because it's not original- the method by which you got there (not the final product) is artificial... it's not based on a concept, but a desire to match something that is not rooted in a real response to a given problem.
what if it's a problem you've already solved before? most buildings i've seen are basically the same thing in different wrappers. are yours always completely dissimilar?
AGAIN: the method by which you got there (not the final product) is artificial...
Design is about process, not just final product. The final product of a repetitive process is termed "buildings". The final product of a responsive design process is termed "Architecture".
Well, generally speaking a mood is set by referencing a prior experience and the psychological impact said experience had on a person. So if you're designing a space, which is more or less static, you have to count on a reference point on which you can surmise most people that will occupy that space have experienced in order to achieve your intended outcome. Without reference, there can be no mood.
the first reference ever is a cave, no architecture is "natural", it's all artificial. (building a set of temples on top of a plateau overlooking the people is a process that starts with the idea of a godly rule over a chaotic world, which is the original scam)
explain more why you beleive architecture is about process. I'm inclined to disagree, but curious to hear your reasoning.
For me, outcome is everything. Or maybe 90% It's how I evaluate the kind of architecture that seems good in the pretentious sense. Is it nice/beautiful/impressive/etc
Ironically it's only when I'm looking at flawed or baffling designs that I start to care/wonder what the architect's process was. What was the thinking?
I think that when talking about the way we want a space to function we don't need to reference anything... when we talk about how a space makes a person feel... then that is totally subjective...
not everyone fits in the same box you design. You can't impose what you design for someone on someone else... each person each place has its own set of demands.. without going through the process you are operating with complete disregard to your context and end-user... It's kind of like if you are a retail shop owner and you see a girl put on a dress you know she wants but you know would never fit her. She has this idea in her mind of what she wants, but maybe she wants it for the wrong reason. The design process is about teasing out the real issues and then responding to them in non-superficial ways...
eh, all of my work is for institutional clients. there isn't usually much nuance to tease out of them beyond the stated needs. I might look at it differently if I were working on projects for personal homes or such where you can actually have a conversation about specific and unique needs of the client.
but, honestly, there'd always be a stamp of my own approach to experience in that. that's what the best clients look for actually.
Midlander- as I said above: I think that when talking about the way we want a space to function we could reference all we want... there are only a handful of ways you can solve a given problem... but the way you make someone feel in a space... that's a totally different story... some people just focus on the function of a space and try to replicate that for different clients... but that process never goes beyond tapping into any other aesthetic/psychological requirements... therefore, in my mind: you design buildings and not architecture.
Which one? One of his projects specifically calls itself a "mountain". In his diagrams, he clearly points to things like "resultant silhouette resembles a curtain being drawn aside", which is referencing. Since design is a process as you said, there isn't evidence to prove he isn't referencing moods. The website is slow as hell so I'm having trouble flipping through them all.
If you can provide some context as to what it is you're trying to prove, this would move along much faster.
I wasn't aware we were on some kind of "deadline." All I am trying to say, and I've said this before elsewhere on some threads, is that reference as a generator of ideas is counterproductive to achieving something unique. Looking at magazines, pinterest pages, inspiration images is a bad idea because it poisons our imagination about what something could be. And my original question - can we set moods without reference - was trying to get you to identify ways in which we can stop referencing and start thinking and designing... kind of like in school.. I remember one person in his first day of architecture school designed something for studio and our professor asked him what his reasoning was, and he used words such as "fun and cool." I learned quickly that you don't explain a project in superficial ways with that kind of language. You have to tease out what exactly is interesting, cool, fun, etc. Why should you stop doing that once you graduate?
You could've been clearer. The way you put it, it read as "designing without trying to evoke emotions". Don't be mad when people cannot understand what it is you are trying to convey.
What inherent value does "originality" have and how will you feel when you find out that it's unlikely anyone has had a truly original thought in their lives?
whether or not you arrive to a conclusion that is similar to others is irrelevant; the final product doesn't matter. What matters is that the thought process is original and that it is based on analyses of facts rather than pre-conceived notions.
Again, you failed to clarify what the hell you meant originally. The superficial "setting moods without reference" doesn't make sense in your context now that it's changed to being original and understanding why someone justifies their work as fun or cool or a cesspool of human indignation.
How do you judge any of those? There's no universal consensus on joy or coolness so yes, in essence there probably would be something original when one has a rigorous process. But the ideas are also going to draw upon what people--larger society--knows joy to mean and represent and if you fail to represent something understand, then it's just a static object meant to be gawked at. Art. Fine end result but it's certainly not design, which to you sounds more like the verb than the noun.
It's no surprise some people have shallow conceptions of architecture and simply use simple emotions to not explain any of their reasoning or decisions. Is that within range of what you're trying to say?
Jun 4, 15 5:17 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.
Setting Moods without Reference
Can you set a mood without referencing anything? Can you sell an idea/mood without referencing another project/image?
The viewer will always base their response, in some way, on memory. So, there is almost always a reference affecting mood.
