepts but direct urban warfare to counter summary gentrification! gahaha.
good posts overall, minus calling me idiot, dumb, fool, etc... lose the accessories.
was there an old thread about this? like 50s/60s harvard style functionalist diagrams . . .
oma style diagrams
oma epigone style diagrams
ive read some deleuze diagrams / heard an eisenman lecture diagrams
parti diagrams
Hey, man, whatever gets you free. Especially as students are often stuck with no basis for making a creative gesture within a plan, section, perspective, yadda yadda. whooops, drinks just arrived . . .
such an emotional thread on diagrams.....i have never intentionalky made a diagram to assist in the design process, at best i have made one after the fact to explain the concept........its actualy pretty obvious who Olaf is, but no one reads anything these days....and yes REX was the inspiration.
Orhan, your long post at 2:55am above is a very good description of how the design process should work. It's never a strict linear process; it's always being buffeted from one side then the other then back again as one explores all the forces that impact design: constructability, site response, culture, cost, material resonance, longevity, codes, circulation...
Saying "This diagram of TV viewership is the form my building will take" is just a more data-based version of "I'm selling duck eggs out of this building so it will look like a duck".
I don't understand why everyone here (Bulgar especially) is being so nasty on this thread. Orhan is raising questions about how to teach building design to architecture students. Next semester they'll have a different professor who will teach them a different approach. Why all the angst?
I remember an undergrad final crit where more than one class mate was crucified by the studio prof for putting up various concept diagrams... all obviously done after the design and in an attempt to fill up wall space. One guy even pinned up a colour wheel chart.
I've made it a thing of mine to focus on design diagrams when I see them in the studio crits I participate in.
Donna's reference to the duck is actually pretty interesting. Diagrams can be a lot of things - but overall they fall into two categories, and this discussion is confused by the interchangeability of the word diagram between the two categories:
1. Diagrams that TELL you the information that they convey
and
2. Diagrams that SHOW you the information that they convey
In the first category would be a lot of the diagrams with arrows, +-signs, callouts, etc - they are TELLING the viewer about the process employed (e.g., adjustment for sun angles, viewing lines, and so forth) but doesn't actually show how it happened.
In the second categories would be diagrams that SHOW what is going on and how it is supposed to work, albeit in a simplified form. For example, a very simple floor layout, or the relationship between different rooms to each other would be this type of diagram.
I think Orhan primarily wants to ban the first kind of diagram to instead focus on the second type - he wants his student to show their ideas, as opposed to come up with graphical ways of telling him their ideas.
I don't know that I would describe my reaction as angst; it's disappointment that more students will have to go through a crappy studio where they don't learn how to design. Don't forget that the tone of the thread was set by Orhan in the title - "Bullshit."
Orhan could teach his students how to diagram correctly- to use drawing as a tool in the design process. Instead, because his students come into his class with mistaken ideas about what diagramming is, he's going to dismiss it as "bullshit." He doesn't even seem to know how to define it, much less explain its usefulness to students, which is a big problem if he's teaching architecture.
“The fundamental issue of architecture is: does it affect the spirit or doesn’t it? If it doesn’t affect the spirit, it’s building. If it affects the spirit, it’s architecture. Architecture doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the final form of a built building. A drawing, to me, is a completed piece of architecture, a building is a completed piece of architecture, a photograph of a drawing or a photograph of an architecture is a piece of architecture. Each act is individually an act of architecture.” John Hejduk
I agree with the comments above: limiting the definition of architecture to the building is part of the reason this profession is in need of dire redemption.
Nothing is experimental about your proposal to remove diagramming from the design process; it fits nicely within the "design process" of a developer.
Excellent description that I was trying to write last night but abandoned due to an inability to express it sensibly. It should be noted that some people are visual, others literal, and that different people will see the same thing differently. Thus the necessity of teaching all kinds of approaches and techniques, with the hope that something will spark someone. But among other things problems arise with literal interpretation of visual diagrams and vice versa.
