I'm trying to figure out what "projective practice" actually means.
I understand that it's a way of practicing that privileges the diagrammatic, performative and ecological, over the indexical, dialectic and representational. All of that is clear to me.
What I'm getting stuck on is the word projective. Is it projective in the sense of projecting an image on something? If so, what kind of image?
Is it about projecting a vision into the future, in a quasi-utopian sense?
Or is it the psychiatrist's sense of revealing hidden motives and structure?
Or....is this another instance of architects latching onto, redefining, and abusing a word from other disciplines, thus rendering it nonsensical?
Please help. There have been whole conferences dedicated to this issue, and yet I can't seem to get a precise definition of the word "projective" as it pertains to practice.
Theory and practice are captured by one and other and in this situation both incapable of engaging reality, this is a sad and dumb situation according to Allen. This does not mean; let’s get rid of one of them to liberate the other. Allen proposes a revision of both definitions. So he reformulates practice as well as theory as ‘material practice’ and ‘hermeneutic practice’. Two practices that work more closely together in engaging reality. Hermeneutic practice understands the present through analyzing the past and material practice analyses the present “in order to project transformations into the future”. In this new relationship, architecture is not the object of theory and architecture does not need theory as legitimation for defining the form in which it manifests itself. “What is proposed instead is a notion of practice flexible enough to engage the complexity of the real, yet sufficiently secure in its own technical and conceptual bases to go beyond the simple reflection of the real as given”
I'm still not entirely sure what "projective practice" is, but a few key things from that article.
- critical practice (ala eisenman) is sooo over.
- we need to stop pretending we're experts in other fields (like philosophy).
- we need to start making sense to regular people.
- students want to do projects that have a positive social impact, not cynical navel-gazing artistic "crtiques" of the post-industrial capitalist system. and since they pay our salaries that's what we'll do.
- the race is on to trademark the name of the next big "movement."
Why do we as architects have to treat these ideas as trends? As moments of fashion? Doesn't that in itself discredit the validity of our methodology?
If the projective idea is already old hat after six or seven years, then shouldn't we formulate a concept that can have lasting validity even as it evolves?
This is what science does: it has broad defining theories that evolve over time.
farwest, i don't think so much that it was a passing trend, but it seems the financial crisis blew a big hole through the projective line of reasoning rather quickly.
toasteroven, i've been out of school for a few years, but it seems we are having the same conversations now as we did when i was in school. everything seems to have come to a halt and we are all trying to figure out what's next. in my opinion, culturally, i think we are still very postmodern, but for architecture, i don't think we are quite done with modernism, but it's really hard nowadays to peg the nom du jour...just look out how patrick shumacher gets hung out to dry every time he tries to sell parametricism...but who knows, maybe it's this difficulty that defines our epoch?
Everyone knows [strike]Mexicans[/strike] don't have the construction skills to build that! If we had a [strike]Mexicans[/strike] construction workforce that could pound out buildings with complex organic features and a high level of precision, I'm pretty the vast majority of this country would be in the Federalist style (or really in any Neoclassical, Rococo or Baroque adaptation).
Those styles didn't go out of fashion because there was no longer a demand for them... they went out of style because the number of skilled workers who can make the trimmings vaporized. A neoclassical building sans columns, friezes, statues, dormers... et cetera... is just a stack of blocks.
Even the 'cheap' versions of neoclassical architecture (cast iron and repousse zinc plating) are considered horribly expensive in today's standard because the number of moldmakers has virtually declined to nil.
Whatever, that was a completely legitimate response that fit the concept of what projective practice is.
When it comes down to marketing architecture, big picture ideas and fuzzy philosophy can sell a client into potentially buying more expensive processes and materials into their overall project. However, the marketing approach does not always translate over when it comes to "business"-- whether it be leasing a space, having the building evaluated and appraised or securing a sufficient line of credit long enough to finish a project in its entirety.
