Your posts should start by primarily focusing on the reading, but please use the blog to share your thoughts on the assignments, processes, reviews, or any other studio related goings on - it will be treated as feedback.
"diagram conveys an unspoken essence disconnected from an ideal or an ideology, that is random, intuitive, subjective, not bound to a linear logic, that can be physical, structural, spacial, or technical." - Ben van Berkel
I enjoyed that the "Diagram" reading referred to diagram making as "creating a reality that is yet to come". I think that is a great concept for our class to absorb. Instead of documenting what is physically there, or just abstracting information for no pointless reason, we can instead think of ourselves as creating a NEW reality that can be random and intuitive but also take on a physical and structural form later on in the process of design.
On page 2 of the reading at the top left: "As one of the many techniques used by architects to advance their idea..." What are some of the other techniques we should have in our toolkit?
Don't worry. I didn't just read one page. "The Meaning of the Diagram" (Page 2) helps us understand WHAT the diagram is. I think by now most of us understand the WHAT, but the HOW has been lacking.
"Instrumentalizing the Diagram" (Page 4) is a solid answer to the question of HOW to use a diagram. "Together, the black holes and the landscape form the abstract machine of faciality". It sounds like the form of our architecture should try to re-create the diagram without literally creating it. This answer also answers the question I asked Matt yesterday (about the diagram creating a literal form or a literal process) - that we sit somewhere between the two as architects.
Overall, it was a solid read and it answered some difficult questions about diagramming. It also showed me I need to have a dictionary on hand at all times just to make sense of some of these readings. Did anyone else think the reading had some really heavy parts? I felt like I was up "dog poo" creek without a paddle at times.
“Objectivity and subjectivity, between relativity and rigidity. The diagram is located somewhere between these poles. Diagram conveys an unspoken essence, disconnected from an ideal or an ideology, that is random, intuitive, subjective, not bound to a linear logic, that can be physical, structural, spatial, or technical.”
Just like the quote, I feel like Matt has told us the same thing over and over past two weeks. I get the idea of diagram but I still have a very hard time diagramming to convey this unseen or unspoken essence. The intuitive process has been helpful and I was able to learn a lot about the site through this process. But, I am always overwhelmed by this feeling of uncertainty because I do not know where this intuitive process will lead me. (I was always lost and overwhelmed in 100A and I didn’t expect that I would go through same process again…)
The part that I like the most from “Terra Fluxus” is Louis Kahn’s metaphor of river as a vehicular circulation. It enables me to see a certain order in the nature. It’s interesting because we tend to distinguish nature from human activities. Biomimicry approaches in an opposite way because it studies orders and systems of nature which also can serve human system. I feel like we are doing something similar. We are observing the site in order to find a system and try to apply it to our project.
I don't know if I really agree that conditions cannot be directly translated into architecture. Using the example of the panopticon, I would think this would be the poster child for direct translation of the condition of repression into architecture. I don't agree that, for this example, diagrams are the mediator between architecture and conditions. You get the idea of repression from plans and sections of a panopticon.
That being said, I do agree that diagrams are essential in conveying a disproportionate amount of information and relationships in a small space. But this is easier said than done. I thought it was funny in the example of the Arnhem station area when he wrote, "A year into the project, the typology of relations finally demands the introduction of a diagram." Who has a year to think about a diagram? We have one week at best.
The Mapping article and Terra Fluxus are both pertinent to our Phase I assignment because the first describes what we are doing and the second explains why we are doing it. The correlation is so direct that it feels like we might as well be part of some James Corner field experiment. I say that because his Terra Fluxus article does a thorough job of describing the importance of, “shifting attention away from the object qualities of space of to…field diagrams or maps describing the play of forces” (Terra Fluxus 28), but he admits that, “the techniques to address the sheer scope of issues here are desperately lacking—and this area alone…is deserving of our utmost attention and research” (Terra Fluxus 32). In doing site analysis for The Bulb, I definitely struggle with synthesizing all the information, and my one criticism of the article is that it does not make any provisions for how one might move forward despite the lack of techniques.
I think the example of the station area of Arnhem provides some ligitmacy to diagramming seemingly useless information like "the concept of blackhole/surface." Often space contraints results in programmatic cuts or cost intensive solutions, but delving deeper into movement studies can yield solutions not immediately apparent. However, it is not necessarily the most effective means of solving problems when you are on a schedule. Time is money.
"The diagrammatic or abstract machine does not function to represent, even something real, but rather constructs a real that is yet to com."
