1) In Miller’s ‘Post Rock’ a material is being made that is difficult to describe with drawings and pointless to design specifically. Out of the tools available it’s pointed out that the camera is a fundamental tool in order to bridge the material and digital representations of the design. It allows for quick iterations and ambiguous avenues to take the architectural object. What other tools do we as architects posses that prevent us from imposing our design biases and allow us quicker ways to move in between the analog and digital realms of project development?
2) De Landa looks into the disconnect between the metaphysics and scientific properties of materials. The Enlightenment & Industrial Revolution removed prestige from craftsmen and master builders who understood materials for their combined properties. Architecture has developed into a discipline that holds drawings and non-material representation to high regard and placed the contractor/construction worker under the architect’s guidance. Should architect’s as professionals position themselves as master builders once again? What effect would this have on the current scheme of project management?
3) In ‘Uniformity & Variability’ they also talk about how craftsman were adept at manipulating materials even though they didn’t understand nor could they explain the scientific occurrences. Can excess knowledge be a hindrance in our craft as professional architects?
There’s an intimate relationship between us and the matter that makes up our reality. Not so long ago, within human history at least, there were craftsman and master builders who not only had the talent to build but had the knowledge of how to work these materials through introduction of heat and other materials. The industrial revolution and enlightenment eras shifted this intimate relationship between man and material by making careers and the sciences more compartmentalized. This wouldn’t be an issue if life were compartmentalized; but it’s not. The universe and the matter that makes it up are full of interconnected relationships that in many cases our minds are incapable of understanding. The computers we created ran on processing techniques similar to our own binary way of understanding things. There’s only so much you can get out of that way of processing the world. With the advent of atomic computing we are able to run multiple processes at the same time. I believe it’s the architect’s responsibility to not focus too much on just the drawings, but to communicate with the builders and even become one. There needs to be a renaissance for architects to become master builders again, in order for our works to do something that no one has ever imagined.
1. In Jane Bennet’s “Vibrant Matter,” she remarks that via American materialism, there has been a depreciation in value of materiality due to hyperconsumerism and massive volume of commodities available. However, similarly to the hoarding of materials and over-appreciation of the objects as read in Bennett’s “Power of the Hoard: Further Notes on Material Agency,” does hyperconsumerism have any positive attributes, as an additive process? To ensure that materials are valued and understood for more than their physical attributes, does this call for the eradication of capitalism and modern ideas of consumerism, or an increase in native ideas subtraction through perception?
2. In “Uniformity and Variability,” Manuel De Landa remarks that there is a value in heterogeneous materials or those that can be considered composites, as opposed to isotropic materials that only operate within one spectrum of structural integrity.
3. Within the age of Post Rock, Miller and Moran write that plastiglomerates function as representational objects, wherein visible fragments help to communicate the history of the rock, representing both physical and chemical processes. However, recent developments within this period have spawned the recombination of everyday things and objects into one fluid composite, indistinguishable of its previous identity, color, and form. Likewise, should architecture begin to adapt and adjust its notions of materiality to ensure that the history and context of objects are readily understood within the construction, or will distinguishable characteristics of materials continue to be subdued to generate notions of uniformity?
How do you think the outcome of our projects would differ from now if we had decided to let the material that we use guide the project based on its properties instead of trying to use the material in a completed project without considering its properties?
In the reading “Post Rock” the author brings up an interesting point in how materiality of designs relies heavily on the drawings. Do you think there’s a way to account for that prior to the production of drawings?
Talking about materiality and its uses mainly almost all of the mentioned materials have been in some way man made. Do you believe that are any natural materials that are a better fit for a project or would perform better as completely natural material project rather than man made ones?
Reconsidering Materiality is something that we have not really taken into account before. Would everything still work and function the same of the material was different? We can use some extremes and make submarines made out if glass. Which is known not to be reasonably possible, but it would make you wonder how it would work if it were. Moving on to more reasonable things, take sky scrapers for example. They’re made out of various metals and glass, and in doing so the building follows a set code and way of being. It also gives the interior a specific feel as well. But what of the sky scrapers were made out of brick? Would it still have the same sleek and seemingly weightless feel to it? Or would it give a very condensed, cold, and heavy feel due to the material used to build it? The point I’m trying to get at is that you can change the whole purpose of an object.
Talking about materiality and its uses mainly almost all of the mentioned materials have been in some way man made. Do you believe that are any natural materials that are a better fit for a project or would perform better as completely natural material project rather than man made ones?
n the reading “Post Rock” the author brings up an interesting point in how materiality of designs relies heavily on the drawings. Do you think there’s a way to account for that prior to the production of drawings?
How do you think the outcome of our projects would differ from now if we had decided to let the material that we use guide the project based on its properties instead of trying to use the material in a completed project without considering its properties?
In architecture specifically, materiality is something that is primarily considered once the basic structural aspects of the project have been resolved. However, through the lecture, it was revealed that materiality is not only essential in terms of aesthetic, but also in establishing a thorough understanding of a project from start to finish. As opposed to suppressing structural and physical characteristics of materials, they should be readily understood from their reading and acknowledged for their value beyond the aesthetic. Furthermore, in reevaluating both the significance and understanding of materials, we can expand our comprehension of materials to include its atomic composition. The expansion of the technology within the digital and internet age allows architects to thoroughly understand tectonic choices, and give way to the development of material composites that adapt to different settings, functions, and purposes. As a discourse, it is our job to push the boundaries of architecture, as well as expand our knowledge of relating subjects, like materiality its corresponding science.
1. De Landa describes materiality and the properties of materials as being less understood in the modern frame of mind due to historical events such as the industrial revolution. Architecture most recently has placed such a high importance on drawings because of their plasticity and ability to detach themselves from reality for a more abstract media. Would architects understanding of materials changed if we placed a higher importance on models and ways of representations which did deal with materiality?
2. “Post Rock” begins to emphasis the idea in which materials are not always captured the best in renders or other medias which are easily accessible and easy to create which iterations of a representational form. How would project management and project development change if our representational mediums were more geared to the emphasis materiality has on a structure? Would it force projects to go on for much longer since it is the physical properties of materiality are not the easiest to replicate on a digital format?
3. Following the same logic of “Post Rock” Architects focus on renderings and creating digital spaces which arguably come to life and have a greater ability to emphasis the conceptual ideas and greater impact. Do architects have a form of medium which carry the materiality over physically but still keep a digital realm to create such spaces? Should a greater emphasis be made on developing a hybrid of a drawing which is comprised of photos of a physical material with digital linework and lighting?
