Plans are a language. Some people can read them, some really well, and some can't.
When Katherine Dunn describes the sawdust floor and lights illuminating Artie's tank in his sideshow tent in "Geek Love", or when Pynchon describes the helicopters zooming over Marin in "Vineland" I have an experience of those places, too. I'm not there, though.
all interesting philosophical points, but no one has responded to my earlier point: if your definition of architecture is the final built thing, exclusively, then how do you define what you do on a daily basis? drawing plans, making models, writing schedules: is that all not architecture? how could the title of your discipline/profession be "architect" if what you are doing by your definition is not architecture, but just anticipatory architecture? is a more apt title "preparatory-architect?" maybe "proto-architect."
on another note, i really enjoyed what miles said about the renaissance architect, one being versed in many disciplines. i agree that by today's definition (one that exists on purely legal merits, hence the reasoning behind many of these definitions i disagree with... one should be weary of definitions created only on a legal and/or economic/capitalist basis), the architect is no longer that. what i hope for is that architecture can aspire to be that again, and often does in the educational setting.
alrightalright, all of those acts are architecture practice, in the application of skill definition of that word. not the "I have to take my son to swim practice" definition.
I'm saying a physical building is a discrete material thing, and nothing else is simultaneously that discrete material thing.
that's a muddy definition though: a lawyer is called so because he or she studies, argues, defends, and interprets law, all acts of law. it can be called law, both the end result and the entire system buttressing the law. law is not exclusively defined as the final written form; there are many facets and invisible forces that comprise the law.
same with the architect: the preparation is the architecture. those acts are more architectural than the building: the building is a manifestation of those acts, similar to the specific law.
even the most basic definitions of architecture define it as the act of designing the building, in at least conjunction with the building itself, but not exclusively the physical building. an information architect designs the structure of information, not the information itself. and so on.
chris, in response to your earlier point, i agree with your inherent argument: ideas without an understanding of materiality are problematic for the discipline of architecture, one at a very basic level concerned without how materials come together. we actually see this lack of understanding in a lot of "parametricism."
however, to create a superficial split between "academia" and "practice" does nothing but cause further polarization and avoids the question at hand: how do we define architecture in all settings and contexts? again i have to ask, if the most powerful thing an architect does on a regular basis is to imagine a different reality, how can that act not be called architecture, even if the idea is not physically realized because of a host of forces, often economic and political?
if your definition of architecture is the final built thing, exclusively, then how do you define what you do on a daily basis?
what i do on a daily basis; make coffee. run prints. post on archinect. architecture and the design of architecture don't have to be the same thing. i would even say that someone designing architecture doesn't have to be an architect. or, and architect may do things other than design architecture. they're all different things. you may be overly-intellectualizing to the point where the simple answer is obfuscated.
the practice of law, be it through a lawyer judge or legislature, is not the law itself. the law itself is the written bit that people are compelled to follow. if the law says you can't drive more than 55 mph, then that's the law you have to follow; all of the ancillary practice of law that lead to the creation and interpretation of that law is not the law you have to follow.
i don't think it is over intellectualization at all; in fact i think these questions/discussions are necessary in a world (or at least country) that increasingly settles for building (under-considered and lacking any sense of optimsm: see http://archinect.com/forum/thread/128578334/why-do-americans-love-this-style-of-architecture-so-much) as architecture. these questions have real implications on the way in which we work.
so you want to change the definition of the word to incorporate some sort of idealist fantasy? How will that change the buildings that people/groups hire architects to design?
defining architecture as a building rather than an idea or a thought or a process or whatever puts the focus back on the building where it belongs. what we should care about is the building, not the idealism behind the building. if the architecture is shitty call it what it is. be honest about it. hiding behind the 'idea' of architecture or something weird like that just distracts from what's actually happening in the real world. it seems to me like taking opium because it feels better than dealing with real life.
^ Those buildings are very seriously considered for very specific functions, especially and specifically ROI. Optimism is in the pocket of the profiteer.
to create a superficial split between "academia" and "practice" does nothing but cause further polarization
This is exactly what academia does.
and avoids the question at hand: how do we define architecture in all settings and contexts?
Curt, Im confused by your positioning. On one hand you rail against schumachers idea of an a-political architecture (where I agree with you completely) and on the other you take an almost detached position between design and what is being designed...as if the only role of the architect is to give form/shape/function....seems to be the same thing Shumacher is saying in a way...only he is talking about making big curvy icon buildings at the will of some corporate overlord, and you are talking about making small regular box buildings at the will of some corporate overlord. Both positions limit the role of the architect by reducing him/her to a shape maker.
