Just to spice up the debate a bit and get our minds off the horrible economy......
Consider the vastness of the universe (600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the visible universe to be exact!), the many new worlds recently discovered by the Kepler, the Drake equation. It is likely that there are many civilizations out there. If there is just one in each galaxy of 100-600 billion stars, there are still hundreds of billions in the "known universe." It is very likely that there are trillions! So here's my question....
1. Will all civilizations create some form of "Architecture"? Scientists theorize how planetary factors like gravity would affect the evolution of species, but how would these factors affect the evolution of architecture?
2. Is architecture a phase of an adolescent civilization that will eventually be replaced by a completely utilitarian built environment (like in eusocial ant and bee societies) or is it here to stay?
3. Is civilization even possible without architecture?
4. Are there little green starchitects out there? Do some of them work on an intergalactic scale?
5. Is human architecture unique in the cosmos, or are there certain traits that would likely be repeated by others like the arch, the golden ratio, the dome.....
All that considered, Architects are pretty awesome from a cosmic perspective!
Jun 20, 12 2:52 pm
With all of those civilizations out there, you'd think that at least one of them would have created a nuclear bomb large enough to obliterate the universe. And then, naturally, you'd think at least one of them would have used it by now.
Not sure if that is physically possible, but even if it was it could only move at the speed of light which means that it could take billions of years to see.
Questions 3. (No) Architecture is civilization it is how civilzations thrive, work , sleep, buy gas, buy their car or spaceship, and acquire wealth from taxes. Without architecture there will be no infrastructure to surport a society of aliens, humans, or any time of creature they would be just common beasts.
how would these factors affect the evolution of architecture?
pretty amazing how fine tuned our entire architectural history is to this planet. The elements that our entire architecture language is based upon are a result of our specific gravity, natural material properties, climate, evolution, human physiological characteristics.......etc.... I would imagine that most planets would produce far different architecural "roots" leading to things that are very strange and different.
what if there are beings out there that do not have any kind of physical form or body and exist as purely energy or something? would they even need architecture? i am not baked enough to ponder all of this...
humans are weak, yes but we are weak because we rely on tools and technology. Our technology made us weak. It affected our evolution from our much stronger ape like ancestors. So I would expect that most technological societies evolved to be weak and physically vulnerable to the environment.
chewbacca's planet may be filled with females that find stregnth sexy consequently allowing stregnth genes to prevail despite technological achievments. sexual selection maybe? A hair fetish? Here on earth women only care about money.
2. Is architecture a phase of an adolescent civilization that will eventually be replaced by a completely utilitarian built environment (like in eusocial ant and bee societies) or is it here to stay?
"[...] a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst of architects from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality." --Karl Marx
Not really an answer, just spicing up the debate a little more.
If we assume the laws of physics to be the same everywhere in the universe, (which recent findings may have disproven,) and that life has developed in similar conditions to ours, I can't imagine that life does not have architecture.
Termite mounds are amazingly adept at providing for termite's needs. They do everything they need to, and nothing more. The reason they don't make mounds that look like shards of glass or crumpled up pieces of paper is because a termite doesn't have any desire for whimsy or playfulness. Humans do, so we "play" with our structures and this fulfills a need for us. In a sense, we NEED art, sculpture and Zaha's craziness just like a termite needs tunnels for ventilation/protection/etc. Our minds require something interesting to live in or we'll go crazy.
Other life forms may have lesser or stronger forms of imagination, or something completely separate from imagination, that will help determine their "architecture."
The point of this rant is, basically, "architecture" is the environment that helps us live our lives more enjoyably. It will always exist where there is life because without it, life could not exist.
"but she ain't with that a-hole trump for his hair."
So are you saying Trump should only date ugly women? He has money, power, he is interested in beautiful women like 98% of the heterosexual males so he offers women his wealth and knowledge and women offer their companionship; they exchange something.
That being said most women are not interested in men's money since now they can earn it themselves but there are universal things that attract women such as power, ambition/passion and especially confidence. Rich men just happen to have these things but the most important thing is being able to connect with a woman on a deeper emotional level, that's much more important than any other thing.