Because the practice of architecture is not some finished packaged product, architects play an important role in developing and instituting manufacturing, construction and finishing techniques on architectural technologies.
However, without a significant economy behind them, those techniques often fail to materialize to their theoretical maximum potential. Some of these technologies have been around for at least 10 years to as much as 30 years and have proven to be niche, less-than-cost-effective approaches to fulfilling a means to an end. And unfortunately or fortunately, many of the hype behind said solutions doesn't translate over to dollar-dollar-bills-y'all on paper.
The better question is whether or not projects are being cost inflated intentionally with expensive and impractical solutions is so that firms can bill out higher fees (if the firm is choosing a percentage of project total rather than an itemized approach).
If I was a firm that billed out based on project cost while minimizing my workload, I would just recommend nothing but gold-plated EIFS bigboxes.
Hah. I thought Projective Practice was about architects projecting the wishes of developers (i.e. "the present conditions and possibilities") into material reality - instead of procrastinating and lebbeus-woodsing around.
i think of it (only half tongue-in-cheek) as speculation about a way of practicing that doesn't exist yet. in sort of a contemporary variant of the 'paper architect' of the 80s, the architects are projecting a vision of what a fruitful practice could be. sometimes it'll work, sometimes it won't.
shop has worked this model well, developing a way of working that wasn't in place before, mashing up development and digital design and fabrication into a hybrid that allows them greater control of the results and greater share of the rewards.
by this description, zaha was exercising a form of projective practice in the 80s, developing projects which were not likely to get built because either no one knew how or there was no market. by projecting that work out into the architectural media, making it part of the architectural cultural landscape, she created a demand and therefore a foundation for her practice. paint became pixels, patrick the parametric became copilot, and she had a business that built stuff!
oma did a similar thing, though they always had a professional practice running, with the speculative stuff building toward the NEXT work. gehry, too: the disney concert hall is a great example of the effect of this evolution. the original versions were almost primitive compared to where he ended up, largely because he had the professional office but 'projected' a different way of working parallel to the daily production and then was able to roll this into the office-at-large.
whatever you want to call it, it's r&d.
and it's not just a trend, it's a smart way to work.
and most of us don't do it very well, too focused on getting today's work out the door.
Steven, I would definitively not put Zaha in the PP box - but Shop is a great example. I should refine my earlier comment by saying that projective practice takes economic factors and possibilities as central means of creating, instead of dealing with them as impediments or constrictions. And that's where they run foul of so called critical architecture.
Or am I mistaken - isn't projective practice = post-critical architecture? I might be mixing concepts here...
I think helsinki and toasteroven are very close to the definition as I thought it was,
As helsinki describes:
"a notion of practice flexible enough to engage the complexity of the real, yet sufficiently secure in its own technical and conceptual bases to go beyond the simple reflection of the real as given" which is pretty close to post critical thought.
This is a good thread farwest...in relation,Reinhold Martin's critical or what? in the Harvard design magazine, touches on some of the things brought up in this thread.
Mercenary Practice (or Mercenarism)
Doing whatever your cilent wants, irrespective of anything you've said or thought about design before. Many adherants in suburban Atlanta and all over Cailfornia.
Reactive Practice
Doing whatever seems hip at the moment, copying whatever you see in the latest archiporn glossies after a bare nominal attempt to understand their critical dimensions. Common practice among Beijing- and WDC-based practices.
Penurial Practice
Practice tetering perpetually on the edge of financial ruin.
Repetitive Practice
Designing the same building over and over again, claiming it's new work each time.
Oct 15, 10 4:03 pm ·
·
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.
Can Someone Explain the Meaning of Projective Practice?
I'm trying to figure out what "projective practice" actually means.
I understand that it's a way of practicing that privileges the diagrammatic, performative and ecological, over the indexical, dialectic and representational. All of that is clear to me.
What I'm getting stuck on is the word projective. Is it projective in the sense of projecting an image on something? If so, what kind of image?