Materiality in its own way holds a material intelligence and strength within the type of material. In class the example of different types of steels was given to express the diversity one material holds for different properties. Architecturally materiality historically influences form though strength both tensile and compressive to alter its performance from within as well as malleability to create several different architectural expressions. In architecture though a materials property to either be shown and juxtaposed though its several properties of strength and malleability or though conceptual drive create different effects of minimalism or of detachment. Peter Eisenman as a concept for his works carried the idea of suppressing materiality in order to show architecture as notations. Conceptually different material properties can help create a formal language of order and regularity. The architectural trend of suppressing materiality so that the concept could be left as the overall effect can and should be reconsidered because even though minimally materiality and understanding it can leave a greater impact conceptually.
1. In Vibrant Matter, there is a discussion in chapter 8 about whether or not environmentalism is the best “persuasive rubric” to convince the American public to shift to more sustainable living. The argument here is about what people care about, and how very few people actually are concerned with the ecological ramifications about capitalism and wanton consumption. The idea presented in this chapter is to shift from environmentalism to vital materialism to encourage the general public to be more aware of the issues at hand, but does this not then pose a problem for future generations who may not be so materialistically inclined? Last week, there was a discussion of the shift towards the digital; would this not imply there be a shift away from the material then? And as such should persuasive rhetoric towards the future generations not be more digitally inclined?
2. In Uniformity and Variability, the term “machinic” is defined as the process by which heterogeneous material is brought together to create a structure without homogenization. Does this term specifically refer to processes of metallurgy or can it be used in a broader context? If it is the latter, are not most things machinic? Architecture specifically calls for bringing together diverse materials to create one work, but each piece of the design still reads as its original components.
3. Plastiglomerates are composed of plastic waste in the ocean as well as remnants of marine life. Are there ways to bring this out of the ocean and on land? Is there a specific type of landscape that is conducive to gathering these materials apart from an oceanic approach? Or is it only economically feasible to fish plastic out of the ocean rather than on land clean up?
1. With shifting aesthetic and cultural values, the methods through which we attempt to convince future generations of the importance of our ecological ramifications not only as architects but also a humans. The discussion this week focused on the importance of material- as we make the shift into the digital world (a shift we have perhaps already started and finished) the importance of material may change as may the very definition. As such, we will have to change our language when speaking of the environment and how we attempt to convince the coming generations to preserve it.
2. Machinic can refer to anything and everything coming together, from materials to the larger context of architecture. The more interesting uses of machinic are when this idea begins to apply to how people interact with materials and the larger context, showing that what we do is not inherently contained to ourselves or even within our own environments.
3. The answer to this last question is one that was not spoken of in the presentation, but is something that should be looked into further; landfills are contaminating water supplies as well as contaminating the soil they sit upon so using current technologies to start reusing some of these wasted materials would go a long way in preserving what is left of the natural environment.
1) Right now we consider matter to be dead. In Jane Bennett’s Vibrant Matter she says “The image of dead or thoroughly instrumentalized matter feeds human hubris and our earth-destroying fantasies of conquest and consumption.” If we shift our thinking and see matter as alive, matter that breathes life, will we make more conscious choices to reduce the use and waste of matter?
2) In Uniformity and Variability author Manuel De Landa talks about how the only people who really knew about materials like metals and alloys throughout most of history were blacksmiths and craftsmen. In contemporary architecture we know a lot more about the behavior and science of materials. Does knowing about materials’ properties and science actually give us a better understanding of how to use them, or does it simply make them less interesting and mysterious?
3) In Post Rock Material and Medium author Meredith Miller stresses that they focus on the design after the material has been crafted. They aren’t looking for a specific outcome when prototyping materials, the design is cultivated from the outcome of the material object. How could the world of architecture change if we allowed ourselves to let the material guide the design, instead of choosing a material to fit the finished design?
This weeks presentation was interesting because they really delved into every topic that was covered in the readings and tried their best to explain them. I enjoyed when they gave examples of materials that have been scientifically created like the recycled polymer wood. It answered my question about how knowing the science of materials can help us by giving us the knowledge to create new materials that are recycled and better for the environment. Knowing the behavior of materials and the science behind them can open doors for architects, allowing us to make better informed decisions about the type of material being used in a project. I think if architects took Meredith Millers approach to design, and let the material guide the design, we would have buildings that are much more suited to the materials that make them up. There are tons of factors that can be used to determine if a material is right for a project, such as texture, its impact on the environment, its level of waterproofness, and many more.
1. In Manuel de Luna’s “Uniformity and Variability”, he talks about how the philosophy of physical materials came from metallurgists, blacksmiths and other carpenters rather than philosophers or scientists. The study of material stress and strain came from people that worked directly with materials. That first-hand experience in building is lost in many architects, where there is a distinct split between designers and builders. Has this divide hindered architecture? Are there disparities?
2. Also in “Uniformity and Variability”, the concept of machinic phylum is discussed. It is defined as a body-plan of matter in motion, where it can fold and stretch to create a variety of forms. This brings back to the idea of the first lecture, dealing with fold. Our first lecture dealt with fold in conceptual design processes, this reading deals with fold based on materiality. How can machinic phylum influence the design process?
3. Post Rock is best defined as the product of human byproducts mixing into nature. A new configured material is created where melted plastic bonds aggregates together. If anything, it can act as concrete. Considering heat melts plastic, what may works built from Post Rock look like 10 years later?
I was quite intrigued by the readings and lecture this week. Relating back to last week’s lecture where we talked about the impact of technology and 3D modeling software, we are able to design and experiment with so many different components that would otherwise be limited if we only had pencil and paper. In a way, we were bound by the structure and forces of each material, but now we can manipulate and even create new materials. I really loved the video of Gramazio Kohler’s Rock Printing. It starts off as a stack of pebbles, with metal cables placed between pebble layers. It’s amazing to see the pebbles, after the formwork is taken away, stick together with only cables. It keeps it in tension. Structure is architectural and artistic. Materiality creates form, and form influences materiality.
1. In “Post Rock,” there is a point made about accounting for the materiality of a design when focusing so heavily on drawings. How can the effects of material be integrated into design and be grater planned for through drawing?
2. Miller and Moran lead their article by acknowledging that traditional Architectural design tools have been replaced with digital tools. How has this impacted our ability to perceive spaces and has it limited our understanding of them?
