"To be human is to conform the enviro-animal realm of flows and gradients to a rationalized system of some kind. I think Agamben has laid this out concisely. This is how we become human. We put things into boxes and hierarchies. Our formal production is aesthetically married to this operation.
While the computer, through it's computational power, has allowed us to build models that more closely conform to the the natural, the animal, the fluid, the curved, the non-deterministic, we should remember that (unless, maybe, we have an analogue computer? (talk to the Soviets about that)) computers are still putting things into boxes and hierarchies, simply at a very high resolution such that forms appear to be curvilinear.
The whole argument is really just: we've developed tools that allow us to model events to a high enough granularity such that they appear to be analogous to natural processes and systems, should we therefore move towards this formally?
I would say yes if this produces efficiencies and effects beyond what the orthogonal can produce. The most promising area in this respect is optimizing envelopes in reaction to thermodynamic gradients.
As long as we continue to separate ourselves from the natural through the rationalization process of humanization we are doomed to the rectilinear. We cannot build a curve but through the application of a rational model, one that inevitably passes through the domain of Euclidean geometry."
Joker's access to dafer was determined by the diameter of giving up his festus. Since he was rusty he popped a rand on the cooper, fracked with laxative. Walkers sand gallowed away to a pure orhan in stillettas. Curt as a mouse it was, but guess what Rick? it was henried all along. next time use both metal hands.
From my experience, many people who like putting a curve into a project for a simply aesthetic reason, or because they don't like a rectangle need to learn how to design a good box. Putting a curve on a project just because you can't make a straight line look nice, is poor justification and typically distracting. I'm not saying curves can't be used, but just throwing more "stuff" into a design doesn't make the design better. I've seen a lot of poorly designed spaces where someone threw in a curve to "add interest" or some made up rationale.
Just like anything they can be appropriate, but if you use them as a crutch because the rest of the design isn't enough for you, perhaps the problem is the original design, not the lack of a superfluous curve.
Yes. Curves mimic nature's process, the basis for a new bio-ethical architecture of the future. See the work of Glen Small, one of the founders of SCI-Arc and the father of Green Architecture.
That's a good point about vacuuming at the acute angles of triangles. Reminds that I saw an old tuberculosis hospital once where the floors curved up into the wall to avoid the the normal 90° angle where most walls meet floors. This was down to limit dust from collecting in these spaces as it's easier to sweep/mop thoroughly. The idea being that the less dust the better for the tb patients.
So, yeah, I guess that was at least one good reason for using a curve, yo!
Wow. This is a whole lotta useless tl;dr about curves.
A curved plane, whether true or implied, possesses two important properties for architectural function and aesthetics: convexity and concavity. On the convex side, the curved plane is perceived as object more than a definer of space. On the concave side, it defines space more than the perception of object. This is the dual nature of the curve.
Working with this inherent "sidedness" or chirality is fundamentally different from working with flat planes, which are spatially isotropic: possessing neither convexity or concavity on their own, but only in composition with other elements.
I actually agree with the comment that curvature "can make a building into something beautiful in a way rectilinear forms can't." Rick, you made an assumption that this comment states that curves are more beautiful than straight lines, which they are not, and went ahead to dismiss this conversation; they are simply different aesthetics which create different forms and spaces both beautiful and ugly.
ANX, If you talking abstraction it wouldn't be 'different' aesthetics different forms, just different forms - same aesthetics. point, line, curved plane --all the same. Essentially constructivist.
I am arguing for a different aesthetic, biology based, with a a whole other set of primitives to derive forms from. As i said before, A new type of aesthetics derived from architect Glen Small's natural structures classes when he was teaching at SCI-Arc.
I didn't mean to imply that rectilinearity is uniquely human, only that it is uniquely human to subject the curve to strictures of orthagonality. Geometrical nesting of molecules often produces rectilinear form.