In my experience literal people are generally not good architects. Administrators, yes; designers, no.
anonitect, crap yourself freely. but first you need to take out accessories and that fist of yours plugging own anus, you angry craphead you. your prescription for teaching is useful for a dictionary parrot.
I love Hejduk, but I've decided* to plant my flag firmly in the "if it's not built it's not architecture". It's part of the architecture discourse, of course, but it's not a piece of architecture unless it's built.
*Note use of word "decided". I can always change my mind later if further evidence or theory encourages me to do so; it's like putting on a pair of pants for awhile to see how they feel. I can change them if I want to; nothing is set in stone (except architecture).
i would think of the design process as moving from very general to very specific.
in the beginning you start with just a square on an empty page or something like that. if you're studying the site or the program or whatever else, then that square might need to be turned a different angle, maybe add corners, catch a view, catch the sun, etc.
that's how i would see initial diagramming. it's like working out the program with very broad strokes that will be detailed out as you work out what all needs to be done. those diagrams can also be worked out in plan, section, and elevation, or in 3d form if you're comfortable with those tools.
saying a graph of tv viewership is a diagram that should influence the form of the building is not useful. i think that post-rationalizing a diagram to make it look like you had some underlying concept other than simply 'i like curvy stuff' is also not useful. however, maybe sarah's idea of having students analyze their process after the fact could be useful so those who think they like curvy stuff can start thinking about why the students push their design the direction they do.
sure. i think you can find some of the books published by startchitect types that show a lot of pretty cool looking diagramming. some of it kind of makes sense too if you think about it, like it's intended to show traffic patterns for a proposed building or something. they take what could be a useful diagrammatic quick sketch to show how they anticipate occupants will use the building then graphic-design them up to look good in a book.
that's not necessarily a bad thing. with photoshop and sketchup and whatever people are using now days maybe it's actually a lot faster and easier to take what was once a cocktail napkin sketch and make it look more finished, or a better designed piece of process. i don't think there's anything wrong with that. a lot of what a teacher might want to accomplish in a studio is to teach process, so getting the student to communicate their process could be seen as pretty important. if that's through a sketchup model that's supposed to flush out design intent, maybe it's not a bad thing. of course if the student is more focused on making their diagram look good rather than thinking about the building, then that's probably bad.
this probably shouldn't be used to determine the form of the building, but understanding who's using the building and when might give you a better foundation to develop spacial adjacencies or building access.
You're good at obscenity (sorta, I've been flamed by better), but not at responding to my points.
Teaching architecture (which I have limited experience in, admittedly- a couple of basic design classes as a grad student) is about creating a springboard for students to react to, not indoctrinating them with your own biases. Diagramming (which I still say you don't understand, based on your TV example and your unwillingness to explain yourself) is a fundamental skill, and one that needs to be taught. You can't just start with a plan, that's going to end badly - unless you're only interested in training Revit monkeys.
do you deserve response? first you asked if i have an id on me for the graphic i posted to talk about what i am talking about as if you were gonna get me reamed and you are insisting on how should i do my project and you are a stuck up dictionary parrot. no i don't train revit monkeys seems like you should be good at it. let the best man do the job. and you think you know what we are talking about? do your crap and don't debate with me with dictums. that is a sad, and poor, exchange. your reading and comprehension skills suck. you can't even read and understand my program. keep walking dude.
Very professional, Orhan. I really couldn't care less, but I wonder what your employer would think if they saw this thread? Calling people names, telling them to do obscene things.
I sense some potential mental health issues. If that's the case, I wish you good luck in dealing with them. It might be time to step away from the computer.
As you seem to prefer ad hominem attacks to responding substantively, I give up.
As a personal exercise, though, I would suggest that you think about the question that you seem unable to answer: WHAT IS AN ARCHITECTURAL DIAGRAM?
