when i was in architecture school, I remember my professor in Architectural Theory asking the question: "Can architects design without thoery?" The concensus was "no". Years later, I havemy own question: Can architects design without reference? Im interested in those of you who answer "yes" and why. To clarify, by reference I don't mean contextual reference. I am more talking about reference to works of others.
i don't think it's possible to design a functional modern building (ie, something more advanced than a stick and tarp lean-to) without some kind of reference to buildings you've seen before. they might not be 'architectural history' type works, but everyone has spent most of their life in buildings - even an uneducated layman designer will have an understanding of buildings informed by the house he lived in, the gas stations and supermarkets he shops at, the stylized greek temples he sees in faux-impressionist paintings at the local pizzeria.
or do you mean literal reference in the sense of copying / developing a style with conscious intent? that is obviously possible, though there are still unintentional (or at least subconscious) references.
for me, those unconscious references as seen in kitsch and vernacular architecture are actually the more interesting thing. what motivates people to adapt and use certain stylistic features and functional arrangements but not others... the fascinating part of architecture is when it actually shows us something about human nature.
the ultimate reference is your own body, in that sense I think it's possible - but improbable, because you are bombarded since birth now by visual stimuli that penetrates deep.
quondam- yes- can an architect design architecture for which there is no precedent and if not, can we at have an original design process that leads us to those conclusions independently from looking at precedents.
While inspirational images are an excellent tool to use with a client who is not experienced with the design process and doesn’t know exactly what they want, and while it can be an effective tool to use to sell an idea/concept/mood, doesn’t the implantation of ideas in the minds of our clients through the use of “inspirational images” take away from the originality and creativity of the design process? As architects/designers we justify this method by arguing that the end product will not be exactly what one sees in the images, but it seems as if to use inspirational images to sell or put together concepts, is to curate a bunch of precedents and reassemble them into a patchwork of gestures that will eventually become the “concept”. Are the above design methods and techniques effective and profitable? Most likely. But I am very curious about our responsibility to originality in that process. It isn’t about reinventing the wheel, necessarily. But if we start without pre-conceived notions or ideas, the design process can guide us to places we may not have otherwise explored. In my opinion, this would allow us to set trends in design, rather than follow them.
Pardon me if I'm wrong but was it not based on Eisenmann's berlin tower proposal? And wasn't the Interlace by OMA also a cross between Pruitt-igoe's failed housing project and the Bank of georgia at Tbilisi?
It's a loaded question...but imo if a person were isolated since birth from all built things (living in a forest) they would likely build in reference to natural features like trees, caves, etc...it's very unlikely that they would design a modern house. The proof for that is history and the fact that we don't see any anomalous artifacts that are very far removed from the time/culture they were created in...in other words, architecture, even in its most ambitious moments, and by its most talented designers, never really strays that far from the given culture/history that it exists within...it all seems to follow a pretty strait timeline...That said, I do think it's possible to reinvent certain forms that are physically logical. For instance, the pyramid, the arch, the lintel, the A-frame, etc has evolved in different cultures who were geographically isolated from one another...So, yes a person isolated in the woods may figure out that an arch is a good way to distribute forces...
I'd say at this moment it's *almost* impossible to design without use of, and therefore reference to, construction standard dimensional units. But I think parametrics and mass customization is changing that.
I guess my biggest critique is about designers who use inspirational images of other projects already built. Want to use nature and the environment as inspiration- no problem. Jist don't use a Saarinen stair as inspiration for your design; let's face it- if you do, you'll copy all or part of it. Inspiration images are referential, and for the most part do a tremendous diservice to the design process because literal clients without imaginatiok get hooked fo what they see. Unfortunately this is 90% of the laymen out there. Why can't we just describe what we want to accomplish, rather than use a specid example; leave something up for the imagination and talent of the architect. If you are going for a sculptural stair, sketch out some ideas of what you're thinking rather than use someone else's in a finished space. It just seems like a reallylazy way to design...
So should we not show images of our own previous work to clients? Because that would be referencing ourselves?
If I want a client to do an open-riser stair, can I show them 10 images of open-riser stairs and say "Similar to this" or should I just wave my hands and ask them to imagine it? Maybe build a little mini-model out of popsicle sticks to give them the idea?
I'm not sure what your frustration is, Bulgar. I mean, if a client shows me another architect's work - like BCJ's glass stairs for Mac stores - and says "I want my stair to look exactly like this" I'd say well I won't copy it exactly, because that would be unethical, but I can use these concepts - glass, transparency, minimalism, engineering fetishization - into a design that's appropriate for your space. s that still "stealing"?
Chances are that nothing is teuly original- but yes- imagintion is what is lacking these days... we always reference everyone else's work and at the end of the day we come up with the same shit over and over again... maybe this is part of the reason unfamous architects stay unfamous- they contribute nothing new.
^ You are completely missing the point bulgar. Reference is in your subconscious. Reference is different from straight up copying. I guarantee that you didn't design anything "new" as you hoped to. You may have tweeked an existing thing to blur its origins....but it's DNA is almost certainly not new. I dare you to prove me wrong. Let's see some pics...