3. Going off of the question above, physical models and sketches, both things that are very hands-on in Architecture are fading. As seen last week, digital renders are becoming the visual representation of projects. Do you think the physical model offers something a render does not?
Given the example of Peter Eisenman’s House Two, and his stance on the use of materiality, it’s interesting to think about the effects that a material has on Architecture. He acknowledges the power of materials when he dismisses them in order to create a bare perception, focusing on the power of the spaces. However, materials seem to me to be what make people comfortable. Some of the Machine Age houses, like Villa Savoye for example, I can’t imagine would really feel comfortable. Especially when compared to any of Frank Lloyd Wright’s houses – known for being organic and materially expressive. Both architects were working on similar issues with space but their architecture were of two polar opposite personalities. I think materials certainly play a large role in determining the purpose and attitude of a piece of Architecture, and have a way of being persuasive towards their audience. While spaces and forms come first, materials should come next as a way to make an opinion on the space.
1) In “Uniformity and Variability”, De Landa refers to Gordon’s fear that steel is used for any purpose in the modern world. Many structures rely on the strength found in steel, thus many people design with the idea of using steel in their mind. What kinds of innovations are there in the world that people are researching that is somewhat up to par with steel?
2) In “Post Rock Material and Medium”, Meredith Miller talks about how Post Rock doesn’t invent a new material, but instead, reconfigure the material of the already made object. Can there be other kinds of waste used for the combination of making the stone-like material?
3) In Jane Bennett’s book “Vibrant Matter”, what is Bennett’s definition of life? She claims that even non-organic life is alive. Things we consider static/dead still are able to self-organize, according to Bennett. Does Bennett want us to pay more attention to inorganic matter?
Nature has some naturally occurring materials that are good to use. However, humans engineer new materials for more stability. Humans also engineer materials according to the problem or issues at hand. To build skyscrapers, we needed a material that is span long distances and still resist tension and compression. Therefore steel was born. There is a lot of different waste out there. Plastic is one of the biggest problems, this is the most well-known. However, any waste can be used to create material. I think people should stop making “new” materials. Instead, take the resources (and waste) we have and reconfigure them to make a new material.
1. In Material and Medium, when discussing the usage of post rock as an architectural replacement to plastiglomerates it discussed that it could translate cultural and ecological territory. If such material were to be used in architecture, would it be considered more for its structural properties or its aesthetic qualities?
2. Does the notion of the absolute drive a body’s existence or will to exist? Could this be the case although human bodies are knowing whereas things are just considerably vibrant matter?
3. Is recognizing “thing power” or to see things as things rather than objects and seeing the inanimate as a entity of its own with its own affects and its own properties rather than how the human body made/used/or disposed of them beneficial in how we see things, and if so how?
In this presentation, the physical science and metaphysics of materiality was discussed. Metaphysics could be considered beyond the physical nature and it was shown that it is present in architecture. For example, architect Peter Zumthor created metaphysical experience in his spaces. Another example is 4d printing and how variability is the future. 4d printing is where a 3d print transforms itself over the influence of something else such as energy, temperature or light. The relationship to human materiality in ecology was also brought up and that an agent and deodand is a materiality suspended between human and thing. It was interesting to contemplate how we define a life and the discussion of effective bodies. The post rock conglomerate was discussed in detail in this presentation and the fabrication of it as a physical model but an attempt to recapture features of a platiglomerate, which is a stone mixed with sedimentary grains and other debris held together by molten plastic. Its hybrid nature suggests an accidental collaboration between human and geological force. Post rock also exemplifies the experimentation of materials and engagement as designers in both a material and political/ cultural sense.
1. In UNIFORMITY and VARIABILITY, materiality is very important for metaphysical reasons in the architecture realm, but also it is very important in the engineering realm due to the constructability of the materials. Is it there a design expression can express both metaphysically and scientifically?
2. Façade is made because architects want the building to look cool yet with limited engineering knowledge, architects can’t design a cool building without facades. But what if an architect with both architectural aspiration and engineering knowledge, will the architecture being built expresses the architect’s idea without façade or various materials?
3. In “Post Rock Material and Medium”, Miller talked about replacing materials with new materials that is alike. The question is, if we could replace materials with any other materials that look alike without affecting structural stability, that why are there so many architects so pain in the butt about what exact materials they want to use, the architecture being built will never look exact from architect’s design ideas anyways.
1. Is there a way we create architecture that could cause people to ignore the form and only focus on the materiality?
2. Craftsmen are able to manipulate materials and know their potential and boundaries, but architects don’t have this extreme knowledge of materials. How are architects supposed to design buildings that have specific material constraints when they don’t know how that material will actually perform?
3. Do man made materials that exist possess a certain quality that couldn’t be replicated by more natural occurring materials?
1. If someone was to design a building that had a very simple form and used a very interesting material, this would be a very obvious way that someone would focus on the material instead of the form. Also, if a material is being used in a way no one has ever seen before this would draw people’s attention towards the material.
2. Sometimes it might be good to not have much knowledge about material because it could hinder what they could get the material to do. Although, the craftsmen have a good way to know what the material could do.
3. I think sometimes natural occurring materials could be a replacement for man made materials. However, some man made things are man made because they cannot be found in natural.
1. In Miller and Moran’s “Post Rock” they state that, “designers can hijack not only the process of producing a material, but also the cultural and economic assumptions that condition their production” by experimenting with materials. How can designers use these new techniques to combat the aesthetics of the plastiglomerates, which are quite ugly?
2. Going off that last question, could designers and scientists work together to create more of a harmony between all the materials used in these plastiglomerates so they don’t look like an “accidental collaboration between human and geological forces”? Can they look more like they have a purpose together?
3. De Landa says that “not only the production process was routinized this way, so was to a lesser extent the design process.” How does the routinization of design processes change the way we interact with materials?
With the issue of trash building up in our landfills and oceans, Miller offers a way to reuse objects that are found and build with them. These new rocks are called plastiglomerates and they are atrocious. Although the idea is nice, how can we create new building materials out of recycled objects that don’t look awful? Another issue with using recycled objects to create new materials such as bricks made out of waste is how the process of creating these new materials affects the environment. Plastics and metals can have harmful chemicals in them that when melted can go into the atmosphere. These fumes are definitely not safe for our planet so melting these things into a new material would not be effective. I think the idea Miller had is probably one of the better routes in reusing trash as new materials. Plastiglomerates need to be rethought so that they are either hidden in concrete or just nicer to look at.
