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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with Megan that the reading lacked any helpful insite into how to actually develop tectonics but instead ran around the idea of tectonics as Frampton refrained from speaking his own mind and just attempted to entertain the reader with quotes of greater men throughout time.
ReplyDeleteMatt, I was unsure of what you were aiming for us to absorb through this reading? Not in a Jenni synical way but in an honest quest for trying to get out of your assignment all that you wanted us to. Instead, I feel like I was just left with a handful of contradicting quotes and an uncertain perspective of tectonics.
"The built is first and foremost a construction and only later an abstract discourse based on surface, volume, and plan to site" (pg.2) supports the idea of creating a space to later be interpreted. But then, "The worst enemy of modern architecture is the idea of space concidered solely in terms of its economics and technical exigencies indifferent to the ideas of the site" (pg.8) supports the idea that the site should be concidered first. I support the idea of integrating the site into the construction design process but on what level should it be practically integrated as in topo analysis or in our case abstractly and diagramatically integrated through the construct of our site itself?
I found interesting the concepts discussed about tectonics creating space through the contrast of heavyweight and lightweight structures (pg.5) but then the ideas of space as discussed in the article became blured in definition beween a strictly subjective or objective term. On pg. 11 space is defined as a "perseption of distance...endowed with various meanings and values" experienced through sight and body seperately, though simoltainiously. Later the idea of space is challanged as a "purely mathamatical construction of manifolds with an arbitrary number of dimentions" (pg.22) so what is space? something we see, feel, choose or calculate? I dont know but I definitely have NO idea how the weaving patterns discussed on pgs. 16-20 have anything to do with it.
Before reading Frampton, I thought that tectonic was solely about technology and construction, but after this reading, I felt I was reading something on linguistic, history and phenomenology. I understand that in order to perform architecture, one should know about the basics on topography and things related to the site, culture and other factors, but what does this reading has anything to do with making a building? Sorry to be so blunt, but I had to read this more than once to try to understand what the message is, and so far, I got nothing but a philosophy lesson in architecture. I feel like the reading was telling me things I mostly already knew but in a very cumbersome, philosophical, and confusing way.
ReplyDeleteI do have to admit that there were some things that were eye-opening, like the word "atectonic," which "is used here to describe a manner in which the expressive interaction of load and support in architecture is visually neglected or obscured" (pg.20) and this was clear by using the example of the AEG turbine factory in Berlin: "In this unique work, tectonic and atectonic patently coexist; in the first instance, the ontologically tectonic, pin-jointed steel frames that run down Berlichingenstrasse, in the second the representationally atectonic corner bastions, of in situ concrete that, while supporting their own weight, pointedly fail to carry the oversailing cantilever of the roof" (pg. 21).
Ok, and I really did not understand this paragraph from page 26: "The full tectonic potential of any building stems from its capacity to articulate both the poetic and the cognitive aspects of its substance. This double articulation presupposes that one has to mediate between technology as a productive procedure and craft technique as an anachronistic but renewable capacity to reconcile different productive modes and levels of intentionality."
I am not sure I really understood what Frampton was getting at, but this is my best shot.
ReplyDeleteThe statement "The worst enemy of modern architecture is the idea of space considered solely in terms of its economics and technical exigencies indifferent to the ideas of the site" (pg.8) is likely Framton’s response to the one-size-fits all type of thinking characteristic of modern architecture that focuses on functionality or the cognitive aspects of architecture and pays little regard to site context. Frampton argues, opposed to this kind of over-simplifying approach to design, that built form must necessarily be in reaction or conceived in recognition and understanding of the site and that once build should not be viewed as separate from the site.
In regards to his statement that "The full tectonic potential of any building stems from its capacity to articulate both the poetic and the cognitive aspects of its substance. This double articulation presupposes that one has to mediate between technology as a productive procedure and craft technique as an anachronistic but renewable capacity to reconcile different productive modes and levels of intentionality" is meant to address the fact that even though build form is “foremost a construction and only later and abstract discourse” that in the design or construction process, the architect must understand that such a discourse will take place upon completion of the build. He or she must aim to produce the immaterial qualities of architecture, or what Frampton describes as the “poetry” of architecture, which Frampton seems to suggest can only be produced through understanding and reacting to the site. A successful architect will mediate between and reconcile two modes of production—the productive and the anachronistic—as he responds to the immediate needs of the program and the existing conditions of the site yet understands that his architecture will exist in space over time. While the practical needs of the program may take prominence in the design process, a successful architect must recognize that what he designs will have a continuous quality, as it interacts with its environment and generates discourse with those who encounter it. (?)
I did find a few things of the examples from this reading helpful and interesting. I went into this reading thinking from past experiences of trying to read Kenneth Frampton that I would get bored and have to make up a response after only getting through the first few pages, but I actually kept going and was interested.
ReplyDeleteThe title Tectonic sounds a bit overarching and some things were dull, but I thought his real strengths were the examples about acoustics and Tadao Ando’s idea of the Shintai. These were both parts of the human experience with the built form that I don’t think I have ever really considered in a studio project. I thought Conrad and Lentner’s point that buildings like the Taj Mahal, because of its techtonics, creates echoes and reverberations more suitable for Mediterranean vernacular than northern languages. This to me is an incredible realization. Architecture that is so tied to culture and place that it is psycho-acoustically responsive to its people! That is insane. I would like to find out if this is done subconsciously, developed over generations of building and design in a region or if it was intentional.