Same thing if you "a-politically" design a stadium in Brazil, or a Taco Bell in New Jersey ....Still just acting as a neutral party that enables 'whatever is on the table' by giving buildings form and function...by only concerning yourself with the building itself.
I strongly feel that this attitude is why the profession has been severly stunted in its reach/influence over the built environment. If we only concern ourselves with making objects then we will only be used to make objects. The real decisions are made earlier on...before it is decided that a sfr subdivision should be developed on xyz blvd...The more important decisions are not formal or tectonic ones...they are programatic, geographic, and typological ones. This is where the world of theory and building diverge...Consulting developers, clients, and municipalities on these issues should be the main area of Architectural practice...
to reiterate jla-x.... hiding behind terms like "the real world" distracts from creating more value for good architecture. "the real world" only cares about dollars and cents, completing a project with the lowest budget possible, etc. by denying what you call "ideas," it seems to me we might be limiting architecture to a prescribed set of conventions developed by those outside the profession.
i don't rail against schumacher's a-political architecture, i rail against his political leanings towards 'neo-liberalism.' i agree with him in that his job as an architect is to design buildings. i disagree with him in that part of his position as a human being is to have a conscience. being a bad person doesn't necessarily make you a bad architect, but it does make you a bad person....
i'm pretty sure the decision to build a subdivision is almost entirely financial. sometimes there is a need based on use. let's say you're amazon and you develop a new drone army to deliver toys to all the good little boys and girls. they need a new facility tailored to drone ingress/egress requirements. there is a board of directors that wants to expand and make more money for the shareholders and a controller or cfo or other accounting positions that will get a ballpark figure for feasibility based on cost of the facility v. return from selling goods. they will work with developers and real-estate people to find the land to build on. they will work with lawyers to try to make sure the developers and real estate people aren't screwing them too bad. they'll work with local politicians for incentives as well as power/sewer/infrastructure connections.
where do you put the architect in that? i agree that it would be best for architects to be involved as much as possible, as early possible. however, the architect's job is still to design a building. it's not to approve a loan, or to set up build to suit v. lease contracts. if you're the city offering tax rebates to amazon to move their facility to your town, you're not designing the building, and you're not doing what architects do.
if you're the head of the planning commission and you want to tell amazon they're required to paint their building a slightly lighter shade of beige, then perhaps you could say you're designing the building and doing what architects do, but then doing so through government intimidation isn't really something to be proud of. by the way, you don't need a license to join the planning department and coerce people into doing what you tell them to do...
in your list:
programmatic;
how would an architect know how many drones amazon is going to have coming and going? how would the architect know how much amazon intends to store in their new facility? how would the architect know how amazon's logistics between facilities works? these are questions for the client and end user; the architect can't just make up their own answers.
geographic;
what role can architect have in telling amazon where to put their new facility? how would the architect even know what land is available?
typological;
it's a concrete box. you know that, i know that, the architect knows that, and amazon knows that......
Yes, in the case of Amazon that is absolutely how it would play out, but I'm talking more about everyday development...Everyday places...Amazon already is what it is...The strip mall for instance is not a business...and it is yet to have an identity... it is a shell that businesses plug into. A housing development is also not a business... there is much room for innovation...An urban lot of land or an old warehouse that cannot sell is also not a business...it is a place where no one has yet exposed its potential...The location, program, and typology absolutely will determine the success of an investment. Early stage creative consulting absolutely can add value. Realtors do not do this.
By the time the architect is called the developer already decided that what the neighbors did is the best way invest... they are not creative thinkers for the most part..."beige stucco shops 1200-2400 ft.2 yup that works good enough for a 20% return."
In school much time is spent getting a site, researching, and imagining what it can be...Finding potential, creating place, exposing underserved markets, is an extremely valuable and under utilized skill we have...Through Mapping, diagrams, research, observation, etc...potential is exposed...there is an art and science to it...This kind of thinking is pretty much cut off at graduation...with the exception of urban design competitions and such...sure student work may be bogus for the most part, but what if this was continued in practice...why limit "architecture" to building design.
I don't blame academia for being out of the box as much as I blame practice for staying in it. maybe both sides should merge towards a happy medium...that is where innovation, imagination, and practicality converge in other fields.
But your last sentence IMO makes my point. The idea is one thing, but in architecture the idea *would not exist* except in response to a need for function. This is what makes art and architecture different. Art intentionally starts from a place of non-utility. Architecture always starts from the need for utility, so the drawings are always only representations.