I hope that potential students of yours get to see this thread before signing up for your studio, and realize that you don't have the temperament for teaching or the intellectual capacity for debate. I know that I had a couple of arrogant and crude studio profs who wasted my time and taught their own biases, who I wish that I had forewarning about.
No need to respond, I won't be checking this thread again.
I find diagrams helpful. First to distill information I am looking at into a clearer visual aid in the analysis of elements and site conditions I wish to explore. Second as a tool to inform the process at hand (which then can be used as a point of reference to check against during the design process). And lastly, similar to what Sarah pointed out, as a means of verifying the clarity of the final product.
It's not fool proof, but they are an useful tool when used diligently. The problem you may be seeing and one I saw as an instructor is that they are easy to crank out in poor quality. Teaching the effectiveness of diagrams may be informative for your students.
donna.. i appreciate your conviction, but excluding anything that isn't built from the definition of architecture severely limits the discipline, let alone sources of inspiration.
the most powerful ability an architect is his or her imagination: the ability to conceive an alternative condition, existence, built work, world, etc. etc. etc. without this, we are merely filling in the blanks with prescribed conventions, hence building. not to mention the plethora of inspiring unbuilt works by countless architects over the years, many of which are far better than their built works.
only including built works dismisses the entire educational process, which is where imagination is free of constraints, in the most beautiful way. i love hejduk's response to eisenmans similar criticism of his work: "YOU can't get into, but i can. my friends can."
Are diagrams in architecture bullshit and ditto for process?
For a limited amount of time, I am banning concept diagrams and process drawings because they are giving my students too many reasons to rationalize bad building design. If it works, I will make it a permanent practice.
Instead, I will ask some decent site plans, floor plans, sections and elevations and maybe a perspective or two with a model, clearly indicating how the building you designed is architecture.
If you say the building technologies became too complex to explain through those drawings alone, then, why don't you show us how you enter your building, dammit.
You are an idiot and should stop teaching immediately....
https://archimorph.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/2805101275068685fasttwitchsiteplan.jpg
yes and yes and esquisse me.....http://archinect.com/forum/thread/116510245/follow-up-to-dogma-of-design-process-ecole-des-beaux-arts
https://archimorph.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/2805101275068685fasttwitchsiteplan.jpg I would solicit the site plan above. That's not what I am talking about. Perry's drawing is directive and precise. It is a site plan. Let's try not to be a schmuck with one finger stuck in own anus.
Orhan,
How about just banning (or simply not counting or reviewing) unclear/ incoherent/ meaningless diagrams that students can't cogently (verbally) connect to their process/ project? It's tempting for students to think any ink spilled onto paper is a worthy concept diagram, I know. Why not turn it into a short assignment, for a single, meaningful sketch they must briefly describe and defend?
to be fair, our homeboy Eisenman who wrote some stuff on diagrams said 'i want the person to try to find the entrance, this engages them with the architecture....the architecture is then noticed'....some ohio state conf...
citizen, yes very much so. Olaf, I agree with the homeboy and definitely looking to find. I do look for architecture in the design of buildings. I'm asking in my studio not to solicit building ideas derived from the concerns of other matters but architecture of buildings. There's is a defined vocabulary. I want my students be able to directly identify it and process architecture of buildings explicitly.
I am not stopping the process of design, just the meaningless diagrams leading to false ideas about building design. Directly engaging building design with plans, elevations, sections, perspectives models.., is nothing new. That idea is still valid and practiced. It didn't necessarily produced architects with lesser skills.
It may sound like I am limiting the process, but my intention is cut to the chase. Think about what doors that might open for the students.
"----, Building that in plans and sections comes after"
I don't agree with you. Those are backbones of the building design development..
diagramming is just a process of putting ideas into visual form, they are not intended to represent a final design and they shouldn't. Any creation based in thoughtful making is important to the process.
for example;
should a diagram like this, about television viewing, be turned into a national television broadcasting headquarters design that looks like that?
how many of you seen this kind of application? i bet many of you did.