I find this quote relevant to our project. It sumarizes some of the previous readings that talked about mapping as a discovering process whose ultimate goal was to uncover new relities. I feel like it vests the abstract with infinite potential, and makes me think that the translation from the abstract and diagrammatic into phisical form is possiblw; however this is not a direct, literal translation, but a multi-step process that requires us to fill in gaps and make new connections.
Kenneth Frampton’s commentary on tectonics was useful to the extent that it gave numerous interpretations and critiques as to the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of how we might think of tectonics in design, so we can have them at our disposal as tools when we think about design. I can even appreciate what many of the architects had to say, except I find many (most) of the Germans tiresome - they’ve spent entirely too long over thinking the importance of thinking…
I do think that you can view tectonics as an interaction in the physical world – the stone is cold and hard, therefore I am warm and soft as a way to ignite self-awareness in ones condition, just as one might hide and then frame a view to give suprise. I am sure that you can look at ethnography in buildings in a Darwinian sense of evolution as Semper might think, both in respects to responding to climate but also as a natural response to social factors that evolved over time – including belief systems and how they evolved, many in response to the cyclical nature of the life cycle; when I think of works like Sinan’s Selimiye mosque in Turkey, I can’t help but feel that the dome is reminiscent of the sky and that the exposure of light is similar to that of sun through tree limbs, harkening back to our arboreal nature as primates… I certainly feel that body movement through space, especially including non-planar fields is preferential to the flat world we have created. I probably agree with Gregotti most on the practice of building, in that there is no over arching solution and everything new becomes old and that we should search for the new, though I lament his complaints about the enemy of development, because I think he fails, as most do, to understand economics. I’m even down with Heidegger’s “Gelassenheit” a.k.a. letting it be or Botta’s place making. But, what I can’t stand is Frampton’s over wordiness, need to use large words as if it grants you wisdom, and tendency to rely on other people to, apparently, say what he is thinking. I never hear anything from Frampton, other than we should all get together and talk about things, rather than him giving his own unique opinion.
For my part, I understand what many of these folks are saying, although subjective. Architecture/tectonics is almost like trying to define “love.” Some believe money is love, for others its sex, co-dependency, giving over or taking command. Is it physiological or psychological or is it both? Or, I could go with Justice Stewart’s view on pornography – “I can’t define it, but know it when I see it.” Nobody knows how to accurately define it for themselves let alone others, but everyone can experience it. So, in conclusion I think I will have to go most strongly with Semper, with Architecture as a a mystical art.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"diagram conveys an unspoken essence disconnected from an ideal or an ideology, that is random, intuitive, subjective, not bound to a linear logic, that can be physical, structural, spacial, or technical." - Ben van Berkel
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed that the "Diagram" reading referred to diagram making as "creating a reality that is yet to come". I think that is a great concept for our class to absorb. Instead of documenting what is physically there, or just abstracting information for no pointless reason, we can instead think of ourselves as creating a NEW reality that can be random and intuitive but also take on a physical and structural form later on in the process of design.
On page 2 of the reading at the top left: "As one of the many techniques used by architects to advance their idea..." What are some of the other techniques we should have in our toolkit?
ReplyDeleteDon't worry. I didn't just read one page. "The Meaning of the Diagram" (Page 2) helps us understand WHAT the diagram is. I think by now most of us understand the WHAT, but the HOW has been lacking.
"Instrumentalizing the Diagram" (Page 4) is a solid answer to the question of HOW to use a diagram. "Together, the black holes and the landscape form the abstract machine of faciality". It sounds like the form of our architecture should try to re-create the diagram without literally creating it. This answer also answers the question I asked Matt yesterday (about the diagram creating a literal form or a literal process) - that we sit somewhere between the two as architects.
Overall, it was a solid read and it answered some difficult questions about diagramming. It also showed me I need to have a dictionary on hand at all times just to make sense of some of these readings. Did anyone else think the reading had some really heavy parts? I felt like I was up "dog poo" creek without a paddle at times.
“Objectivity and subjectivity, between relativity and rigidity. The diagram is located somewhere between these poles. Diagram conveys an unspoken essence, disconnected from an ideal or an ideology, that is random, intuitive, subjective, not bound to a linear logic, that can be physical, structural, spatial, or technical.”
ReplyDeleteJust like the quote, I feel like Matt has told us the same thing over and over past two weeks. I get the idea of diagram but I still have a very hard time diagramming to convey this unseen or unspoken essence. The intuitive process has been helpful and I was able to learn a lot about the site through this process. But, I am always overwhelmed by this feeling of uncertainty because I do not know where this intuitive process will lead me. (I was always lost and overwhelmed in 100A and I didn’t expect that I would go through same process again…)
The part that I like the most from “Terra Fluxus” is Louis Kahn’s metaphor of river as a vehicular circulation. It enables me to see a certain order in the nature. It’s interesting because we tend to distinguish nature from human activities. Biomimicry approaches in an opposite way because it studies orders and systems of nature which also can serve human system. I feel like we are doing something similar. We are observing the site in order to find a system and try to apply it to our project.