Donna, I see your point...I don't disagree...kind of still making up my mind on it all...thinking and writing at the same time...which is what I love about archinect so much...and all you guys debating and sharing ideas...
jla-x, I love this: just acting as a neutral party that enables 'whatever is on the table' by giving buildings form and function...by only concerning yourself with the building itself.
Agreed. I'm not in anyway saying that a building is just a building and doesn't have an ethical responsibility to be a good contributor to our shared society. I'm just arguing for architecture's unique position as built object in that society.
I also agree with so much of what you, and everyone, are saying here, and love the fact that we can discuss it!
alright alright....Miles kind of responded......... the problem is very simple - studying the "ideas of architecture" is not the same as studying architecture. creating "ideas of architecture" is not the same as creating architecture. there is a clear distinction between these two and has been well defined for years: Paper Architecture vs Architecture. studying Paper Architecture as if it was Architecture is the issue here in my opinion and the polarization caused by academia away from the real world. there is no need or benefit to studying or intentonally creating diagrams and process, especially if the end goal is not considering a built architecture. you might as well take mescalin,head off into the desert and dream up a manifesto based on hallucinations .........it is absolutely ignorant and naive to think studying or promoting or hiding in the world of "ideas" as architecture is a fruitful endeavor, our detachment from society only continues with each denial of very real forces, which are delivered by others outside the peofession. architecture of any value can not happen in a bubble of "ideas". it must manipulate and work with real forces. you are not outside the box if you do not even know what a box is.
if you were to study a specific project - Seattle Library:
1 - studying the "ideas of architecture"
2 - studying architecture
if you were to study a specific aspect of architecture - day lighting
1 -
2 -
In both cases you do NOT study the first images. The first images are abstractions of the real intended architecture or existing architecture. You do not study abstractions, you make abstractions when studying the real or intended real. At best you can learn how to present what you study, but you are wasting your time and straying away from that which is being studied if you are studying the presentation.
Isn't this thread just arguing semantics? "I mean architecture, not architecture!" AAAAAAGH! Architecture vs architecture...the profession/process vs the thing; you're all using the same word to mean different things. If you're talking about the thing in itself, the object, then call it a building, a structure, an object even - buildings are large and complex objects - then yes, that definition of "architecture" can only be the thing in itself.
Go to some other arena; cars, for example. Only the car itself is a car or automobile or vehicle; you don't call the process to get there a car or a vehicle, that would be just stupid. It's called automobile design or production, the automobile industry, whatever: every single step in the long process to get to a car. A drawing or model by Giorgetto Giugiaro, one of the greatest car designers, is not itself a car or a vehicle; but all of his drawing, models, mockups, etc., are all part of "automobile design", even the ones that never got or never will get produced.
it's mostly just semantics, but not entirely. i think it defines how we approach what we do. are you thinking about the building, or the theory, or an 'idea,' when you do whatever it is architects do?
WTF Alternative?! That's totally uncalled for, not to mention patently incorrect for anyone who has ever read or spoken to Orhan. What is your problem?
just to be clear, chris, i never spoke about ideas alone and completely separated from the built form.. of course one who only studies ideas for their entire career would be squarely placed in academia.
i am merely advocating that ideas of architecture, even if they are never realized, are indeed architecture in the context of the career of the architect. i think the example of louis kahn's roosevelt memorial is a fitting one; i am sure he would have considered his design architecture.
Agreed, Donna. Orhan hasn't been a part of this discussion for two pages, now. And honestly, name calling is a bit childish, and certainly doesn't add to the discussion, which was getting very deep. Everyone was playing so nicely; the only thing missing was a tableful of dinner scraps and a few bottles of wine.
its still very interesting to me.. if you asked most people outside the profession, they would define architecture first as the act of designing the building.. yet there are still people on this thread fighting to call only physical buildings architecture. again, no such definition for "car" exists because it is only a noun. it's not the most credible/only source.. but it's interesting to me that the first three definitions all involve a verb/process: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/architecture
If that comment was caused by my post, I certainly didn't intend what I wrote as a criticism of Orhan; I was more responding to the subsequent discussion on what is and isn't architecture. I don't see what the big to do is with what Orhan is trying: he sees a serious flaw in his students' use of concept diagrams and process drawings and so is trying a temporary corrective fix which he thinks might bring the students to better see exactly what they are doing or not doing. Another teacher might do it another way, but I don't see a big problem in what he's trying.
