This word/concept/meaning is so elusive to me, I am always chasing it. Would love to see how you all 'define it' or 'frame' it or 'decostruct' it or serve it frapps cuz were all in-between design work and have the time to think about words! So here it is:
Scale
I'll start:
Scope of formal (as in, 'black tie'), functional, material articulation.
Scale is always relational, yes? I'm using a 6x20 tile in a room that has large expanses of granite slab. The tile is intentionally "small scale" in contrast to the granite. But it's actually a large scale object, for a tile.
well, if scale were relational and scale existed in the amongst and the between of things (archtypically between the I, the body, and everything else), and if scale were the relational denomination of shared properties (smaller over the larger), then scale is not dependent on the multifaceted thingness any two things or more, but rather on the degree by which those things are the very embodiment of the varying intensification of commonality. scale is, therefore, the demonstration of a quantitative difference within a qualitative sameness.
interestingly put Nocti - whats your poison? I'll serve it to you for free!
I think the quantitative dimension is fairly well straightforward, its anchored in the thing-ness - but qualitative is the slippery aspect, given the perceptive relativity individual are capable of.
So scale is like a binaural beat - induced by the both the physical difference and psychological sameness of things in comparison. So scale does not operate with pure spatial adjacency unless 'sameness' can be induced (rationalized?) or deduced?
in fact, its the quantitative that is not anchored in the thingness; his eyes are black and so are his molasses; the quantification of eye black and molasses black, can only be through a denomination, a comparison...whereas the qualitative sameness requires no denominating. algebra itself is not a system of absolute thingness but rather one based on denominational relationships: algebra can have a base 1, base 2 (binary),..etc. our regular arithmetics is implicitly denominated on a base 1; this simply means that any number within this common numerical system is being compared to one: 1/1=1, 2/1=2, 3/1=3....etc
it is the qualitative that exists between thingness and is not of thingness itself.
hence we can say two men are more a grouping of entities than one apple. quantity can disregard thingness but rather to a singular scommonality between things. this example of the two men ane one apple demonstrates that quality can rely on the most basic of properties, the simple property of being a verbally-present entity, linguistic being (i can, after all, say that two tripalolostates are more of a gathering of entities than one stropolatriameses...conjured linguistic beings whose existence is lacking and whose substance is irrelevant)
thing-ness shouldn't have used since that suggests a level of perceptual engagement, which breaks an 'absolute' modularity.
But scale is dependent upon the facets being examined for different/likeness - scale is ultimately a comparison. So what is an architectural comparison?
Its concepts like scale, architectural, formal that seem to be like hamster wheels or black holes and perhaps that is how they will always be.
I remember professors and other students speaking so matter-of-factly about such terms, or using them in such an unexamined way in conversation; I couldn't, for the life of me, not get wrapped up in what that meaning is REALLY about, what it does, perhaps, in comparison to how it is used.
When I visited Savannah, Georgia with one of my design studios we visited a rather remarkable post-modern piece of architecture within the historic district of the city. Its context was certified historic, on 'multiple scales' and we were asked if this building was 'in scale with the rest of Savannah and also its local neighborhood' .Given the tectonic dissimilarity (concrete, open glazing, idiosyncratic but orthogonal idiosyncrasies, spatially porous, lots of 'implicit elements') it throws you for a bit - does it share the same height as near by buildings? Yes. Did it seem to occupy the same amount of volume? not at all. Did it achieve the same programmatic density? Yes, but with a character so different it puts this whole notion of 'same scale' vs 'different scale' vs 'multiple scales' into motion.
In terms of spatial modulation - yes, it was similar to its context. But in every other 'architectural' facet it did not. Was the question 'is it IN SCALE' appropriate?
I believe my example and your last statement suggest the same idea.
What if those things were manufacated at 3 times larger 1.5 time smaller - the thing is different physically, but its conceptual function is the same, but its performance (which may be the induced and no-thing thing here) is tied to different principles based on the tectonics, dimensional difference to the body, etc...
As a conceptual 'thing' changes in physical dimensions, it also changes tectonically, and in terms of performance, etc etc..
In standard, linear scientific articles , the problem-solving process is expressed roughly in the prototypical section headings Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions.
in short a problem-solving process grouped into five types of complex modules: m2 Positioning, m3 Methods, m4 Results, m5 Interpretation and m6 Outcome.
The complete set of modules distinguished by means of the conceptual function, complemented with the module Meta-information, form the basic components of a modular article.
Reflective Relevance and Relativity
This word/concept/meaning is so elusive to me, I am always chasing it. Would love to see how you all 'define it' or 'frame' it or 'decostruct' it or serve it frapps cuz were all in-between design work and have the time to think about words! So here it is:
Scale
I'll start:
Scope of formal (as in, 'black tie'), functional, material articulation.
Your turn!
Cripes - 'Formal' is round 2!
that ruler thing
That made my day.
Where are you people!? You can say "I dunno" even if you are licensed!
it's all about me.
bigger than me? large-scale.
smaller than me? small-scale.
what is this ...'bigger than' or 'smaller than' business. Just in reference to the tangibles?
NTS world
me ain't just tangible.
Scale is always relational, yes? I'm using a 6x20 tile in a room that has large expanses of granite slab. The tile is intentionally "small scale" in contrast to the granite. But it's actually a large scale object, for a tile.
i am bigger than this thread.
you am haz cheez-intangiblez, el jeffe.