1. No matter how sophisticated the modeling software is, a project’s form still exists as an underlying framework that circumscribes the processes of design and construction. In this, does the form relate to the diagram? Does the diagram still retain its importance in modern software?
2. Uniformity damages has caused material to become routine and unremarkable. However, we are able to recover from this when we think of the inherent potential of the materials rather than their appearance. How can designs make use of this inherent potential in their aesthetics?
3. Representation becomes embedded in the literal construction of architecture. By creating models and wall sections, we’re able to make unbuilt projects seem plausible. When the model becomes the representation, what role do renders play now? How do renders and models collaborate?
As design evolves, it continues to promote the theory of multi-dimensionality. Forms and objects are consistently described as having depth in their meaning, several infinite ways they can be represented. Only recently has this idea truly manifested itself in the physical representation of a design, i.e. the model. The presentation brings up an example of an odradek, an animated spool of thread. It straddles the line between inert matter and form and is senseless, yet there is a vitality in it. Similar to representation, it straddles the line between a diagram and a creation. It’s an in-between that’s not quite realistic, yet it’s an idea of realism.
1. In “Uniformity and Variability,” De Landa explains that any material with a form of complexity has the ability to organize into new forms and structures. If this idea was applied in architecture, architects would have a deeper understanding of materiality in relationship to their project. How much more significant would architectural projects be if materiality was prioritized?
2. In Jane Bennett’s “Vibrant Matter,” she describes that everything is alive that objects should be given a voice. In an architectural sense, how can we give architectural projects a “thing power”, and what kind of strategies could be used?
3. In “Post Rock,” Moran mentions that experimenting materials and representation is essential for architects as they can discover new forms of renders.With representation and materiality set as one of the key tools to a successful design portrayal, what are other design tools that are essential in a project that architects usually recede from?
Materiality is the application of various materials in a building. The significance of materiality is not its structural properties, but the experience it sets for the occupants in the building. Materiality is an aesthetic quality that has deep social and historical culture. Since architecture materiality has had an impact on the form and strength of a building, architects slowly began to recede from exploring materiality. This suppression is a step backward from discovering the potential properties and language materials can create. Thus, it is important for architects to explore new material combinations, but they must also have a sense of intuition and understanding that not all materials applied in architecture must be discovered. There needs to be a middle ground between minimalism and extravagant. Nowadays architects have a weakened sense of materiality where architects are leaning towards minimalist materials. It is not necessary to say that is irrational, but architects should be able to express all given aspects and assign a material that fits the design challenge.
1. Architecture as a field seems to be heavily invested in the innovation of materials in terms of efficiency and sustainability. On the contrary, the Formlessfinder interview stated that “Architecture lacks intelligent and innovative approaches to form,” and furthermore, “…form suppresses material and tends to either idealize architectural materials or dematerialize architecture all together.” In an effort to heighten architectural innovation in form without disregarding the obviously inherent necessity of material in a project, would it not be more logical to think of form and materiality in tandem, rather than as separate entities? It does not make sense to think of one without the other. What is the purpose of form if it dematerializes architecture? How is that helpful or even relevant beyond a conceptual framework?
2. While we have courses that focus on materiality, it is not a significant aspect of our core studios, which hold the highest credit weight and which tend to get the most attention from students and faculty alike. Our emphasis is formal, our earliest focus being generative. What would it look like if we started with materials, and allowed form to follow? Why do we force material to fit our designs, when we could be allowing our designs to fit material? Why do we treat materiality as an afterthought, when it is our most clear link to the built environment?
3. The move to digital design has enhanced our expectation for precise exactitude, and allows us to develop a level of perfection that, while absolutely necessary in a legal sense, is realistically unattainable in reality. If we conducted more material studies in the early phases of design, would we be more prepared for the unpredictability of material in the real world? Is our hyper obsession with the things we can control on our computers what causes us to shy away from the introduction of real materiality? Is this the same reason why some students are reluctant to build models before every element is designed exactly in a digital sense, or why so many of us wouldn’t think of picking up materials before opening our laptops? Currently, there seems to be a flaw in our process in which there is not enough material experimentation in the early phases of design, and too much at the end. How do we reverse this thinking to reprioritize material in schools, and thus the profession (or vice versa)?
I was most interested today with the proposed analogy of our body as the structure and the food we choose to eat as material. I think from a superficial standpoint, it is easy to think of our clothes as our materiality- this perception is linked, of course, to our tendency to describe a building’s materiality based on what is visible to the naked eye. It is important to consider materiality in terms of assemblage, not merely façade. In this light, the discussion regarding the relevance and importance of not only the foods we choose to eat, but the order in which we choose to eat them, becomes especially interesting. This is the assemblage component- simply eating the right things or choosing the right materials is not enough. The materials you pair them with and the pattern of their construction all makes up either “good” or “bad” assembly. Just as with eating, it is woefully easy to produce a “bad” assembly. So many components have to fit in the right way, at the right time, in the right places. But, just as with eating, it is of utmost importance that correct assemblage is made a priority. Your body is a temple, and every structure you build is your body of work. It is incredibly backward to consider materiality as an afterthought- it guides the whole production, and every move you make.
1. In the Formlessfinder it mentions that a material (bamboo) may scream sustainable but if we ship it across the world is it still considered sustainable. Would using the materials on site be a more sustainable option? Different materials have different properties so wouldn’t choice of material should be based on properties not sustainability or effect on environment?
2. In the load test project, a space was created by placing a slab on raw materials that acted as columns. This allowed him to discover new properties to old materials. “In architecture, matter can’t just be – it is always constrained, defined, circumscribed.” If materials are so important to the form of architecture, why don’t architects try to create new materials? We only use existing materials for buildings and rarely try to create a new one.
3. In Post Rock, it talks about how people were building and experimenting with materials before they fully understood all the properties of them. How come concrete technology has not evolved or changed much in the 2000 years since the Roman empire? Concrete is still being built the same way and only slightly more efficient since we have other materials to reinforce it.
Alchemy is the changing of one material into another. In the past society relied on alchemy to understand the different properties of materials. Knowing the different materialistic properties, we are able to create more interesting architecture. Herzog Ricola warehouse is an excellent example of utilizing the different properties of materials. When the concrete side of the building becomes wet it appears to have the reflective properties of the glass. By utilizing the properties of materials you can create seemingly impossible effects.