Yes, alright-twice, that essentially was my analogy. The point I left out, though, is I assume that when Giugiaro designs a fantasy car for, say, a movie or a children's book, he brings to that all that he knows about automobile design, everything that informs his creativity, including his considerable imagination, even if the object will not be manufactured. I mean, is he at that moment just an illustrator or prop guy, just because these are fantasy designs? To say that what Hejduk, or Lebbeus Woods, Aldo Rossi and others have produced by way of unbuilt or unbuildable designs is not then architecture, or is not informed by all that they have inside as architects, I really think is just picking nits.
it is semantics if the real is just as virtual as the virtual, you like Hume or Berkley, and you live in the Matrix..................my point is simple - do not study ideas or spend time creating ideas, study architecture and spend time creating intended architectures or if you are in a position where your intended architecture goes from the mind to the drawing to the construction site then don't bother with an abstract diagram, worry about the details....................on phone so Quondam will be later for points 3 and 4.
Chris: if that was directed at me, your first sentence means nothing to me; I never said any such thing. As far as what you should spend your time on, that should be decided by each person based on his/her inclination; if first working with an abstract diagram helps you get to intended architecture or whatever the hell it is you are creating, then go for it. If it doesn't, then don't. I fucking hate rigid thinking in creative endeavors - "do not do this, do not spend time doing that" - just do whatever fucking works for you.
Agree with you post above *except* that rigid thinking - confined to a narrow set of parameters that are full explored - can be a valuable teaching tool, especially when multiple different approaches are used sequentially, with the idea of exposing students to a variety of problem solving techniques, all of which go into the toolbox.
[Trying to bring the thread back around to the original question.]
Yes, true. I was more thinking when you've had a few years under your belt and know what works for you. In a student-teacher setting, what you outlined is valuable.
I caught up to all posts Don and responded in the train of my thought. nothing directed at you and I am pretty sure no one is really discussing anything with me anymore at this point....we're all on our own tangents now....Miles is re-directing.
Orhan, can we see more? We've dived off into what appears to be Semantics to some, but very serious to others....I see lots of trace and worked through sketches...
In my mind I want to see students thinking about human activity in space, materials, and light, that's architecture for me, and no need for a diagram....
on the accessories
even though I've called Orhan racist, but then agreed on many other points, I want to show this photo enlarged
it's mildly possible that Orhan uses his real name in the manner the rest of use ours anonymously (like that asshole Olaf)....say shit you want that is funny but really offensive, but really not, because if we all met in a bar it would be a good time....
I am still on 7's and Orhan could be all 19's...well that's where everyone get's their panties in bind right?!??!
Orhan, blow-ups.
Q and I are using the lesser known firm VSBA to work through this?
Thank you in return Chris. I will reveal more of the project after the competition is ended.
My father had all the holy books side by side in his library and I read the first chapters in each, witnessing all three came from the same story and soon after I moved on to Madame Bovary in the lower shelve leaving Abraham and others in their own high ground and enjoying Emma's tragic demise with a teenage hard on. Flaubert was more challenging and left me with immediate questions, deep and shallow.
quondam, thanks for the Casa "Il Girasole." #5, definitely.
to respond to the original post... diagrams can also be used as a test for the student: after thinking about many ideas that span many topics, it can be a way to distill their project to its most basic essence. it often brings clarity to a process, especially to beginning students, that can feel overwhelming. maybe after this process, the students can diagram. might be interesting.
i've found students that use diagramming as a way of clearly articulating their ideas to be the most successful. any process in architecture can be use as a faux-rationalization, but at it's best diagramming is extremely valuable and should be a part of all architectural projects. again, being asked to present a project in it's most simple form helps not only the designer, but the audience.
it's one of those tools that distinguishes the architect's thought process from other disciplines.
Are diagrams in architecture bullshit and ditto for process?
When Katherine Dunn describes the sawdust floor and lights illuminating Artie's tank in his sideshow tent in "Geek Love", or when Pynchon describes the helicopters zooming over Marin in "Vineland" I have an experience of those places, too. I'm not there, though.
you all may enjoy this read........ https://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/diane-lewis-einstein-and-le-corbusier/
That's a beautiful essay, Chris.
all interesting philosophical points, but no one has responded to my earlier point: if your definition of architecture is the final built thing, exclusively, then how do you define what you do on a daily basis? drawing plans, making models, writing schedules: is that all not architecture? how could the title of your discipline/profession be "architect" if what you are doing by your definition is not architecture, but just anticipatory architecture? is a more apt title "preparatory-architect?" maybe "proto-architect."
on another note, i really enjoyed what miles said about the renaissance architect, one being versed in many disciplines. i agree that by today's definition (one that exists on purely legal merits, hence the reasoning behind many of these definitions i disagree with... one should be weary of definitions created only on a legal and/or economic/capitalist basis), the architect is no longer that. what i hope for is that architecture can aspire to be that again, and often does in the educational setting.
alrightalright, all of those acts are architecture practice, in the application of skill definition of that word. not the "I have to take my son to swim practice" definition.