Thanks LIB - can always count on you to step up where the boys frequently slip...
I would say its relational, one proportional system relative to another, relative to proportional context, ad nauseum - so what is the 'its'?
Vado - I want a better response out of you or I am going to start ranking you on the negative side of the Archinect list!
i would say that on a scale of 1 to 10, answering this question is a 1.
or a 10.
*sigh*
Hah. Thanks Lib!
Well when scale is a 'noun' it is...
When scale is a 'verb' it is..
etc..
Are we studying for the SAT?
We are not - we are simply pursuing an elusive concept/meaning/term with the same spirit SJP pursues terrible 'NYC FASHION!!'.
metric or imperial
Who's SJP?
i have absolutely no idea what's going on here. what was the question again?
Sarah Jessica Parker: some days the scale of her nose to her face is just weird, but some days it's sublime.
disproportional nude body builders, LOL
I both revel and revile you people. I guess I'll have to bait genuine responses with:
1)drinks of choice
2)gourmet grilled cheeses
3)jobs
4)vado's bedroom slippers
well, if scale were relational and scale existed in the amongst and the between of things (archtypically between the I, the body, and everything else), and if scale were the relational denomination of shared properties (smaller over the larger), then scale is not dependent on the multifaceted thingness any two things or more, but rather on the degree by which those things are the very embodiment of the varying intensification of commonality. scale is, therefore, the demonstration of a quantitative difference within a qualitative sameness.
interestingly put Nocti - whats your poison? I'll serve it to you for free!
I think the quantitative dimension is fairly well straightforward, its anchored in the thing-ness - but qualitative is the slippery aspect, given the perceptive relativity individual are capable of.
So scale is like a binaural beat - induced by the both the physical difference and psychological sameness of things in comparison. So scale does not operate with pure spatial adjacency unless 'sameness' can be induced (rationalized?) or deduced?
that should read 'individuals'
in fact, its the quantitative that is not anchored in the thingness; his eyes are black and so are his molasses; the quantification of eye black and molasses black, can only be through a denomination, a comparison...whereas the qualitative sameness requires no denominating. algebra itself is not a system of absolute thingness but rather one based on denominational relationships: algebra can have a base 1, base 2 (binary),..etc. our regular arithmetics is implicitly denominated on a base 1; this simply means that any number within this common numerical system is being compared to one: 1/1=1, 2/1=2, 3/1=3....etc
it is the qualitative that exists between thingness and is not of thingness itself.
hence we can say two men are more a grouping of entities than one apple. quantity can disregard thingness but rather to a singular scommonality between things. this example of the two men ane one apple demonstrates that quality can rely on the most basic of properties, the simple property of being a verbally-present entity, linguistic being (i can, after all, say that two tripalolostates are more of a gathering of entities than one stropolatriameses...conjured linguistic beings whose existence is lacking and whose substance is irrelevant)
correction:
quantity can disregard thingness but has sole regard for a singular commonality between things.
thing-ness shouldn't have used since that suggests a level of perceptual engagement, which breaks an 'absolute' modularity.
But scale is dependent upon the facets being examined for different/likeness - scale is ultimately a comparison. So what is an architectural comparison?
Its concepts like scale, architectural, formal that seem to be like hamster wheels or black holes and perhaps that is how they will always be.
I remember professors and other students speaking so matter-of-factly about such terms, or using them in such an unexamined way in conversation; I couldn't, for the life of me, not get wrapped up in what that meaning is REALLY about, what it does, perhaps, in comparison to how it is used.
When I visited Savannah, Georgia with one of my design studios we visited a rather remarkable post-modern piece of architecture within the historic district of the city. Its context was certified historic, on 'multiple scales' and we were asked if this building was 'in scale with the rest of Savannah and also its local neighborhood' .Given the tectonic dissimilarity (concrete, open glazing, idiosyncratic but orthogonal idiosyncrasies, spatially porous, lots of 'implicit elements') it throws you for a bit - does it share the same height as near by buildings? Yes. Did it seem to occupy the same amount of volume? not at all. Did it achieve the same programmatic density? Yes, but with a character so different it puts this whole notion of 'same scale' vs 'different scale' vs 'multiple scales' into motion.
In terms of spatial modulation - yes, it was similar to its context. But in every other 'architectural' facet it did not. Was the question 'is it IN SCALE' appropriate?
I believe my example and your last statement suggest the same idea.
scale as shown
Stainless steel angle to suit
What if those things were manufacated at 3 times larger 1.5 time smaller - the thing is different physically, but its conceptual function is the same, but its performance (which may be the induced and no-thing thing here) is tied to different principles based on the tectonics, dimensional difference to the body, etc...
As a conceptual 'thing' changes in physical dimensions, it also changes tectonically, and in terms of performance, etc etc..
What's a 'conceptual function'?
In standard, linear scientific articles , the problem-solving process is expressed roughly in the prototypical section headings Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions.
in short a problem-solving process grouped into five types of complex modules: m2 Positioning, m3 Methods, m4 Results, m5 Interpretation and m6 Outcome.
The complete set of modules distinguished by means of the conceptual function, complemented with the module Meta-information, form the basic components of a modular article.
peridotbritches, it would be neat to see those geodesics applied in Grasshopper.
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.