Is it about projecting a vision into the future, in a quasi-utopian sense?
Or is it the psychiatrist's sense of revealing hidden motives and structure?
Or....is this another instance of architects latching onto, redefining, and abusing a word from other disciplines, thus rendering it nonsensical?
Please help. There have been whole conferences dedicated to this issue, and yet I can't seem to get a precise definition of the word "projective" as it pertains to practice.
might be helpful.
key quote from that PDF:
Theory and practice are captured by one and other and in this situation both incapable of engaging reality, this is a sad and dumb situation according to Allen. This does not mean; let’s get rid of one of them to liberate the other. Allen proposes a revision of both definitions. So he reformulates practice as well as theory as ‘material practice’ and ‘hermeneutic practice’. Two practices that work more closely together in engaging reality. Hermeneutic practice understands the present through analyzing the past and material practice analyses the present “in order to project transformations into the future”. In this new relationship, architecture is not the object of theory and architecture does not need theory as legitimation for defining the form in which it manifests itself. “What is proposed instead is a notion of practice flexible enough to engage the complexity of the real, yet sufficiently secure in its own technical and conceptual bases to go beyond the simple reflection of the real as given”
I'm still not entirely sure what "projective practice" is, but a few key things from that article.
- critical practice (ala eisenman) is sooo over.
- we need to stop pretending we're experts in other fields (like philosophy).
- we need to start making sense to regular people.
- students want to do projects that have a positive social impact, not cynical navel-gazing artistic "crtiques" of the post-industrial capitalist system. and since they pay our salaries that's what we'll do.
- the race is on to trademark the name of the next big "movement."
"TradeMark Practice" that is the next big thing!
i would refer to the projective landscapes debate at delft in 2006.
http://www.archinect.com/schoolblog/blog.php?id=C0_286_39
and michael speaks gives a good introduction:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3780651911823701124#
the idea is old hat, but i'm curious if architects out there think it's still relevant.
dot - so what is the current academic nom du jour for whatever period we are in now?
Why do we as architects have to treat these ideas as trends? As moments of fashion? Doesn't that in itself discredit the validity of our methodology?
If the projective idea is already old hat after six or seven years, then shouldn't we formulate a concept that can have lasting validity even as it evolves?
This is what science does: it has broad defining theories that evolve over time.
farwest, i don't think so much that it was a passing trend, but it seems the financial crisis blew a big hole through the projective line of reasoning rather quickly.
toasteroven, i've been out of school for a few years, but it seems we are having the same conversations now as we did when i was in school. everything seems to have come to a halt and we are all trying to figure out what's next. in my opinion, culturally, i think we are still very postmodern, but for architecture, i don't think we are quite done with modernism, but it's really hard nowadays to peg the nom du jour...just look out how patrick shumacher gets hung out to dry every time he tries to sell parametricism...but who knows, maybe it's this difficulty that defines our epoch?
why dont you whiny beitches go build something.
Parametricism?
Everyone knows [strike]Mexicans[/strike] don't have the construction skills to build that! If we had a [strike]Mexicans[/strike] construction workforce that could pound out buildings with complex organic features and a high level of precision, I'm pretty the vast majority of this country would be in the Federalist style (or really in any Neoclassical, Rococo or Baroque adaptation).
Those styles didn't go out of fashion because there was no longer a demand for them... they went out of style because the number of skilled workers who can make the trimmings vaporized. A neoclassical building sans columns, friezes, statues, dormers... et cetera... is just a stack of blocks.
Even the 'cheap' versions of neoclassical architecture (cast iron and repousse zinc plating) are considered horribly expensive in today's standard because the number of moldmakers has virtually declined to nil.
unicorn fu ck you
Whatever, that was a completely legitimate response that fit the concept of what projective practice is.