I'm saying a physical building is a discrete material thing, and nothing else is simultaneously that discrete material thing.
that's a muddy definition though: a lawyer is called so because he or she studies, argues, defends, and interprets law, all acts of law. it can be called law, both the end result and the entire system buttressing the law. law is not exclusively defined as the final written form; there are many facets and invisible forces that comprise the law.
same with the architect: the preparation is the architecture. those acts are more architectural than the building: the building is a manifestation of those acts, similar to the specific law.
even the most basic definitions of architecture define it as the act of designing the building, in at least conjunction with the building itself, but not exclusively the physical building. an information architect designs the structure of information, not the information itself. and so on.
chris, in response to your earlier point, i agree with your inherent argument: ideas without an understanding of materiality are problematic for the discipline of architecture, one at a very basic level concerned without how materials come together. we actually see this lack of understanding in a lot of "parametricism."
however, to create a superficial split between "academia" and "practice" does nothing but cause further polarization and avoids the question at hand: how do we define architecture in all settings and contexts? again i have to ask, if the most powerful thing an architect does on a regular basis is to imagine a different reality, how can that act not be called architecture, even if the idea is not physically realized because of a host of forces, often economic and political?
if your definition of architecture is the final built thing, exclusively, then how do you define what you do on a daily basis?
what i do on a daily basis; make coffee. run prints. post on archinect. architecture and the design of architecture don't have to be the same thing. i would even say that someone designing architecture doesn't have to be an architect. or, and architect may do things other than design architecture. they're all different things. you may be overly-intellectualizing to the point where the simple answer is obfuscated.
the practice of law, be it through a lawyer judge or legislature, is not the law itself. the law itself is the written bit that people are compelled to follow. if the law says you can't drive more than 55 mph, then that's the law you have to follow; all of the ancillary practice of law that lead to the creation and interpretation of that law is not the law you have to follow.
i don't think it is over intellectualization at all; in fact i think these questions/discussions are necessary in a world (or at least country) that increasingly settles for building (under-considered and lacking any sense of optimsm: see http://archinect.com/forum/thread/128578334/why-do-americans-love-this-style-of-architecture-so-much) as architecture. these questions have real implications on the way in which we work.
so you want to change the definition of the word to incorporate some sort of idealist fantasy? How will that change the buildings that people/groups hire architects to design?
defining architecture as a building rather than an idea or a thought or a process or whatever puts the focus back on the building where it belongs. what we should care about is the building, not the idealism behind the building. if the architecture is shitty call it what it is. be honest about it. hiding behind the 'idea' of architecture or something weird like that just distracts from what's actually happening in the real world. it seems to me like taking opium because it feels better than dealing with real life.
^ Those buildings are very seriously considered for very specific functions, especially and specifically ROI. Optimism is in the pocket of the profiteer.
to create a superficial split between "academia" and "practice" does nothing but cause further polarization
This is exactly what academia does.
and avoids the question at hand: how do we define architecture in all settings and contexts?
Ask Patrik Schumacher.
Curt, Im confused by your positioning. On one hand you rail against schumachers idea of an a-political architecture (where I agree with you completely) and on the other you take an almost detached position between design and what is being designed...as if the only role of the architect is to give form/shape/function....seems to be the same thing Shumacher is saying in a way...only he is talking about making big curvy icon buildings at the will of some corporate overlord, and you are talking about making small regular box buildings at the will of some corporate overlord. Both positions limit the role of the architect by reducing him/her to a shape maker.
Same thing if you "a-politically" design a stadium in Brazil, or a Taco Bell in New Jersey ....Still just acting as a neutral party that enables 'whatever is on the table' by giving buildings form and function...by only concerning yourself with the building itself.