1. Formlessfinder’s thesis is that historically, form has carried architecture’s physical and symbolic methods of control, but now that architecture has a very strong trust in the digital, the field is losing intelligent or innovative approaches to form. Sometimes I feel like our school seems to be obsessed with form, often ignoring the actual possibilities or structural integrity of the forms we create. In this sense, we don’t really have an “intelligent” approach to form. Or do we? What do you think?
2. Manuel de Landa writes about Newton and Hooke, saying that Hooke was “intensely interested in what went on in kitchens, dockyards, and buildings- the mundane mechanical arenas of life…” Do you think most non-architects consider architecture mundane? How can we shift this perspective to bring back readings of architecture that inspire friction, cultural activation, social use?
3. Number 3 in Meredith Miller and Thom Moran’s essay is interesting to me: “The image serves as both documentation and speculation and is the primary representational device for advancing the design” If we can couple this notion with last week’s questions of rendering, this could imply that the image-making process of rendering itself becomes the primary design-making framework. This would be a huge shift for the way we design at this school; primarily in 3-D, taking into account spatial characteristics before structural or visual (material) properties. ‘How exactly do I want the design to look’ is a secondary question, as we complete our deliverables for pinups. How do you think things might be different, if we begin immediately by considering material and its atmospheric qualities? Similarly to the way Peter Zumpthor considers atmosphere?
Professor’s lecture yesterday had me thinking about something. Our school does not consider material at all until IDS it seems like. Even then, it is a secondary thought. Our school is so obsessed with form, that we ignore the tangible atmospheric qualities of material until the very end, when we must produce renders. In parallel, people like Skylar Tibbits are questioning whether the same geometric control that our school obsesses over can be ‘undermined’ by digital or material fabrication. Negotiating the interface between very impressive materials research like this and formal explorations could be a very valuable area of study.
1. Within Jane Bennett’s ‘Vibrant Matter – A Political Ecology of Things’ is the discussion of the agency of assemblages. Bennett describes the possibility of “thing power” as having a tie to a younger sense of perceiving the world and the objects within. The blurring between the animate, both human and not, and the organic calls us to recognize the dominating perception of the adults. With age comes organization from experience and an inherent disadvantage to see as other. This concept comes with the finality of understanding objects not as stable entities or passive existences, but rather as vibrant materials. What does Bennett, therefore, deem a vibrant material and how is this term embed itself into the architectural discourse?
2. John Szot’s interview with Formless Finder considers the image based push in architectural representation. Rendering becomes the form-giver, albeit an untrue one. How does this newly found interest in renderings as forerunner of the projects face devoid the form from the physical and spatial experience? How can this inherent linkage be mitigated or is this of importance within the discourse?
3. Discussed in the philosophy of matter essay by Manuel De Landa, genetically enhanced farms and crops become prime examples of the homogenizing process. Along with language and dialects, standardization is forced upon through the education systems and media. This quest for uniformity and efficiency brings on an onslaught of problems in reversing the diversification of all systems. Can this damaging effect be understood through the 19th-century obsession with uniformity, and how do we improve efficiency without endangering diversity?
Discussed in the previous student presentation was the notion of materiality as inert and unresponsive, meaning this current state of materiality renders itself as giving matter no real property makeup. This arises from a need for matter’s properties to not contaminate its form and concept. From Richard Serra’s verb list compilation comes an understanding of the different acts on which can be performed onto a material. These actions can become indexical as their traces provide a matter as part of the homogenous order. Matter is therefore no longer inert but rather materiality.
1. In the article Uniformity and Variability, Manuel De Landa has showed different explanation and perspective on how to explain uniformity. For example, uniformity can be defined as Aristotles’s four elements, platonic solid, and modern scene. To what extent do those various options affect modern people think about uniformity and apply them in contemporary architecture?
2. Jane Bennet has mentioned about life of materiality and said objects are alive because of its influence to other objects. Do you think does Bennet’s theory helps explains the reason why hoarders life to collect “abiotic” objects?
3. How does theories in metaphysics influence modern material science and how do architects apply metaphysics in architecture in general?
This week’s topic asked all architectures and designers to reconsider materials in a new and psychological way. Those new thoughts on how material interact with human life and its surrounding objects helps human understand not only about the precess of production but also let human get a glance of the history of materiality. Jane Bennet has related to materiality to philosophy and how does material alter human actants: not by denying humanity’s awesome, awful powers, but by representing these powers as evidence for our own constitution as vital materiality. It is interesting that she related this thought with the explanation to “hoarders”. Instead of seeing objects as a lifeless items, hoarders see their those materials in an insightful way.
1. In the Formlessfinder interview, they mention the Load Test which was to provide alternatives to traditional notions of tectonics. An example of using crushed spiders to hold up a building was used. Many times we find in nature, creatures that are able to sustain immense amounts of loads. Heavy duty submarines succumb to the immense deep sea pressure and thick concrete columns are needed to support heavy loads. However, simple crab thousands of feet below the surface can thrive and an ant can support its weight hundreds of times over which is the equivalent to a human lifting up an elephant. Could architecture draw more from less traditional forms and adopt a more biomimicry perspective?
2. In Uniformity and Variability, Gordon that the repertoire of materials that a designer uses should reflect the complexity and heterogeneousness of a structure. With more technological advancements and the study of nanocarbons, could we move from more conventional, familiar materials to something like nanocarbons that boasts 100x more tensile strength than steel?
3. In Post Rock, it is mentioned that the design is not thought out beforehand, rather it is developed through material prototyping. How would architecture change if materials were the first step and drove the design process instead of leaving it as a finishing thought?
I think there are a lot of different ways we can approach materiality. Peter Eisenman had an interesting take and took pride in the fact that the villa was interpreted as a model instead of an actual building. The lack of material gives more to the form of the architecture and concept, relying heavily on it to convey meaning. Materiality is now more concerned with the ambiance and environment that it creates for the inhabitants. It doesn’t always have a direct relationship to the design but more so how it makes occupants feel. It also acts as an indicator of the inhabitants and the purpose of the building. Gold leafing and high-end marble wouldn’t be found in a gym or a school, and this distinctive use of materiality offers a different perspective on how we use materials and why. For example, wood flooring and panels give a more calming and cozy environment while concrete would give a much colder, heavier feeling. Architecture would be much more different if designs were created based on the material and might achieve the same desired effects but have a stronger visual and conceptual relationship with the design and form. Architects should also venture out and experiment with different materials in various programs to break the norm and find how the desired effects of a building can be achieved in various ways.