^ Perfect job for ZHA.
who cares if those diagrams lead to a building design that looks like the lines? That is just as arbitrary as any other method of generating a project from nothing, albeit, that is the most naive, 1:1, creation of a project you can get, it could still be decent, regardless of the steps it took to get there. Most architects prefer a more intellectual, abstract approach.
Orhan, what is your workflow? As an instructor you can push an agenda, but to limit students in developing their own methods of project generation and thinking is dumb.
you know Orhan, Olaf went there once and he discovered....well you see
The Taco Escape: Shortly after Interview
Orhan, what is your workflow? As an instructor, you can push an agenda, but to limit students in developing their own methods of project generation and thinking is dumb.
I don't think let students on their own is effective teaching. the teacher has to set the perimeters of that development. within those, there are plenty of rooms to develop individual takes, it can go anywhere they want to go, i don't restrict that in school, they will have others to learn from. why not something different? a different approach.
i am also reading this on the side of our discussion here.
and, you also take that finger out of your anus before calling people dumb. i am not an open season for you or likes of you.
I'm not teaching architecture, but HS level graphic design, and I have my student do diagrams and analysis drawings AFTER they tell me their design is finished. If it's a great design, the diagrams will be just as strong. I've found it to be a valuable tool to check for clear understanding of design. Have you thought of simply moving the diagram process?
sidenote; is olaf and chris teeter same person? i have a healthy love and hate relationship with both. i think i saw that building traveling through kentucky. i don't remember if i was driving or in a greyhound in an altered state. thanks for the reminder.
Sarah Hamiltn: Post rstionalizing design is the worst thing you can advise a student to do...
Orhan- you said that you are banning concept diagrams; now that I showed you Perry's work, you are back peddling amd saying that his works are site plans... No- they are abstractions( represntations/diagrams) filled with analysis and information.... Rather than banjing daigrams, you should ban litral translations of fiagrams into building forms. You should encourage the extraction of analysis and information from diagrams as a means of informing the qualitati e and quantitative aspects of the end producy.... And do yourself s favor- you are a respected academician... Either be precise about what you mean, or dont say shit and then back peddle... Otherwise you appear to be a fool...
The television thing isn't a diagram, as I learned to define it in school. Of course a graphic like that shouldn't become the basis for architectural form, that's just stupid.
Diagramming is something different. It's about distilling ideas down to their simplest form, and separating parts out of a complex whole so that they can be understood. Someone who is teaching design should know the difference between architectural diagramming and info graphics. It's worrisome that you don't.
Diagramming first, then plans and sections, or physical models. Then more diagramming -repeat.
Are you posting student work on architect? Because if you are, you should get reamed.
Venn diagrams as design inspiration would help explain blobitecture.
now that I showed you Perry's work, you are back peddling amd saying that his works are site plans... No- they are abstractions( represntations/diagrams) filled with analysis and information....
no back paddling here, my idea stands as stated. i am certainly familiar with p. culper's work. probably long before you studied architecture. not only familiar with his work but also familiar with his mentor's. representative or abstract properties of drawings themselves is another thread. site plans should contain a lot of analysis and information. i said i would support that.
Either be precise about what you mean, or dont say shit and then back peddle... Otherwise you appear to be a fool...
do you also realize my thread title ends with a question mark? and it is a proposition to begin with.., a proposition to experiment.
first it was a finger first, now a fist... did you think i was writing a step by step ikea installation instructions? is that the kind of writing you like to read?
anonitect, are you also a reaming fist man also? who taught you to talk like a dictionary parrot?
So is that student work?
And, personal proclivities aside, I still say that you don't seem to know what diagramming is, if you mistake the T.V. graphic for an architectural diagram.
anonitect, you Texas cop wanna be. no it's not a student work. I url'd it anonymously from the internet and used it as an example. Sarah, I really like what you are doing. asking students to trace their intuative decisions. you are a creative teacher.