One more thing, it wasn't the greedy female banksters who caused the financial meltdown.
"Is architecture a phase of an adolescent civilization that will eventually be replaced by a completely utilitarian built environment (like in eusocial ant and bee societies) or is it here to stay?"
Unlike bees humans have emotions and a desire to express themselves, they're not sterile workers/soldiers not matter how much the corporate drones try to make you believe otherwise. This is evident from the cave paintings of prehistoric man. Buildings=/=architecture. Buildings only provide shelter but architecture is the product of an idea, it is a style, an expression so yes architecture is here to stay. I'm not too sure about architects though.
humans are weak, yes but we are weak because we rely on tools and technology. Our technology made us weak. It affected our evolution from our much stronger ape like ancestors. So I would expect that most technological societies evolved to be weak and physically vulnerable to the environment.
put your money were your mouth it. be strong. stop using this little piece of tech we call writing. kkthnx?
Jun 21, 12 7:47 am ·
·
We need to be careful about making assumptions about the necessity of architecture in relation to our species. Homo sapien is about 200,000 years old but agriculture only emerged about 10,000 years ago. In other words, for 95% of the existence of our species we made do quite well without architecture by living in small groups (50-100 people) of hunter gatherers roaming the land eating whatever fruits and vegetables we found and occasionally hunting down some animals. It sounds grueling but there is some evidence that our ancestors only needed a few hours per day to find food and then were free to spend the rest of their time fucking like bonobos. No wonder some of us are still telling stories about the Garden of Eden that we fell from.
As for cosmos, it's rather pedestrian to only think of the rest of the universe as some Star Wars-esque arena where, yeah, there are other planets and solar systems with odd shit like red skies but they are still subject to gravity and orbiting in circles, oops, ellipses as per Newton. If you really want to ponder the mind-blowing stuff in cosmology then dig into something like M-theory. With it's proposed 11 dimensions, just try to contemplate the kind of architecture that might result from the forces buried within the 8 dimensions that we can't perceive even though they might be all around us.
I've tried, but the best I can come up with is the Chinese secretly rebuilding an Austrian village on the shores of the Maumee River. Weird, yo!
2. Is architecture a phase of an adolescent civilization that will eventually be replaced by a completely utilitarian built environment (like in eusocial ant and bee societies) or is it here to stay?
what about the structures built by male bower birds to attract females? These are not utilitarian at all.
IMO - humans build attractive structures to entice people to move to or visit certain places.
As for cosmos, it's rather pedestrian to only think of the rest of the universe as some Star Wars-esque arena where, yeah, there are other planets and solar systems with odd shit like red skies but they are still subject to gravity and orbiting in circles, oops, ellipses as per Newton. If you really want to ponder the mind-blowing stuff in cosmology then dig into something like M-theory. With it's proposed 11 dimensions, just try to contemplate the kind of architecture that might result from the forces buried within the 8 dimensions that we can't perceive even though they might be all around us.
cosmological theories are so speculative dude. it's an interesting point that you raise but it doesn't lead us anywhere... how can we discuss architecture in an M-theory universe when we can't even conceive of or comprehend what an environment like that would be like? it's all gobble-de-gook. thinking of the universe as something star-wars'esque is really quite reasonable, and logical, in comparison to the assortment of absurd theories cosmologists propose.
the universe is like that though. Planets orbiting stars and stuff.....M theory, is a theory about the physics of the universe and governs things here on earth the same way as anywhere else in the visable universe. It is not a theory about a region of space. Now if there are other universes (which I tend to believe) Those other universes may have different law of physics, but in this one it is uniform!
Jun 21, 12 12:31 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.
Just to spice up the debate a bit......Here's a cosmic question to ponder...
Just to spice up the debate a bit and get our minds off the horrible economy......
Consider the vastness of the universe (600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the visible universe to be exact!), the many new worlds recently discovered by the Kepler, the Drake equation. It is likely that there are many civilizations out there. If there is just one in each galaxy of 100-600 billion stars, there are still hundreds of billions in the "known universe." It is very likely that there are trillions! So here's my question....
1. Will all civilizations create some form of "Architecture"? Scientists theorize how planetary factors like gravity would affect the evolution of species, but how would these factors affect the evolution of architecture?