When it comes down to marketing architecture, big picture ideas and fuzzy philosophy can sell a client into potentially buying more expensive processes and materials into their overall project. However, the marketing approach does not always translate over when it comes to "business"-- whether it be leasing a space, having the building evaluated and appraised or securing a sufficient line of credit long enough to finish a project in its entirety.
Because the practice of architecture is not some finished packaged product, architects play an important role in developing and instituting manufacturing, construction and finishing techniques on architectural technologies.
However, without a significant economy behind them, those techniques often fail to materialize to their theoretical maximum potential. Some of these technologies have been around for at least 10 years to as much as 30 years and have proven to be niche, less-than-cost-effective approaches to fulfilling a means to an end. And unfortunately or fortunately, many of the hype behind said solutions doesn't translate over to dollar-dollar-bills-y'all on paper.
The better question is whether or not projects are being cost inflated intentionally with expensive and impractical solutions is so that firms can bill out higher fees (if the firm is choosing a percentage of project total rather than an itemized approach).
If I was a firm that billed out based on project cost while minimizing my workload, I would just recommend nothing but gold-plated EIFS bigboxes.
How about Productive Practice?
Hah. I thought Projective Practice was about architects projecting the wishes of developers (i.e. "the present conditions and possibilities") into material reality - instead of procrastinating and lebbeus-woodsing around.
i think of it (only half tongue-in-cheek) as speculation about a way of practicing that doesn't exist yet. in sort of a contemporary variant of the 'paper architect' of the 80s, the architects are projecting a vision of what a fruitful practice could be. sometimes it'll work, sometimes it won't.
shop has worked this model well, developing a way of working that wasn't in place before, mashing up development and digital design and fabrication into a hybrid that allows them greater control of the results and greater share of the rewards.
by this description, zaha was exercising a form of projective practice in the 80s, developing projects which were not likely to get built because either no one knew how or there was no market. by projecting that work out into the architectural media, making it part of the architectural cultural landscape, she created a demand and therefore a foundation for her practice. paint became pixels, patrick the parametric became copilot, and she had a business that built stuff!
oma did a similar thing, though they always had a professional practice running, with the speculative stuff building toward the NEXT work. gehry, too: the disney concert hall is a great example of the effect of this evolution. the original versions were almost primitive compared to where he ended up, largely because he had the professional office but 'projected' a different way of working parallel to the daily production and then was able to roll this into the office-at-large.
whatever you want to call it, it's r&d.
and it's not just a trend, it's a smart way to work.
and most of us don't do it very well, too focused on getting today's work out the door.
Steven, I would definitively not put Zaha in the PP box - but Shop is a great example. I should refine my earlier comment by saying that projective practice takes economic factors and possibilities as central means of creating, instead of dealing with them as impediments or constrictions. And that's where they run foul of so called critical architecture.
Or am I mistaken - isn't projective practice = post-critical architecture? I might be mixing concepts here...
right - because we don't get paid to think.
SW - I'm curious to know how offices such as SHoP have weathered the recession relative to conventional offices.
I think helsinki and toasteroven are very close to the definition as I thought it was,
As helsinki describes:
"a notion of practice flexible enough to engage the complexity of the real, yet sufficiently secure in its own technical and conceptual bases to go beyond the simple reflection of the real as given" which is pretty close to post critical thought.
This is a good thread farwest...in relation,Reinhold Martin's critical or what? in the Harvard design magazine, touches on some of the things brought up in this thread.
how about?
Mercenary Practice (or Mercenarism)
Doing whatever your cilent wants, irrespective of anything you've said or thought about design before. Many adherants in suburban Atlanta and all over Cailfornia.
Reactive Practice
Doing whatever seems hip at the moment, copying whatever you see in the latest archiporn glossies after a bare nominal attempt to understand their critical dimensions. Common practice among Beijing- and WDC-based practices.
Penurial Practice
Practice tetering perpetually on the edge of financial ruin.
Repetitive Practice
Designing the same building over and over again, claiming it's new work each time.
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.