I strongly feel that this attitude is why the profession has been severly stunted in its reach/influence over the built environment. If we only concern ourselves with making objects then we will only be used to make objects. The real decisions are made earlier on...before it is decided that a sfr subdivision should be developed on xyz blvd...The more important decisions are not formal or tectonic ones...they are programatic, geographic, and typological ones. This is where the world of theory and building diverge...Consulting developers, clients, and municipalities on these issues should be the main area of Architectural practice...
to reiterate jla-x.... hiding behind terms like "the real world" distracts from creating more value for good architecture. "the real world" only cares about dollars and cents, completing a project with the lowest budget possible, etc. by denying what you call "ideas," it seems to me we might be limiting architecture to a prescribed set of conventions developed by those outside the profession.
^Well said
i don't rail against schumacher's a-political architecture, i rail against his political leanings towards 'neo-liberalism.' i agree with him in that his job as an architect is to design buildings. i disagree with him in that part of his position as a human being is to have a conscience. being a bad person doesn't necessarily make you a bad architect, but it does make you a bad person....
i'm pretty sure the decision to build a subdivision is almost entirely financial. sometimes there is a need based on use. let's say you're amazon and you develop a new drone army to deliver toys to all the good little boys and girls. they need a new facility tailored to drone ingress/egress requirements. there is a board of directors that wants to expand and make more money for the shareholders and a controller or cfo or other accounting positions that will get a ballpark figure for feasibility based on cost of the facility v. return from selling goods. they will work with developers and real-estate people to find the land to build on. they will work with lawyers to try to make sure the developers and real estate people aren't screwing them too bad. they'll work with local politicians for incentives as well as power/sewer/infrastructure connections.
where do you put the architect in that? i agree that it would be best for architects to be involved as much as possible, as early possible. however, the architect's job is still to design a building. it's not to approve a loan, or to set up build to suit v. lease contracts. if you're the city offering tax rebates to amazon to move their facility to your town, you're not designing the building, and you're not doing what architects do.
if you're the head of the planning commission and you want to tell amazon they're required to paint their building a slightly lighter shade of beige, then perhaps you could say you're designing the building and doing what architects do, but then doing so through government intimidation isn't really something to be proud of. by the way, you don't need a license to join the planning department and coerce people into doing what you tell them to do...
in your list:
programmatic;
how would an architect know how many drones amazon is going to have coming and going? how would the architect know how much amazon intends to store in their new facility? how would the architect know how amazon's logistics between facilities works? these are questions for the client and end user; the architect can't just make up their own answers.
geographic;
what role can architect have in telling amazon where to put their new facility? how would the architect even know what land is available?
typological;
it's a concrete box. you know that, i know that, the architect knows that, and amazon knows that......
not built...
Yes, in the case of Amazon that is absolutely how it would play out, but I'm talking more about everyday development...Everyday places...Amazon already is what it is...The strip mall for instance is not a business...and it is yet to have an identity... it is a shell that businesses plug into. A housing development is also not a business... there is much room for innovation...An urban lot of land or an old warehouse that cannot sell is also not a business...it is a place where no one has yet exposed its potential...The location, program, and typology absolutely will determine the success of an investment. Early stage creative consulting absolutely can add value. Realtors do not do this.
By the time the architect is called the developer already decided that what the neighbors did is the best way invest... they are not creative thinkers for the most part..."beige stucco shops 1200-2400 ft.2 yup that works good enough for a 20% return."
In school much time is spent getting a site, researching, and imagining what it can be...Finding potential, creating place, exposing underserved markets, is an extremely valuable and under utilized skill we have...Through Mapping, diagrams, research, observation, etc...potential is exposed...there is an art and science to it...This kind of thinking is pretty much cut off at graduation...with the exception of urban design competitions and such...sure student work may be bogus for the most part, but what if this was continued in practice...why limit "architecture" to building design.
I don't blame academia for being out of the box as much as I blame practice for staying in it. maybe both sides should merge towards a happy medium...that is where innovation, imagination, and practicality converge in other fields.
But your last sentence IMO makes my point. The idea is one thing, but in architecture the idea *would not exist* except in response to a need for function. This is what makes art and architecture different. Art intentionally starts from a place of non-utility. Architecture always starts from the need for utility, so the drawings are always only representations.
Donna, I see your point...I don't disagree...kind of still making up my mind on it all...thinking and writing at the same time...which is what I love about archinect so much...and all you guys debating and sharing ideas...
i'm pretty sure the decision to build [insert product here] is almost entirely financial.
And with financial concerns come mitigation of cost and maximization of profit. Capitalism 101, aka Attack of the MBAs.
jla-x, I love this: just acting as a neutral party that enables 'whatever is on the table' by giving buildings form and function...by only concerning yourself with the building itself.
Agreed. I'm not in anyway saying that a building is just a building and doesn't have an ethical responsibility to be a good contributor to our shared society. I'm just arguing for architecture's unique position as built object in that society.