2. Is architecture a phase of an adolescent civilization that will eventually be replaced by a completely utilitarian built environment (like in eusocial ant and bee societies) or is it here to stay?
3. Is civilization even possible without architecture?
4. Are there little green starchitects out there? Do some of them work on an intergalactic scale?
5. Is human architecture unique in the cosmos, or are there certain traits that would likely be repeated by others like the arch, the golden ratio, the dome.....
All that considered, Architects are pretty awesome from a cosmic perspective!
With all of those civilizations out there, you'd think that at least one of them would have created a nuclear bomb large enough to obliterate the universe. And then, naturally, you'd think at least one of them would have used it by now.
Yo!
interesting...
Not sure if that is physically possible, but even if it was it could only move at the speed of light which means that it could take billions of years to see.
Questions 3. (No) Architecture is civilization it is how civilzations thrive, work , sleep, buy gas, buy their car or spaceship, and acquire wealth from taxes. Without architecture there will be no infrastructure to surport a society of aliens, humans, or any time of creature they would be just common beasts.
....
how would these factors affect the evolution of architecture?
pretty amazing how fine tuned our entire architectural history is to this planet. The elements that our entire architecture language is based upon are a result of our specific gravity, natural material properties, climate, evolution, human physiological characteristics.......etc.... I would imagine that most planets would produce far different architecural "roots" leading to things that are very strange and different.
what if there are beings out there that do not have any kind of physical form or body and exist as purely energy or something? would they even need architecture? i am not baked enough to ponder all of this...
The only reason we have architecture is because humans are weak. I'm wet. I'm cold. Too hot. Too bright. That honeybadger is eating my toes. Wah wah.
yes, exactly rusty
get baked bro, haha
humans are weak, yes but we are weak because we rely on tools and technology. Our technology made us weak. It affected our evolution from our much stronger ape like ancestors. So I would expect that most technological societies evolved to be weak and physically vulnerable to the environment.
Explain Chewbacca then.
chewbacca's planet may be filled with females that find stregnth sexy consequently allowing stregnth genes to prevail despite technological achievments. sexual selection maybe? A hair fetish? Here on earth women only care about money.
humans aren't weak they are smart and analytic, solving problems which enable their survival. technology being one of them.
we wouldn't be better off as apes.If not for us some other organism would dominate the planet
Bill Watterson.
jla-x, let's say here on earth some women only care about money and some men only care about money.
It's that casual flippant sexism that pisses me off so much because I'm a fucking architect, man, and I have a vagina and I care about social justice.
Ok, sorry for the detour, now what was this thread about again?
ya fock -um...go Liberty!
2. Is architecture a phase of an adolescent civilization that will eventually be replaced by a completely utilitarian built environment (like in eusocial ant and bee societies) or is it here to stay?
"[...] a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst of architects from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality." --Karl Marx
Not really an answer, just spicing up the debate a little more.
If we assume the laws of physics to be the same everywhere in the universe, (which recent findings may have disproven,) and that life has developed in similar conditions to ours, I can't imagine that life does not have architecture.
Termite mounds are amazingly adept at providing for termite's needs. They do everything they need to, and nothing more. The reason they don't make mounds that look like shards of glass or crumpled up pieces of paper is because a termite doesn't have any desire for whimsy or playfulness. Humans do, so we "play" with our structures and this fulfills a need for us. In a sense, we NEED art, sculpture and Zaha's craziness just like a termite needs tunnels for ventilation/protection/etc. Our minds require something interesting to live in or we'll go crazy.
Other life forms may have lesser or stronger forms of imagination, or something completely separate from imagination, that will help determine their "architecture."
The point of this rant is, basically, "architecture" is the environment that helps us live our lives more enjoyably. It will always exist where there is life because without it, life could not exist.
jla-x, let's say here on earth some women only care about money and some men only care about money
ok fair enough, but she ain't with that a-hole trump for his hair.
step 1. get baked
step 2. read thread
step 3. get baked
step 4. comment
"but she ain't with that a-hole trump for his hair."