1. In F*uck Your Tectonics, Formlessfinder states “Almost as soon as you figure out what form you want your building to take, you have to start figuring out what stuff you want to make it out of and how you are going to force that stuff into that shape and get it to stay there. In architecture, matter can’t just be – it is always constrained, defined, circumscribed.” The collective is ultimately comparing the notion of man’s obsessive nature to control and manipulate nature for our own gain with the architectural practice. Do you believe that architecture could truly exist without this intentional manipulative process that we call design? Are we not setting limitations for ourselves by opting for non-traditional, site specific materials, as these materials come predispose with their own structural and aesthetic limitations?
2. The idea of Post Rock, specifically in regard to the hybrid composite of waste plastic and rock known as plastiglomerate, presents a direct consequence of the harmful effect we have had on the environment. This material possesses a certain durability because of this fusion that will last for a very long time before its eventual breakdown. However, in an age of sustainability, do you believe that this material could be recycled into the construction of buildings as a way to mitigate the presence of this material in the natural world?
3. Materiality in architecture is often analyzed through two criteria: is structural and tectonic application and its aesthetic presence within our design. However, this only tackles the materiality on a physical level and does not address any other potential criteria from which to evaluate material. Is there other criteria from which to categorize materials and if so how can this reclassification alter the way in which we design with materials?
Has the digital age further steered architects away from the concept of materiality in our designs? Computer generated architecture further has enabled formal explorations never seen before and provides a platform in which the architecture is not influenced by gravity, buildability, or context. The virtual reality that was once projected on a piece of paper has now been transferred to a raster screen, further allows us to switch between the immaterial and material. Image editing and rendering software’s have allowed us to turn on and off layers of material making the materiality of the project more of an aesthetic decision rather than a tectonic decision. This lack of conformity to the properties of materials raises the discussion about whether the practice has been hindered by this arm’s length distance we have developed with materiality or revived by a new sense of virtual exploration and experimentation.
1. Miller and Miran in “Post Rock” discuss materiality as it applies to formal representation and the speculative/productive quality in the process of iteration. Can the way in which selected “tools” i.e mediums function in terms of their own autonomy in design produce qualities which are otherwise unachievable digitally thus suggesting the digital is too fluid; too sophisticated for these certain qualities that require a rougher and more defined edge?
2. The metaphysical speculation in De Landa’s “Uniformity and Variability” is quite a provocative relation of physical meaning and speculative symbolic simplification rooted in philosophy more so than science. De Landa states the early attempts at capturing the complexity of physical transmutations and effect of structure on properties was lost to emergent sciences and their emphasis on simple behavior. Is It the ability to aggregate material and understand it on an essential level missing in today’s digitally driven society that often provokes impalpable intricacies in design that rejects the metaphysical speculation De Landa proposes?
3. Bennet in “Vibrant Matter” discusses vitality, as a capacity of things, not only as a force which inhibits the design process but also act as forces in their own right. To give more leeway for material force and the relation of such force as it relates to political events. Is there a way in which the recognition of material force as a guiding factor, something ironically more intangible/ephemeral, as applied to design that is more than simply rooted in fundamental properties but more in line with effect—thus achieving vibrant materiality?
Peter Eisenman’s House Two is provocative in its understanding of materiality and its effects which arises from particular design considerations that in a sense begin to remove its essential material nature. Such effects hold power understood from many perspectives within formalist discourse. This certainly relates to Peter Zumthor who discusses a created atmosphere. The power of perception and the intangible in this way, as it relates to physical nature and more residual characteristics appears to stimulate some understanding of the blurred line between the inert material nature and immaterial effect. This has a relation to other topics discussed within the lecture such as 4D printing and vibrant matter in their ability for multi dimensional effect to take control of form and indeed reach a more metaphysical understanding of a work.
1. Post Rock is described as a combination of post-consumer polyethylenes , aggregates, and plastics using high heat. Miller and Moran gives examples of three architectural proposals utilizing Post Rock. While these are just proposals, how can Post Rock be incorporated into future architecture in a plausible way?
2. In “F*ck Your Tectonics,” John Szot shows an example and explanation of a load test where piles of raw material are used in place of columns. Going back to “Post Rock,” can Post Rock possibly be utilized in structural performance for a building like how these piles of materials are using for structure?
3. Manuel De Landa describes ways in which we got lost in the process of utilizing homogeneous materials in routinized production and design. Although he lists ways in which we got lost in this process, he does not tell how we can come back from it. How can we, as architects, utilize heterogeneous materials in our design in both structural and aesthetic performance?
The idea of Post Rock and its possible effects on the future is the only thing about this week’s topic that interested me. Although this idea was not really one that was discussed much in class. To me, the possibility of using a combination of materials, that could be sustainable and reusable, as structural components in a building is an important factor to future architecture. The world is practically getting shittier and shittier and this concept could change the way people live in the world. If Post Rock could be developed to its potential structural integrity, architects would be able to use these materials to their advantage and utilize them in an aesthetic way. It could change architecture for the better.
1) I found the arguments brought up in the Szot article very hard to accept. Despite his many truths about us as a generation or society being largely influenced by the imagery of designs and creations, I don’t feel that we would be taking steps forward without form. Should we, as architects and designers, truly stray away from the visual concept of form and spectacle?
2) In what ways does the concept of form hold us back as Architecture students? There seems to be a constant push-pull between many courses in our curriculum- encouraging us to strive for either fully symbolic designs or formless abstracts as projects. Is this detrimental to our future careers?
3) It seems ironic that formless design would not have come back into existence as a practice without the development and fruition of architecture with form. What would the concept of formlessness be without the definition of form? Does either one truly exist, or are they just pre-conceived notions that we as thinkers have came up with?
Today’s class discussion gave me a broader view on the topics i based my questions on. Our discourse on the development of Samurai Swords gave insight on how fundamental the concept of form becomes when it comes to the composition and structure of built objects. No matter how formless/ambiguous an object or material may seem, its inert- or developed- form comes to the top of its hierarchy as an individual thing. When it comes to this concept in a building-scale discussion, we must understand that even the most deformed buildings and spaces are made up of formal principles, whether that be through the symbolism, the people that inhabit them, or even their “molecular makeup”.
1.) Based on Landa’s assertion that human and material behavior must become predictable, what measures can be taken to ensure that little variation occurs in the end status of both the human action and the material action, and in what circumstances can limitations not be worked around or surpassed?