Architecture Without Reference
when i was in architecture school, I remember my professor in Architectural Theory asking the question: "Can architects design without thoery?" The concensus was "no". Years later, I havemy own question: Can architects design without reference? Im interested in those of you who answer "yes" and why. To clarify, by reference I don't mean contextual reference. I am more talking about reference to works of others.
i don't think it's possible to design a functional modern building (ie, something more advanced than a stick and tarp lean-to) without some kind of reference to buildings you've seen before. they might not be 'architectural history' type works, but everyone has spent most of their life in buildings - even an uneducated layman designer will have an understanding of buildings informed by the house he lived in, the gas stations and supermarkets he shops at, the stylized greek temples he sees in faux-impressionist paintings at the local pizzeria.
or do you mean literal reference in the sense of copying / developing a style with conscious intent? that is obviously possible, though there are still unintentional (or at least subconscious) references.
for me, those unconscious references as seen in kitsch and vernacular architecture are actually the more interesting thing. what motivates people to adapt and use certain stylistic features and functional arrangements but not others... the fascinating part of architecture is when it actually shows us something about human nature.
the ultimate reference is your own body, in that sense I think it's possible - but improbable, because you are bombarded since birth now by visual stimuli that penetrates deep.
quondam- yes- can an architect design architecture for which there is no precedent and if not, can we at have an original design process that leads us to those conclusions independently from looking at precedents.
BB can you define what you mean by reference? Are you referring to architecture?
While inspirational images are an excellent tool to use with a client who is not experienced with the design process and doesn’t know exactly what they want, and while it can be an effective tool to use to sell an idea/concept/mood, doesn’t the implantation of ideas in the minds of our clients through the use of “inspirational images” take away from the originality and creativity of the design process? As architects/designers we justify this method by arguing that the end product will not be exactly what one sees in the images, but it seems as if to use inspirational images to sell or put together concepts, is to curate a bunch of precedents and reassemble them into a patchwork of gestures that will eventually become the “concept”. Are the above design methods and techniques effective and profitable? Most likely. But I am very curious about our responsibility to originality in that process. It isn’t about reinventing the wheel, necessarily. But if we start without pre-conceived notions or ideas, the design process can guide us to places we may not have otherwise explored. In my opinion, this would allow us to set trends in design, rather than follow them.
who are the ones you feel are currently setting trends in design - and are they doing so without any reference to prior works?
...no precedent for OMA's CCTV...
Pardon me if I'm wrong but was it not based on Eisenmann's berlin tower proposal? And wasn't the Interlace by OMA also a cross between Pruitt-igoe's failed housing project and the Bank of georgia at Tbilisi?
It's a loaded question...but imo if a person were isolated since birth from all built things (living in a forest) they would likely build in reference to natural features like trees, caves, etc...it's very unlikely that they would design a modern house. The proof for that is history and the fact that we don't see any anomalous artifacts that are very far removed from the time/culture they were created in...in other words, architecture, even in its most ambitious moments, and by its most talented designers, never really strays that far from the given culture/history that it exists within...it all seems to follow a pretty strait timeline...That said, I do think it's possible to reinvent certain forms that are physically logical. For instance, the pyramid, the arch, the lintel, the A-frame, etc has evolved in different cultures who were geographically isolated from one another...So, yes a person isolated in the woods may figure out that an arch is a good way to distribute forces...
Google brought me to this page, which might be relevant to this topic:
http://archinect.com/news/article/41590800/the-shapes-of-hardcore-architecture
Still not buying the part about having zero precedents whatsoever, surely there's some influence involved behind the loop.
I guess my biggest critique is about designers who use inspirational images of other projects already built. Want to use nature and the environment as inspiration- no problem. Jist don't use a Saarinen stair as inspiration for your design; let's face it- if you do, you'll copy all or part of it. Inspiration images are referential, and for the most part do a tremendous diservice to the design process because literal clients without imaginatiok get hooked fo what they see. Unfortunately this is 90% of the laymen out there. Why can't we just describe what we want to accomplish, rather than use a specid example; leave something up for the imagination and talent of the architect. If you are going for a sculptural stair, sketch out some ideas of what you're thinking rather than use someone else's in a finished space. It just seems like a reallylazy way to design...
what's wrong with being lazy? no one pays more for effort.
So should we not show images of our own previous work to clients? Because that would be referencing ourselves?
If I want a client to do an open-riser stair, can I show them 10 images of open-riser stairs and say "Similar to this" or should I just wave my hands and ask them to imagine it? Maybe build a little mini-model out of popsicle sticks to give them the idea?
I'm not sure what your frustration is, Bulgar. I mean, if a client shows me another architect's work - like BCJ's glass stairs for Mac stores - and says "I want my stair to look exactly like this" I'd say well I won't copy it exactly, because that would be unethical, but I can use these concepts - glass, transparency, minimalism, engineering fetishization - into a design that's appropriate for your space. s that still "stealing"?
Chances are that nothing is teuly original- but yes- imagintion is what is lacking these days... we always reference everyone else's work and at the end of the day we come up with the same shit over and over again... maybe this is part of the reason unfamous architects stay unfamous- they contribute nothing new.
^ You are completely missing the point bulgar. Reference is in your subconscious. Reference is different from straight up copying. I guarantee that you didn't design anything "new" as you hoped to. You may have tweeked an existing thing to blur its origins....but it's DNA is almost certainly not new. I dare you to prove me wrong. Let's see some pics...
Famous architects just give obscure shapes to ordinary things.
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.