http://www.guallart.com/

Hybrids

A couple of interesting videos:

A bit stuck, but managing somehow

I got stuck while thinking about the hows and whys of my program distribution, so I started reading a book I checked out of the library, Riser+Umemoto's Atlas of Novel Tectonics to see if I could get some ideas and inspiration and found this reading interesting.

Operating under a Surfeit of Information

Architects work with matter like a chef who manages the complex unfoldings of food chemistry very precisely but without necessarily knowing the science of chemistry itself. One does not, for instance, need to know how an ovalbumen protein coagulates in order to make a superior omelet. Architects, too, are in large part the managers of processes they do not, and cannot, fully comprehend. Ignorance of science does not necessarily mean ignorance of material processes, centuries of sophisticated material practices that predate exact science bear this out.

A material practice like cooking requires operating in an environment with a surfeit of information. Coordination of this information takes place at a speed and quantity beyond that of comprehension, yet it can be managed with exquisite precision. Much like the way we perform in our bodies and (thankfully) have no need to constantly regulate their physiology, knowledge of exact science is irrelevant and, arguably, uncertain. The management of material processes occurs at an entirely different level.

So after reading this, does that mean that we should know the hows, but not really the whys of a material?

And here's another reading that I think pertains to the current assignment:

Fineness

Fineness confronts the reality that most architecture is not resolved within the logic of a single model, a single surface, or a single material only. Rather, architecture deals with assemblies involving multiple models, surfaces, and materials. Architecture is generally not one continuous, monolithic thing but is made of multiple parts and organizational models operating at different scales. Modern architecture in its various forms has dealt with these issues, but the rationalized system of construction it employs typically resolved itself as a whole that is no greater than the sum of its parts.

The question then is how one manages or works with these diverse organizations and elements, not merely as an accumulation of the different but as multiplicities within an emergent organization such that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A proper manipulation and understanding of fineness is crucial to this pursuit.

Fineness is a label that defines the culmination of techniques described in this book. It encompasses an examination of architecture at all levels of scale. Fineness breaks down the gross fabric of building into finer and finer parts such that it can register small differences while maintaining an overall coherence. The fineness argument is encapsulated in the densities of a sponge: too fine and it acts like a homogenous solid; too course and it becomes constrained to its members. Architecture must perform similarly, at just the right balance between material geometry and force.

Ok, now I have to go back to working with my program. Just wanted to share this with everybody.

more direction, less reflection

Frampton states that, “the built is first and foremost a construction and only later an abstract discourse based on surface, volume, and plan…” (pg. 2). While I agree with his statement, I would add that the design process, being a precursor to “the built”, reverses the priorities. It may not be true for all architects, but the methodology as taught at Berkeley CED, begins with abstraction as a means to discover “that which is latent within a work” (pg. 23) and culminates in built form—an expression of the discovery. At this point in our design process, where abstraction is starting to merge with actuality, it feels like we are confronted with the limitations of expressing our discoveries. Sekler defines tectonic as, “a certain expressivity arising from the statical resistance of constructional form in such a way that the resultant expression could not be accounted for in terms of structure and construction alone” (pg. 19). Based on this definition, the architecture we design strives for the tectonic, but how does one express the tectonic if not through static constructional form? Similar to my feelings about the Terra Fluxus reading, I wish there was more insight into how the tectonic can be discovered and successfully expressed through built form.