2.) Miller and Moran discuss the process of encouraging materials to confirm to architectural need. In what ways does this disrupt the architectural integrity of a project by way of bypassing the apparent necessity to make particular use of certain materials for their naturally occurring qualities?
3.) While anthropomorphizing matter, as Bennett suggests, has many virtues, there is unspoken indication that this can also be a harmful practice. Should the possible harms be ignored in order to let materials act without overarching human influence on their natural conditions, or does the risk of imperfection in aesthetic and structural quality eclipse this?
To claim that materiality must be reconsidered is to claim that materiality, in general, is ever given full thought to begin with. In the mindset of the architect, materials are seen as a tool by which creation can occur, but never as a method by which to create. A particular issue with contemporary architecture is that materials are often taken for granted, not only for their property and availability, but also on account of the expectation that they can be used to fulfill any particular goal. If architecture is designed without active consideration to how any particular material will behave, it will be naturally more prone to failure than any that is designed with materiality in mind. In this sense, humans can also be treated as a material, in that they have limited functions which tend to be unsurpassable. This can become an issue when architects are not able to have an appropriate amount of control when it comes to making use of a material, which, in the long run, can result in wastes of time, effort, and the material itself.
1. As discussed by Meredith Miller and Thom Moran in “Post Rock: material and medium”, much design is based on material sensibilities and immaterial effects. When working through hands on experimentation, the deliverables are unknown but there is an understanding of how something is made. As with creators such as Ant Farm, the design can approach a more transient atmosphere. While this can adapt and engage geography and culture, the effect and qualities of the design are outside of our control to plausibly construct. In this more surreal or ephemeral representation, how do we employ physical mechanisms and materials that can be used in buildings in order to achieve these effects? Is there a process to translate representation or does it come back to the hands on experimentation?
2. In “Uniformity and Variability”, Manuel De Landa states that by the time many Greek philosophers developed ideas on matter and the behaviors of materials, craftsmen had already discovered these properties by physically interacting with them. Over time this evolved to an understanding of materials as being dynamic rather than static. They can transform from strong and ductile to brittle and transfer energy. Rather than materials becoming routine or capitalized in an assembly production, how can they behave in more complex ways? Buildings utilize energy sources, but will they be able to transform energy in new ways as technology develops? Will buildings begin to shift and rotate in response to environmental situations?
3. John Szot’s profile and interview with Formlessfinder discusses the advancement in technology in relation to form. As technologies evolve, new geometries are being developed through parametrics and other processes. Szot argues this approach to architecture lacks innovation. Form drives architecture towards the image, as discussed last week. In the market of renderings and consumption, form is lost amongst the other media whereas material can demonstrate physical and spatial experience. Digital tools thereby force architects to chase the idea rather than coming up with the idea on their own and using digital tools to implement it. Will architects ever slow down their use of technology or turn away from processes like using parametrics? Or are they lost if they don’t keep up with the demand for this methodology?
The study of materials involves various scientific disciples as well as philosophies as discussed in the lecture today. This extended to the idea of the metaphysical in relation to materiality. It involves going beyond the physical world in order to invoke thoughts, feelings, or memories. By connecting to occupants in this way, space can be designed to motivate people to interact with their surrounding environments. The examples of Zumthor showed architecture, in his view, as an envelope for the human experience. Materials ultimately allow for a fabricated structure to create a familiar sense. Architecture can produce its own reality. 4D printing was also mentioned during the discussion as a way to consider the specific materials and objects that can evoke these experiences. 4D printing combines a rigid and expandable object so that it can change shape or adapt to other forms depending on various external conditions they undergo (such as daylighting or water). It is interesting to consider how this new technology can play into the metaphysical properties of architecture and invoke thoughts and emotions in the way that existing processes are able to.
1. In “Uniformity and Variability,” Manuel De Landa describes the disadvantages of modern material production, including the loss of material quality due to removing skilled craftsmen from the material production process. Weighing the advantages (more widely distributed and cheaper materials) and disadvantages (loss of quality/lifespan, impacts to the environment, etc.) of machine material production, do you think the shift towards machine-produced materials was worth it?
2. The firm Formlessfinder works with a type of architecture which they call formless, where “matter is left alone, in a raw state, and no longer has to be constrained or resolved.” They list many positive attributes of formless architecture, including sustainability. However, do you think this type of architecture could be considered sustainable, if there is no guarantee to the lifespan of the building?
3. In reading about the work of Formlessfinder, I noticed particular parallels to the “Boring” architecture we looked at earlier this semester. Both types of architecture employ very simple methods and aesthetics in order to force the audience into interaction and engagement. Do you think this ideological match works? How do you think these two architectural discourses could further interact with and build upon each other?
The readings and lectures this week presented two very different inquiries of study into the nature of materials: the first being the discoveries of craftspeople from the Stone Age onward, and the second being very recent material studies at the collegiate level. We have craftspeople to thank for nearly all material advances throughout our history, but recently, these fields of work have subsided in favor of the efficiency and homogeneity of machine-driven processes. As these fields die out, resources of advanced skills and experimentation will dwindle. At best, the new academic practices of material research can only hope to replicate some of the experimental energy of the past millennia of trades work in material study. Intimate physical knowledge of material, direct experience, and a fusion of pragmatism and experimentation are all at stake if trades continue to dwindle due to our changing economy and culture. Through overcoming societal differences between academics and tradespeople, the gap in material knowledge could be mended.
Q1: Bennett writes, “when diverse bodies suddenly draw near and form a public, they have been provoked to do so by a problem, that is, by the ‘indirect, serious and enduring’ consequences of ‘conjoint action.’” This relates directly to social protests, and the gathering of people to make their voices heard. Is there a moment in architecture where designers might group together in response to an injustice within the discipline?
Q2: Both Bennett and De Landa discussed the components of matter as being key to the combined object. In the latter essay, the heterogeneity of components changes the qualities of that meshwork. How can the parts selection process become more discerning to achieve the desired results?
Q3: From the “Post Rock” writing, “drawings can account for geometry but not unpredictable materiality.” This brings to mind the work of Mies, specifically his Barcelona Pavilion, and how he carefully considered the design of every surface in regards to its material properties. Are the authors correct in saying that certain features of a material cannot be anticipated, or is the pavilion just one of many projects that take into account these details?