I am arguing for a different aesthetic, biology based, with a a whole other set of primitives to derive forms from.
biology - recursively generated out of simple forms based on discrete functions:
in this case, it's at the scale of the spatial unit of one human being, squared - both cellular (voronoi-like) and crystalline (IMO - due to material) . notice the slight curvature due to landscape.
the way most people do this "biomorphism" is purely gestural and at these suprahuman scales. not saying it's necessarily a bad thing (some of it is quite beautiful-looking), but it's still all modernist object in a field - except now they're more sculptural and you might manipulate the field a little bit.
sorry for the late response. I dont do forums often. Good example. You grabbed the words right out my mouth.
It seems the best examples of biomorphic and natural process architecture are indigenous, village patterns. These I have always liked. The gestural biomorphs are shapes formed without purpose. I tend to go for Glen Small's designs which at best fuses processes to make biomorphic forms.
...well I'm not convinced that smart is better than stupid...so:
It's a missed opportunity not to address the structural efficiency of curves. Curves are what made Rome great - arches span and in more ways than one: you can find Roman aqueducts in France. The structural efficiency of the curve is what helped build a vast empire. The catenary arch transformed the Romanesque cathedrals into soaring gothic cathedrals. And the most materially efficient structures are tensile structures which rely on curves.
Is there a good reason for using curves?
"To be human is to conform the enviro-animal realm of flows and gradients to a rationalized system of some kind. I think Agamben has laid this out concisely. This is how we become human. We put things into boxes and hierarchies. Our formal production is aesthetically married to this operation.
While the computer, through it's computational power, has allowed us to build models that more closely conform to the the natural, the animal, the fluid, the curved, the non-deterministic, we should remember that (unless, maybe, we have an analogue computer? (talk to the Soviets about that)) computers are still putting things into boxes and hierarchies, simply at a very high resolution such that forms appear to be curvilinear.
The whole argument is really just: we've developed tools that allow us to model events to a high enough granularity such that they appear to be analogous to natural processes and systems, should we therefore move towards this formally?
I would say yes if this produces efficiencies and effects beyond what the orthogonal can produce. The most promising area in this respect is optimizing envelopes in reaction to thermodynamic gradients.
As long as we continue to separate ourselves from the natural through the rationalization process of humanization we are doomed to the rectilinear. We cannot build a curve but through the application of a rational model, one that inevitably passes through the domain of Euclidean geometry."
FREDDIE MERCURY
I agree with i r giv up on this point:
"this argument is as stupid as asking why we paint walls."
I vehemently disagree with this one:
"because they can make a building into something beautiful in a way rectilinear forms can't."
Falling Water is not beautiful? Talk amongst yourselves!
True story...
Professor to Student: "Why is your building curved?"
Student: "Because square buildings are boring."
Professor: "If a square is boring that's your fault, not the square's."
True story:
Professor at UVA (W.G. Clark I believe): "You should really try to use only one curve."
Student: "Really, just one curve in your project?"
Professor: "One curve in your lifetime."
how do you like these curves?
I also really like these french curves
rectilinear forms are a human construct? really? did we skip science?
Joker's access to dafer was determined by the diameter of giving up his festus. Since he was rusty he popped a rand on the cooper, fracked with laxative. Walkers sand gallowed away to a pure orhan in stillettas. Curt as a mouse it was, but guess what Rick? it was henried all along. next time use both metal hands.
From my experience, many people who like putting a curve into a project for a simply aesthetic reason, or because they don't like a rectangle need to learn how to design a good box. Putting a curve on a project just because you can't make a straight line look nice, is poor justification and typically distracting. I'm not saying curves can't be used, but just throwing more "stuff" into a design doesn't make the design better. I've seen a lot of poorly designed spaces where someone threw in a curve to "add interest" or some made up rationale.
Just like anything they can be appropriate, but if you use them as a crutch because the rest of the design isn't enough for you, perhaps the problem is the original design, not the lack of a superfluous curve.
i can design a good box.
i've done it before.
a kid with downs syndrome can do it.
if you find that to be a challenge, you may be retarded.