I also agree with so much of what you, and everyone, are saying here, and love the fact that we can discuss it!
Interesting thread.
I would say that since building is a verb and a noun that Architecture is both a process and a product.
alright alright....Miles kind of responded......... the problem is very simple - studying the "ideas of architecture" is not the same as studying architecture. creating "ideas of architecture" is not the same as creating architecture. there is a clear distinction between these two and has been well defined for years: Paper Architecture vs Architecture. studying Paper Architecture as if it was Architecture is the issue here in my opinion and the polarization caused by academia away from the real world. there is no need or benefit to studying or intentonally creating diagrams and process, especially if the end goal is not considering a built architecture. you might as well take mescalin,head off into the desert and dream up a manifesto based on hallucinations .........it is absolutely ignorant and naive to think studying or promoting or hiding in the world of "ideas" as architecture is a fruitful endeavor, our detachment from society only continues with each denial of very real forces, which are delivered by others outside the peofession. architecture of any value can not happen in a bubble of "ideas". it must manipulate and work with real forces. you are not outside the box if you do not even know what a box is.
Quondam- parts 1 & 2
if you were to study a specific project - Seattle Library:
1 - studying the "ideas of architecture"
2 - studying architecture
if you were to study a specific aspect of architecture - day lighting
1 -
2 -
In both cases you do NOT study the first images. The first images are abstractions of the real intended architecture or existing architecture. You do not study abstractions, you make abstractions when studying the real or intended real. At best you can learn how to present what you study, but you are wasting your time and straying away from that which is being studied if you are studying the presentation.
Quondam- I feel like you are responsible for creating some of the diagrams on the ARE... very similar graphic quality...
Isn't this thread just arguing semantics? "I mean architecture, not architecture!" AAAAAAGH! Architecture vs architecture...the profession/process vs the thing; you're all using the same word to mean different things. If you're talking about the thing in itself, the object, then call it a building, a structure, an object even - buildings are large and complex objects - then yes, that definition of "architecture" can only be the thing in itself.
Go to some other arena; cars, for example. Only the car itself is a car or automobile or vehicle; you don't call the process to get there a car or a vehicle, that would be just stupid. It's called automobile design or production, the automobile industry, whatever: every single step in the long process to get to a car. A drawing or model by Giorgetto Giugiaro, one of the greatest car designers, is not itself a car or a vehicle; but all of his drawing, models, mockups, etc., are all part of "automobile design", even the ones that never got or never will get produced.
it's mostly just semantics, but not entirely. i think it defines how we approach what we do. are you thinking about the building, or the theory, or an 'idea,' when you do whatever it is architects do?
Further proof that orhan is a mentally ill dweeb unfit for teaching.
WTF Alternative?! That's totally uncalled for, not to mention patently incorrect for anyone who has ever read or spoken to Orhan. What is your problem?
If the diagrams of the Seattle Library are so good why is the building so bad (as judged by its patrons)?
just to be clear, chris, i never spoke about ideas alone and completely separated from the built form.. of course one who only studies ideas for their entire career would be squarely placed in academia.
i am merely advocating that ideas of architecture, even if they are never realized, are indeed architecture in the context of the career of the architect. i think the example of louis kahn's roosevelt memorial is a fitting one; i am sure he would have considered his design architecture.
don, in your example car = building
automotive design = architecture
Agreed, Donna. Orhan hasn't been a part of this discussion for two pages, now. And honestly, name calling is a bit childish, and certainly doesn't add to the discussion, which was getting very deep. Everyone was playing so nicely; the only thing missing was a tableful of dinner scraps and a few bottles of wine.
its still very interesting to me.. if you asked most people outside the profession, they would define architecture first as the act of designing the building.. yet there are still people on this thread fighting to call only physical buildings architecture. again, no such definition for "car" exists because it is only a noun. it's not the most credible/only source.. but it's interesting to me that the first three definitions all involve a verb/process: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/architecture
If that comment was caused by my post, I certainly didn't intend what I wrote as a criticism of Orhan; I was more responding to the subsequent discussion on what is and isn't architecture. I don't see what the big to do is with what Orhan is trying: he sees a serious flaw in his students' use of concept diagrams and process drawings and so is trying a temporary corrective fix which he thinks might bring the students to better see exactly what they are doing or not doing. Another teacher might do it another way, but I don't see a big problem in what he's trying.