Orhan got in to the scotch tonight, I see. WTF is going on in this thread??
Orhan,
What is an architectural diagram?
architectural diagram is something I want to eject from designing a building as an experiment. many times it is confusing and unnecessary. might lead to a weak building idea.
Inspiration can come from many places. The televison diagram looks like it could be a sketch done by Frank Gehry.
Orhan if you eliminate the architectural diagram / sketch what will replace it in the design process? How will your students get from a design idea to site plans, floor plans, sections and elevations?
I agree that using a diagram as a literal form is weak and should be discouraged (I think that's what you're trying to say, it's as clear as mud)' however rather than banning diagrams outright, maybe you should be teaching your students WHY it's a bad idea to design this way.
You know - do your job and all that. Just a thought.
they will directly start working on a site plan. they will attempt a response to the site by the program of the plan and its positioning. so, the plans will start simultaneously and will be adjusted progressively. there will be discussions on the zoning data, codes, occupations and program descriptions as expressed on the design drawings. direct pre design of the building will start without wasting time on celestial intersections and how they organize the plan on a corner across from burrito king with a donkey logo and next lot being the metro plaza with thousand people an hour as the specific density. c'mon get real.. sketches will be made, steps will be recorded, relevancy to architectural subject matter will be encouraged. we will discuss direct incisions on urban fabric, response, repose and validity of decisions made. i can add more.. text is welcome as the verbal descriptions aiding drawings. this is sort of adulthood of architectural project development. i want my students to be aware of it even it is for one semester.
it is almost midnight in l.a and i still got other stuff to write. good night, bar is closed! have fun with your work at the office tomorrow. i bet your bosses would chew your ass if they see you diagramming concepts and stuff on the project time they budgeted for architectural documents and building planning. i am starting a competition project tomorrow which will keep me and four other people busy for next ten days. a lot of decisions to be made in a short amount of time. no time to waste on lofty concepts but direct urban warfare to counter summary gentrification! gahaha.
good posts overall, minus calling me idiot, dumb, fool, etc... lose the accessories.
and over here the bar just opened . . .
whose diagram?
was there an old thread about this? like 50s/60s harvard style functionalist diagrams . . .
oma style diagrams
oma epigone style diagrams
ive read some deleuze diagrams / heard an eisenman lecture diagrams
parti diagrams
Hey, man, whatever gets you free. Especially as students are often stuck with no basis for making a creative gesture within a plan, section, perspective, yadda yadda. whooops, drinks just arrived . . .
such an emotional thread on diagrams.....i have never intentionalky made a diagram to assist in the design process, at best i have made one after the fact to explain the concept........its actualy pretty obvious who Olaf is, but no one reads anything these days....and yes REX was the inspiration.
Orhan, your long post at 2:55am above is a very good description of how the design process should work. It's never a strict linear process; it's always being buffeted from one side then the other then back again as one explores all the forces that impact design: constructability, site response, culture, cost, material resonance, longevity, codes, circulation...
Saying "This diagram of TV viewership is the form my building will take" is just a more data-based version of "I'm selling duck eggs out of this building so it will look like a duck".
I don't understand why everyone here (Bulgar especially) is being so nasty on this thread. Orhan is raising questions about how to teach building design to architecture students. Next semester they'll have a different professor who will teach them a different approach. Why all the angst?
Orhan,
I remember an undergrad final crit where more than one class mate was crucified by the studio prof for putting up various concept diagrams... all obviously done after the design and in an attempt to fill up wall space. One guy even pinned up a colour wheel chart.
I've made it a thing of mine to focus on design diagrams when I see them in the studio crits I participate in.
Coming in from the sidelines to this discussion.