So are you saying Trump should only date ugly women? He has money, power, he is interested in beautiful women like 98% of the heterosexual males so he offers women his wealth and knowledge and women offer their companionship; they exchange something.
That being said most women are not interested in men's money since now they can earn it themselves but there are universal things that attract women such as power, ambition/passion and especially confidence. Rich men just happen to have these things but the most important thing is being able to connect with a woman on a deeper emotional level, that's much more important than any other thing.
One more thing, it wasn't the greedy female banksters who caused the financial meltdown.
"Is architecture a phase of an adolescent civilization that will eventually be replaced by a completely utilitarian built environment (like in eusocial ant and bee societies) or is it here to stay?"
Unlike bees humans have emotions and a desire to express themselves, they're not sterile workers/soldiers not matter how much the corporate drones try to make you believe otherwise. This is evident from the cave paintings of prehistoric man. Buildings=/=architecture. Buildings only provide shelter but architecture is the product of an idea, it is a style, an expression so yes architecture is here to stay. I'm not too sure about architects though.
humans are weak, yes but we are weak because we rely on tools and technology. Our technology made us weak. It affected our evolution from our much stronger ape like ancestors. So I would expect that most technological societies evolved to be weak and physically vulnerable to the environment.
put your money were your mouth it. be strong. stop using this little piece of tech we call writing. kkthnx?
We need to be careful about making assumptions about the necessity of architecture in relation to our species. Homo sapien is about 200,000 years old but agriculture only emerged about 10,000 years ago. In other words, for 95% of the existence of our species we made do quite well without architecture by living in small groups (50-100 people) of hunter gatherers roaming the land eating whatever fruits and vegetables we found and occasionally hunting down some animals. It sounds grueling but there is some evidence that our ancestors only needed a few hours per day to find food and then were free to spend the rest of their time fucking like bonobos. No wonder some of us are still telling stories about the Garden of Eden that we fell from.
As for cosmos, it's rather pedestrian to only think of the rest of the universe as some Star Wars-esque arena where, yeah, there are other planets and solar systems with odd shit like red skies but they are still subject to gravity and orbiting in circles, oops, ellipses as per Newton. If you really want to ponder the mind-blowing stuff in cosmology then dig into something like M-theory. With it's proposed 11 dimensions, just try to contemplate the kind of architecture that might result from the forces buried within the 8 dimensions that we can't perceive even though they might be all around us.
I've tried, but the best I can come up with is the Chinese secretly rebuilding an Austrian village on the shores of the Maumee River. Weird, yo!
2. Is architecture a phase of an adolescent civilization that will eventually be replaced by a completely utilitarian built environment (like in eusocial ant and bee societies) or is it here to stay?
what about the structures built by male bower birds to attract females? These are not utilitarian at all.
IMO - humans build attractive structures to entice people to move to or visit certain places.
when did you get a phd in evolutionary biology?
I don't have a PhD in evolutionary biology. Oh! it's a demeaning comment! totally went over my head.
I'm not sure why you're so threatened by me and feel the need to insult my intelligence.
As for cosmos, it's rather pedestrian to only think of the rest of the universe as some Star Wars-esque arena where, yeah, there are other planets and solar systems with odd shit like red skies but they are still subject to gravity and orbiting in circles, oops, ellipses as per Newton. If you really want to ponder the mind-blowing stuff in cosmology then dig into something like M-theory. With it's proposed 11 dimensions, just try to contemplate the kind of architecture that might result from the forces buried within the 8 dimensions that we can't perceive even though they might be all around us.
cosmological theories are so speculative dude. it's an interesting point that you raise but it doesn't lead us anywhere... how can we discuss architecture in an M-theory universe when we can't even conceive of or comprehend what an environment like that would be like? it's all gobble-de-gook. thinking of the universe as something star-wars'esque is really quite reasonable, and logical, in comparison to the assortment of absurd theories cosmologists propose.
the universe is like that though. Planets orbiting stars and stuff.....M theory, is a theory about the physics of the universe and governs things here on earth the same way as anywhere else in the visable universe. It is not a theory about a region of space. Now if there are other universes (which I tend to believe) Those other universes may have different law of physics, but in this one it is uniform!
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.