I don't know if I really agree that conditions cannot be directly translated into architecture. Using the example of the panopticon, I would think this would be the poster child for direct translation of the condition of repression into architecture. I don't agree that, for this example, diagrams are the mediator between architecture and conditions. You get the idea of repression from plans and sections of a panopticon.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I do agree that diagrams are essential in conveying a disproportionate amount of information and relationships in a small space. But this is easier said than done. I thought it was funny in the example of the Arnhem station area when he wrote, "A year into the project, the typology of relations finally demands the introduction of a diagram." Who has a year to think about a diagram? We have one week at best.
The Mapping article and Terra Fluxus are both pertinent to our Phase I assignment because the first describes what we are doing and the second explains why we are doing it. The correlation is so direct that it feels like we might as well be part of some James Corner field experiment. I say that because his Terra Fluxus article does a thorough job of describing the importance of, “shifting attention away from the object qualities of space of to…field diagrams or maps describing the play of forces” (Terra Fluxus 28), but he admits that, “the techniques to address the sheer scope of issues here are desperately lacking—and this area alone…is deserving of our utmost attention and research” (Terra Fluxus 32). In doing site analysis for The Bulb, I definitely struggle with synthesizing all the information, and my one criticism of the article is that it does not make any provisions for how one might move forward despite the lack of techniques.
ReplyDeleteI think the example of the station area of Arnhem provides some ligitmacy to diagramming seemingly useless information like "the concept of blackhole/surface." Often space contraints results in programmatic cuts or cost intensive solutions, but delving deeper into movement studies can yield solutions not immediately apparent. However, it is not necessarily the most effective means of solving problems when you are on a schedule. Time is money.
ReplyDelete"The diagrammatic or abstract machine does not function to represent, even something real, but rather constructs a real that is yet to com."
ReplyDeleteI find this quote relevant to our project. It sumarizes some of the previous readings that talked about mapping as a discovering process whose ultimate goal was to uncover new relities. I feel like it vests the abstract with infinite potential, and makes me think that the translation from the abstract and diagrammatic into phisical form is possiblw; however this is not a direct, literal translation, but a multi-step process that requires us to fill in gaps and make new connections.
Kenneth Frampton’s commentary on tectonics was useful to the extent that it gave numerous interpretations and critiques as to the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of how we might think of tectonics in design, so we can have them at our disposal as tools when we think about design. I can even appreciate what many of the architects had to say, except I find many (most) of the Germans tiresome - they’ve spent entirely too long over thinking the importance of thinking…
ReplyDeleteI do think that you can view tectonics as an interaction in the physical world – the stone is cold and hard, therefore I am warm and soft as a way to ignite self-awareness in ones condition, just as one might hide and then frame a view to give suprise. I am sure that you can look at ethnography in buildings in a Darwinian sense of evolution as Semper might think, both in respects to responding to climate but also as a natural response to social factors that evolved over time – including belief systems and how they evolved, many in response to the cyclical nature of the life cycle; when I think of works like Sinan’s Selimiye mosque in Turkey, I can’t help but feel that the dome is reminiscent of the sky and that the exposure of light is similar to that of sun through tree limbs, harkening back to our arboreal nature as primates… I certainly feel that body movement through space, especially including non-planar fields is preferential to the flat world we have created. I probably agree with Gregotti most on the practice of building, in that there is no over arching solution and everything new becomes old and that we should search for the new, though I lament his complaints about the enemy of development, because I think he fails, as most do, to understand economics. I’m even down with Heidegger’s “Gelassenheit” a.k.a. letting it be or Botta’s place making.
But, what I can’t stand is Frampton’s over wordiness, need to use large words as if it grants you wisdom, and tendency to rely on other people to, apparently, say what he is thinking. I never hear anything from Frampton, other than we should all get together and talk about things, rather than him giving his own unique opinion.
For my part, I understand what many of these folks are saying, although subjective. Architecture/tectonics is almost like trying to define “love.” Some believe money is love, for others its sex, co-dependency, giving over or taking command. Is it physiological or psychological or is it both? Or, I could go with Justice Stewart’s view on pornography – “I can’t define it, but know it when I see it.” Nobody knows how to accurately define it for themselves let alone others, but everyone can experience it. So, in conclusion I think I will have to go most strongly with Semper, with Architecture as a a mystical art.