IS THERE A GOOD REASON TO DESIGN WITH CURVES?
Yes. Curves mimic nature's process, the basis for a new bio-ethical architecture of the future. See the work of Glen Small, one of the founders of SCI-Arc and the father of Green Architecture.
Why is this thread still alive...
That's a good point about vacuuming at the acute angles of triangles. Reminds that I saw an old tuberculosis hospital once where the floors curved up into the wall to avoid the the normal 90° angle where most walls meet floors. This was down to limit dust from collecting in these spaces as it's easier to sweep/mop thoroughly. The idea being that the less dust the better for the tb patients.
So, yeah, I guess that was at least one good reason for using a curve, yo!
...
...oh yeah, and...
talk to Lou about triangles
Lou?
a bent wall is (or should be) an important moment
Wow. This is a whole lotta useless tl;dr about curves.
A curved plane, whether true or implied, possesses two important properties for architectural function and aesthetics: convexity and concavity. On the convex side, the curved plane is perceived as object more than a definer of space. On the concave side, it defines space more than the perception of object. This is the dual nature of the curve.
Working with this inherent "sidedness" or chirality is fundamentally different from working with flat planes, which are spatially isotropic: possessing neither convexity or concavity on their own, but only in composition with other elements.
^^^...bz;kl
I actually agree with the comment that curvature "can make a building into something beautiful in a way rectilinear forms can't." Rick, you made an assumption that this comment states that curves are more beautiful than straight lines, which they are not, and went ahead to dismiss this conversation; they are simply different aesthetics which create different forms and spaces both beautiful and ugly.
ANX, If you talking abstraction it wouldn't be 'different' aesthetics different forms, just different forms - same aesthetics. point, line, curved plane --all the same. Essentially constructivist.
I am arguing for a different aesthetic, biology based, with a a whole other set of primitives to derive forms from. As i said before, A new type of aesthetics derived from architect Glen Small's natural structures classes when he was teaching at SCI-Arc.
Just as a clarification:
I didn't mean to imply that rectilinearity is uniquely human, only that it is uniquely human to subject the curve to strictures of orthagonality. Geometrical nesting of molecules often produces rectilinear form.
I am arguing for a different aesthetic, biology based, with a a whole other set of primitives to derive forms from.
biology - recursively generated out of simple forms based on discrete functions:
in this case, it's at the scale of the spatial unit of one human being, squared - both cellular (voronoi-like) and crystalline (IMO - due to material) . notice the slight curvature due to landscape.
the way most people do this "biomorphism" is purely gestural and at these suprahuman scales. not saying it's necessarily a bad thing (some of it is quite beautiful-looking), but it's still all modernist object in a field - except now they're more sculptural and you might manipulate the field a little bit.
Toast... always a pleasure
sorry for the late response. I dont do forums often. Good example. You grabbed the words right out my mouth.
It seems the best examples of biomorphic and natural process architecture are indigenous, village patterns. These I have always liked. The gestural biomorphs are shapes formed without purpose. I tend to go for Glen Small's designs which at best fuses processes to make biomorphic forms.
eric
I guess obstructed views are part of nature.....
archinect.com/news/article/54219873/diving-ticket-holders-informed-of-obstructed-views-in-zaha-designed-aquatics-centre
Is red better than blue?
Stupid question. Anyone that tries to argue one over the other (beyond a practical 'straight is easier to build') is just as stupid.
:-)
...well I'm not convinced that smart is better than stupid...so:
It's a missed opportunity not to address the structural efficiency of curves. Curves are what made Rome great - arches span and in more ways than one: you can find Roman aqueducts in France. The structural efficiency of the curve is what helped build a vast empire. The catenary arch transformed the Romanesque cathedrals into soaring gothic cathedrals. And the most materially efficient structures are tensile structures which rely on curves.
...or, I mean: "duh!"
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.