Donna's reference to the duck is actually pretty interesting. Diagrams can be a lot of things - but overall they fall into two categories, and this discussion is confused by the interchangeability of the word diagram between the two categories:
1. Diagrams that TELL you the information that they convey
and
2. Diagrams that SHOW you the information that they convey
In the first category would be a lot of the diagrams with arrows, +-signs, callouts, etc - they are TELLING the viewer about the process employed (e.g., adjustment for sun angles, viewing lines, and so forth) but doesn't actually show how it happened.
In the second categories would be diagrams that SHOW what is going on and how it is supposed to work, albeit in a simplified form. For example, a very simple floor layout, or the relationship between different rooms to each other would be this type of diagram.
I think Orhan primarily wants to ban the first kind of diagram to instead focus on the second type - he wants his student to show their ideas, as opposed to come up with graphical ways of telling him their ideas.
Donna: Why all the angst?
I don't know that I would describe my reaction as angst; it's disappointment that more students will have to go through a crappy studio where they don't learn how to design. Don't forget that the tone of the thread was set by Orhan in the title - "Bullshit."
Orhan could teach his students how to diagram correctly- to use drawing as a tool in the design process. Instead, because his students come into his class with mistaken ideas about what diagramming is, he's going to dismiss it as "bullshit." He doesn't even seem to know how to define it, much less explain its usefulness to students, which is a big problem if he's teaching architecture.
“The fundamental issue of architecture is: does it affect the spirit or doesn’t it? If it doesn’t affect the spirit, it’s building. If it affects the spirit, it’s architecture. Architecture doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the final form of a built building. A drawing, to me, is a completed piece of architecture, a building is a completed piece of architecture, a photograph of a drawing or a photograph of an architecture is a piece of architecture. Each act is individually an act of architecture.” John Hejduk
I agree with the comments above: limiting the definition of architecture to the building is part of the reason this profession is in need of dire redemption.
Nothing is experimental about your proposal to remove diagramming from the design process; it fits nicely within the "design process" of a developer.
++ kungapa
Excellent description that I was trying to write last night but abandoned due to an inability to express it sensibly. It should be noted that some people are visual, others literal, and that different people will see the same thing differently. Thus the necessity of teaching all kinds of approaches and techniques, with the hope that something will spark someone. But among other things problems arise with literal interpretation of visual diagrams and vice versa.
In my experience literal people are generally not good architects. Administrators, yes; designers, no.
anonitect, crap yourself freely. but first you need to take out accessories and that fist of yours plugging own anus, you angry craphead you. your prescription for teaching is useful for a dictionary parrot.
e pluribus unum!
Diagrams are passe. Orhan's right - design without them first and see where that gets you. They've become the architect's version of a soundbyte.
I love Hejduk, but I've decided* to plant my flag firmly in the "if it's not built it's not architecture". It's part of the architecture discourse, of course, but it's not a piece of architecture unless it's built.
*Note use of word "decided". I can always change my mind later if further evidence or theory encourages me to do so; it's like putting on a pair of pants for awhile to see how they feel. I can change them if I want to; nothing is set in stone (except architecture).
i would think of the design process as moving from very general to very specific.
in the beginning you start with just a square on an empty page or something like that. if you're studying the site or the program or whatever else, then that square might need to be turned a different angle, maybe add corners, catch a view, catch the sun, etc.
that's how i would see initial diagramming. it's like working out the program with very broad strokes that will be detailed out as you work out what all needs to be done. those diagrams can also be worked out in plan, section, and elevation, or in 3d form if you're comfortable with those tools.
saying a graph of tv viewership is a diagram that should influence the form of the building is not useful. i think that post-rationalizing a diagram to make it look like you had some underlying concept other than simply 'i like curvy stuff' is also not useful. however, maybe sarah's idea of having students analyze their process after the fact could be useful so those who think they like curvy stuff can start thinking about why the students push their design the direction they do.
what orhan may also be suggesting is perhaps students now spend too much time designing diagrams instead of architecture?