Why would you be afraid of referencing something?
sell a mood.
because it's not original- the method by which you got there (not the final product) is artificial... it's not based on a concept, but a desire to match something that is not rooted in a real response to a given problem.
what if it's a problem you've already solved before? most buildings i've seen are basically the same thing in different wrappers. are yours always completely dissimilar?
AGAIN: the method by which you got there (not the final product) is artificial...
Design is about process, not just final product. The final product of a repetitive process is termed "buildings". The final product of a responsive design process is termed "Architecture".
Well, generally speaking a mood is set by referencing a prior experience and the psychological impact said experience had on a person. So if you're designing a space, which is more or less static, you have to count on a reference point on which you can surmise most people that will occupy that space have experienced in order to achieve your intended outcome. Without reference, there can be no mood.
the first reference ever is a cave, no architecture is "natural", it's all artificial. (building a set of temples on top of a plateau overlooking the people is a process that starts with the idea of a godly rule over a chaotic world, which is the original scam)
But I like where you are going.
Without reference, there can be no mood. Sure there can...
explain more why you beleive architecture is about process. I'm inclined to disagree, but curious to hear your reasoning.
For me, outcome is everything. Or maybe 90% It's how I evaluate the kind of architecture that seems good in the pretentious sense. Is it nice/beautiful/impressive/etc
Ironically it's only when I'm looking at flawed or baffling designs that I start to care/wonder what the architect's process was. What was the thinking?
I think that when talking about the way we want a space to function we don't need to reference anything... when we talk about how a space makes a person feel... then that is totally subjective...
explain more why you beleive architecture is about process. I'm inclined to disagree, but curious to hear your reasoning.
I can write an entire thesis on this and many have...
not everyone fits in the same box you design. You can't impose what you design for someone on someone else... each person each place has its own set of demands.. without going through the process you are operating with complete disregard to your context and end-user... It's kind of like if you are a retail shop owner and you see a girl put on a dress you know she wants but you know would never fit her. She has this idea in her mind of what she wants, but maybe she wants it for the wrong reason. The design process is about teasing out the real issues and then responding to them in non-superficial ways...
eh, all of my work is for institutional clients. there isn't usually much nuance to tease out of them beyond the stated needs. I might look at it differently if I were working on projects for personal homes or such where you can actually have a conversation about specific and unique needs of the client.
but, honestly, there'd always be a stamp of my own approach to experience in that. that's what the best clients look for actually.
Midlander- as I said above: I think that when talking about the way we want a space to function we could reference all we want... there are only a handful of ways you can solve a given problem... but the way you make someone feel in a space... that's a totally different story... some people just focus on the function of a space and try to replicate that for different clients... but that process never goes beyond tapping into any other aesthetic/psychological requirements... therefore, in my mind: you design buildings and not architecture.
Without reference, there can be no mood. Sure there can...
Can you share an example? I mean, the burden of proof lies onto you but you never did provide any support for the claims made.
all of BIG's work...
Which one? One of his projects specifically calls itself a "mountain". In his diagrams, he clearly points to things like "resultant silhouette resembles a curtain being drawn aside", which is referencing. Since design is a process as you said, there isn't evidence to prove he isn't referencing moods. The website is slow as hell so I'm having trouble flipping through them all.
If you can provide some context as to what it is you're trying to prove, this would move along much faster.
I wasn't aware we were on some kind of "deadline." All I am trying to say, and I've said this before elsewhere on some threads, is that reference as a generator of ideas is counterproductive to achieving something unique. Looking at magazines, pinterest pages, inspiration images is a bad idea because it poisons our imagination about what something could be. And my original question - can we set moods without reference - was trying to get you to identify ways in which we can stop referencing and start thinking and designing... kind of like in school.. I remember one person in his first day of architecture school designed something for studio and our professor asked him what his reasoning was, and he used words such as "fun and cool." I learned quickly that you don't explain a project in superficial ways with that kind of language. You have to tease out what exactly is interesting, cool, fun, etc. Why should you stop doing that once you graduate?
You could've been clearer. The way you put it, it read as "designing without trying to evoke emotions". Don't be mad when people cannot understand what it is you are trying to convey.
What inherent value does "originality" have and how will you feel when you find out that it's unlikely anyone has had a truly original thought in their lives?
WOW- you didn't read anything I said, did you?
whether or not you arrive to a conclusion that is similar to others is irrelevant; the final product doesn't matter. What matters is that the thought process is original and that it is based on analyses of facts rather than pre-conceived notions.
The thought process is not original. It may be organic, but it's not original.
You don't need to agree.
Again, you failed to clarify what the hell you meant originally. The superficial "setting moods without reference" doesn't make sense in your context now that it's changed to being original and understanding why someone justifies their work as fun or cool or a cesspool of human indignation.
How do you judge any of those? There's no universal consensus on joy or coolness so yes, in essence there probably would be something original when one has a rigorous process. But the ideas are also going to draw upon what people--larger society--knows joy to mean and represent and if you fail to represent something understand, then it's just a static object meant to be gawked at. Art. Fine end result but it's certainly not design, which to you sounds more like the verb than the noun.
It's no surprise some people have shallow conceptions of architecture and simply use simple emotions to not explain any of their reasoning or decisions. Is that within range of what you're trying to say?
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.