Yes, alright-twice, that essentially was my analogy. The point I left out, though, is I assume that when Giugiaro designs a fantasy car for, say, a movie or a children's book, he brings to that all that he knows about automobile design, everything that informs his creativity, including his considerable imagination, even if the object will not be manufactured. I mean, is he at that moment just an illustrator or prop guy, just because these are fantasy designs? To say that what Hejduk, or Lebbeus Woods, Aldo Rossi and others have produced by way of unbuilt or unbuildable designs is not then architecture, or is not informed by all that they have inside as architects, I really think is just picking nits.
it is semantics if the real is just as virtual as the virtual, you like Hume or Berkley, and you live in the Matrix..................my point is simple - do not study ideas or spend time creating ideas, study architecture and spend time creating intended architectures or if you are in a position where your intended architecture goes from the mind to the drawing to the construction site then don't bother with an abstract diagram, worry about the details....................on phone so Quondam will be later for points 3 and 4.
Chris: if that was directed at me, your first sentence means nothing to me; I never said any such thing. As far as what you should spend your time on, that should be decided by each person based on his/her inclination; if first working with an abstract diagram helps you get to intended architecture or whatever the hell it is you are creating, then go for it. If it doesn't, then don't. I fucking hate rigid thinking in creative endeavors - "do not do this, do not spend time doing that" - just do whatever fucking works for you.
Meanwhile, I'm stuck in this particular design I'm working on, so I shuffle a deck of Oblique Strategies and draw a card. Result:
Strategy no.16: Take away the elements in order of apparent non-importance.
^ There's a 4th edition on ebay for $950.
Agree with you post above *except* that rigid thinking - confined to a narrow set of parameters that are full explored - can be a valuable teaching tool, especially when multiple different approaches are used sequentially, with the idea of exposing students to a variety of problem solving techniques, all of which go into the toolbox.
[Trying to bring the thread back around to the original question.]
Yes, true. I was more thinking when you've had a few years under your belt and know what works for you. In a student-teacher setting, what you outlined is valuable.
I caught up to all posts Don and responded in the train of my thought. nothing directed at you and I am pretty sure no one is really discussing anything with me anymore at this point....we're all on our own tangents now....Miles is re-directing.
3 - creating "ideas on architecture"
4 - creating architecture
Q, I took a huge risk, since I know you know VSBA very well, but let me know if you see where I am heading here.
Should a student study #3 or study #4 (or las vegas) and then create #3 based on studying #4?
3 lead to 4.
Being that I never visited the Guild House, both are 2 dimensional images to me.
jla-x I would suggest 3 came from 4. that's where i'm headed, opposite direction.
so, last couple of days, we keep making a dent on the project via the sketch plans, sections, elevations etc.
for those bigoted people in archinect, take your prejudice to your klan meeting.
Orhan, can we see more? We've dived off into what appears to be Semantics to some, but very serious to others....I see lots of trace and worked through sketches...
In my mind I want to see students thinking about human activity in space, materials, and light, that's architecture for me, and no need for a diagram....
on the accessories
even though I've called Orhan racist, but then agreed on many other points, I want to show this photo enlarged
it's mildly possible that Orhan uses his real name in the manner the rest of use ours anonymously (like that asshole Olaf)....say shit you want that is funny but really offensive, but really not, because if we all met in a bar it would be a good time....
I am still on 7's and Orhan could be all 19's...well that's where everyone get's their panties in bind right?!??!
Orhan, blow-ups.
Q and I are using the lesser known firm VSBA to work through this?
teşekkür ederim
Thank you in return Chris. I will reveal more of the project after the competition is ended.
My father had all the holy books side by side in his library and I read the first chapters in each, witnessing all three came from the same story and soon after I moved on to Madame Bovary in the lower shelve leaving Abraham and others in their own high ground and enjoying Emma's tragic demise with a teenage hard on. Flaubert was more challenging and left me with immediate questions, deep and shallow.
quondam, thanks for the Casa "Il Girasole." #5, definitely.
to respond to the original post... diagrams can also be used as a test for the student: after thinking about many ideas that span many topics, it can be a way to distill their project to its most basic essence. it often brings clarity to a process, especially to beginning students, that can feel overwhelming. maybe after this process, the students can diagram. might be interesting.
i've found students that use diagramming as a way of clearly articulating their ideas to be the most successful. any process in architecture can be use as a faux-rationalization, but at it's best diagramming is extremely valuable and should be a part of all architectural projects. again, being asked to present a project in it's most simple form helps not only the designer, but the audience.
it's one of those tools that distinguishes the architect's thought process from other disciplines.
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.