sure. i think you can find some of the books published by startchitect types that show a lot of pretty cool looking diagramming. some of it kind of makes sense too if you think about it, like it's intended to show traffic patterns for a proposed building or something. they take what could be a useful diagrammatic quick sketch to show how they anticipate occupants will use the building then graphic-design them up to look good in a book.
that's not necessarily a bad thing. with photoshop and sketchup and whatever people are using now days maybe it's actually a lot faster and easier to take what was once a cocktail napkin sketch and make it look more finished, or a better designed piece of process. i don't think there's anything wrong with that. a lot of what a teacher might want to accomplish in a studio is to teach process, so getting the student to communicate their process could be seen as pretty important. if that's through a sketchup model that's supposed to flush out design intent, maybe it's not a bad thing. of course if the student is more focused on making their diagram look good rather than thinking about the building, then that's probably bad.
this probably shouldn't be used to determine the form of the building, but understanding who's using the building and when might give you a better foundation to develop spacial adjacencies or building access.
Orhan,
You're good at obscenity (sorta, I've been flamed by better), but not at responding to my points.
Teaching architecture (which I have limited experience in, admittedly- a couple of basic design classes as a grad student) is about creating a springboard for students to react to, not indoctrinating them with your own biases. Diagramming (which I still say you don't understand, based on your TV example and your unwillingness to explain yourself) is a fundamental skill, and one that needs to be taught. You can't just start with a plan, that's going to end badly - unless you're only interested in training Revit monkeys.
do you deserve response? first you asked if i have an id on me for the graphic i posted to talk about what i am talking about as if you were gonna get me reamed and you are insisting on how should i do my project and you are a stuck up dictionary parrot. no i don't train revit monkeys seems like you should be good at it. let the best man do the job. and you think you know what we are talking about? do your crap and don't debate with me with dictums. that is a sad, and poor, exchange. your reading and comprehension skills suck. you can't even read and understand my program. keep walking dude.
Very professional, Orhan. I really couldn't care less, but I wonder what your employer would think if they saw this thread? Calling people names, telling them to do obscene things.
I sense some potential mental health issues. If that's the case, I wish you good luck in dealing with them. It might be time to step away from the computer.
Orhan,
As you seem to prefer ad hominem attacks to responding substantively, I give up.
As a personal exercise, though, I would suggest that you think about the question that you seem unable to answer: WHAT IS AN ARCHITECTURAL DIAGRAM?
I hope that potential students of yours get to see this thread before signing up for your studio, and realize that you don't have the temperament for teaching or the intellectual capacity for debate. I know that I had a couple of arrogant and crude studio profs who wasted my time and taught their own biases, who I wish that I had forewarning about.
No need to respond, I won't be checking this thread again.
^ yes you will
I find diagrams helpful. First to distill information I am looking at into a clearer visual aid in the analysis of elements and site conditions I wish to explore. Second as a tool to inform the process at hand (which then can be used as a point of reference to check against during the design process). And lastly, similar to what Sarah pointed out, as a means of verifying the clarity of the final product.
It's not fool proof, but they are an useful tool when used diligently. The problem you may be seeing and one I saw as an instructor is that they are easy to crank out in poor quality. Teaching the effectiveness of diagrams may be informative for your students.
donna.. i appreciate your conviction, but excluding anything that isn't built from the definition of architecture severely limits the discipline, let alone sources of inspiration.
the most powerful ability an architect is his or her imagination: the ability to conceive an alternative condition, existence, built work, world, etc. etc. etc. without this, we are merely filling in the blanks with prescribed conventions, hence building. not to mention the plethora of inspiring unbuilt works by countless architects over the years, many of which are far better than their built works.
only including built works dismisses the entire educational process, which is where imagination is free of constraints, in the most beautiful way. i love hejduk's response to eisenmans similar criticism of his work: "YOU can't get into, but i can. my friends can."
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.