I also thought that Tadao Ando’s idea of the Shintai was very helpful for the formation of my thesis. Ando states that, “The body articulates the world. At the same time the body is articulated by the world. When “I” perceive the concrete to be something hard and cold, “I” recognize the body as something warm and soft.” This complements my interest in the definition of self through the gaze of others, but expands this idea past pure sociological relationships to the self’s relationship with the built environment and its surroundings. It helped make me realize that the effects of a panopticon are not simply visual, but a subtle interplay of all the senses. Other senses may be heightened by the withholding of one sense, in this case vision. This makes the prisoner more intensely aware of the gaze of the prison guard, and thus more conscious of what they think of each other, helping form the definition of the self.
I am happy to see that A. a few of you have read what I asked you to and that B. you aren't afraid to question the validity of what you are being asked to do. And C. some of you dug something out of a challenging problem. I hope you all take this far enough that you can continue to think and develop ideas within a given framework without being told exactly what to do.
ReplyDeleteI understand the desire for more, clearer 'answers', or for an easy solution. And the reading is certainly challenging. Perhaps it does raise more questions about the definition of architecture than it does define it. And perhaps this is beyond this studio, but in general, difficult questions and challenging problems are fantastic ways to extend yourself.
This reading, combined with the other aspects of the assignment, is intended to set up the week leading into the mid-review. The thesis, model and diagram should begin to tie the site analysis and program investigation together (you know what a diagram is by now and how to draw one - focus on relationships), giving you a platform on which to develop your architecture. The reading should give you some perspective on how to develop a tectonic system that will begin to respond to your findings.
I would like to talk about the concept of "Atectonic". The reading describes it as an architectural feature that is strcitly functional and has no aesthetic qualities. I am interested in when this article was written since we see architecture taking a more minimalist aproach. Almost every part of a building is intentional, regardless if it is some ugly load bearing wall. What is even more interesting is Frampton shows the A.E.G. turbine building which has a huge load bearing wall to support overhead lifting systems (which may be considered ugly or unaesthetic) but then it meets the ground with a very designed and intentional metal joint. Essentially the building is famous for this ugly wall.
ReplyDeleteI also think of the Manadnock Building in Chicago with its 6 foot thick load bearing walls that flair out twords the bottom in a very stylized way. I guess he is saying that there are some qualities to a building that aren't designed, but from everything that I have learned, they keep telling me that everything I make needs to have a purpose. Nothing should be "Atectonic". That defeats the purpose of having architects. We might as well just have engineers design buildings. (no offense Patrick..haha)
No offense taken, but my engineer homie Raymond might have something to say about it! Oh snap.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, a lot of engineers do end up designing our buildings (I guess that’s why Matt doesn’t want us calling them buildings but space and architecture instead). I think that’s why we are told to keep everything intentional, so we have a stronger position to hold onto our design. That’s one of the reasons I want to be an engineer, so it can inform and defend my design.
I thought the “atectonic” was more about the interaction of certain building elements that goes against what we understand to be normal. “A manner in which the expressive interaction of load and support in architecture is visually neglected or obscured” (p20). He cites other examples being windows slightly protruding out of walls, betraying their thickness, and large columns that rise up to the roof, but do not connect to or support the roof.
The reading did bring up a lot of questions and I definitely don’t have a solid grasp on what tectonics or atectonics are, but at least it gets us all thinking about other aspects of experience – other than sight - that can shape space. I’ve thought about seeing space and how undulations in the 3-dimensionality of space can shape one’s experience, but I never really considered how touch and smell affect our experience of space to the extent of using it as a design tool. This leads to the question: How can we use touch and smell to inform our design? Generally, we are told to work in section, but that doesn’t seem like the best tool for addressing other senses; maybe this is where diagramming can help.
I know that architecture is closely tied to culture but I’m amazed how architecture creates cultural environment and cultural experiences through evoking various senses besides vision. Material characteristics and tectonic do not only affect our immediate visual response to architecture when we see its appearance but they also create psychological responses “through the locomotion of the body and the sensuous impact of this movement on the nervous system as whole.” (p.13) “Man articulates the world through his body” and I think architects have such a power to influence people’s life through designing people’s surrounding environment.
ReplyDeleteNow I think about it, Megan did really similar mapping for Albany site. Her study was about the neck which evoked different senses and result compared to its narrow physical path itself. Her mappings on senses such as sound and vision ultimately tied to the diagram of her experience. But did we do all mapping and diagram study to understand how our experiences work? It seems like tectonic and even design are meant to create a certain human experience in a certain frame.
The Kenneth Frampton’s reader has the discussion about the evolution of modern architecture and the notion of tectonic in each category (etymology, topography, corporeal metaphor, ethnography, and representational versus ontological). In the reader, there were lots of ideologies and explanations, and I could realize the progress of changing ideologies. However, I liked aesthetic architecture more, because it could make the building more beautiful and lively. So, if there are only modern buildings as the resistance and evolvement for future, it should make the meaningless for the architects and people.
ReplyDeleteI posted this earlier on Saturday to the old link...
ReplyDeleteKenneth 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.