The Materiality Reconsidered week has been packed with ideas on how components interact with each other and how this interaction impacts the final product. One example of this interaction would be food. The proper combination of foods can create a healthy body, like the right proportions vegetables to proteins, or vitamins and carbs. Another example we went through in class was the materiality of a sword. By adding carbon with iron, the sword becomes sharper and more durable. It is precisely this mixture of parts that the architect should manipulate in their designs. Each material should be selected for not only aesthetic, but also structural or formal reasons. Choosing concrete and steel over a wood frame construction has a twofold effect on the build. It becomes stronger, but also changes the look of the design due to some unpredictable features of the components.
1.) In “formlessfinder,” it was determined that anything can perform structurally. For example, a pile of raw materials is piled up in a way until it can structurally hold up a building in replace of columns. Are there any materials that are better than one another? does one hold up more and last longer than the other? is it even structurally safe? How far can it extend? how can it be applied to contemporary architecture?
2.) In “Post Rock,” by Miller, it describes that materials that are in the making is making it hard to comprehend with drawings. What are some techniques to prevent us from using too much material to the point that it ruins the drawings to making it a better digital format?
3.) Going off with the question above, is was discussed that replacing materials with new materials that is alike. Wouldn’t that affect the structural stability? All materials are made differently, some are not as structurally stable than others. Do materials need to be doubled to meet to standard requirements?
This weeks reading topic discussed the subject of materiality. We are in a world where there some universities don’t require you to draft by hand. As the world keeps on moving forward, so is technology. Digital technology today can create models without having to use any materials or supplies to make it, it can be made in a software. However, even though our lives is just a bit easier because of technology, it is also important to realize the importance of the materials that make up of what we build. Materials are so much more than what it holds, it is the fundamental in nature and mind consciousness in resulting material interactions with the world and society.
1. In “Uniformity and Variability”, Manuel De Landa unpacks a quote by James E. Gordon about the use of steel in design to be a warning to engineers and architects. He states that the danger is in “a single, universal material [that] is good for all different kinds of structure”. How has the discovery of multifunctional materials, in this case steel, posed a danger for the designer? Has it limited the architect’s choice of materials in a project? Or have strong, universal materials opened the world up to the creation of more complex designs that previously existed solely in the digital world?
2. In John Szot’s interview with Julian Rose and Garrett Ricciardi of Formlessfinder, they discuss the idea that “most attempts to celebrate materiality still end up sublimating or idealizing material”. Do designers place too much of a focus on material, to the point where the design intentions of the architect are lost? Or is the materiality the only way to achieve a desired effect of a design, rather than through the matter of the design as proposed by Formlessfinder?
3. “Post Rock: Material and Medium” by Meredith Miller and Thom Moran discusses the materiality of plastiglomerates and the authoring of Post Rock materials. The creation of Post Rock “translates a cultural and ecological territory into a visual and physical medium”. The composition of Post Rock is detailed and designed by the creator, allowing them to tell a story through their choice of materials that makes up their Post Rock. How can a uniquely created material impact a design? Can the chosen elements that make up the Post Rock be used to strengthen a conceptual idea, or does this new material create more erratic architecture that stands out among its surroundings?
As architects, we place a heavy focus on materiality in our projects. Designers like Peter Eisenman prompted a shift away from that heavy focus. After his House II was featured in a French magazine, someone commented on how it was nice to see a physical model on the site. However, it was the actual building, and this excited Eisenman. Removing the project from the actual material it was made of allows viewers to see the architect’s intentions rather than the material make up. At the same time, the need to remove the materiality has provoked creative experiments that test the boundaries of the materials at hand. The goal is to find new ways to create an effect of one material while using a completely opposite material. One example shown in class cut wood in precise ways that allowed the wood to become flexible. Wood, typically very rigid, is pulled out of the twisting sculpture, allowing the viewer to focus on form rather than the material choice.
1. In the introduction of the Formlessfinder Interview it’s stated by John Szot that “Form suppresses material and tends to either idealize architectural materials of dematerialized architecture altogether.” Does this reference the idea that architecture is becoming more and more digital? Where we create such a perfect architecture through our renders and drawings and then remove or rather deny new architecture of its beautiful qualities in real life. Are we taking away the physical qualities of architecture in order to create some of these modern and unrealistic forms?
2. Uniformity is the quality of something being uniform and all the same. Variability is quite the opposite as it’s the lack of consistency or a fixed pattern. How do these two opposing ideas work together and relate back to each other. How has uniformity over the years created its own variability? How do all things that are uniform vary?
3. Meredith Miller points out three important observations about the materials and tools we architects have at our disposal. The third being the image or our renders of a building. She says “The image serves as both documentation and speculation and is the primary representational device advancing the Design. Images enable us to move between the physical realm of material prototypes to the projective realm of design, and back to prototyping. While this is definitely an important step in the design process, when do we reach our limit of going overboard with what we do post processing and not enough in actually making our designs work properly?
Materiality by definition is the quality or character of being material or composed of matter. The definition further describes it as the quality of being relevant or significant. For architecture specifically, it is the concept and applied use of various materials or substances in building. Based on these definitions does a material have to be deemed relevant or important for it to be used? What qualities does it have to possess in order to receive this honor? The presentations this week looked into the history behind select materials and the trends they evoked. They way in which we use materials influence new methods of use and cause us to rethink the endless possibilities that stem from each of them.
1. Formlessfinder says that architects of today design a form and then struggle to get the materials they choose to fit the design. Are we making a mistake in post-rationalizing our material choices? Would designs be better if the material’s abilities drove the design instead of just form?
2. In “Vibrant Matter,” Jane Bennett talks about the growing masses of trash in our environment, tying into her essay on hoarding. This ties into the overconsumption of food as well. What can architects do about this cultural shift towards overconsumption, as our buildings and people are getting more massive?
3. Meredith Miller and Thom Moran discuss their experimentation with different types of plastics in “Post Rock.” How can architects be experimental with more traditional materials like wood and concrete?
This week’s discussion questioned the contemporary architect’s relationship with materiality. The disadvantage to digital modeling is that we cannot express the material’s specific properties. We often appy material as an afterthought, trying to work against the material to get it to comply with our needs. We have to be more responsible with our materials, experimenting with them and letting them design instead of us. We discovered steel by initially just trying to make a cooler sword, so it is not always necessary to have a deep meaning or intent with material, unlike with other aspects of design. Experimentation is the most important part of materiality.
1. In Miller’s “Post Rock,” Miller describes the camera as a medium with which designers can convey a thought or idea through an image. Miller goes on to talk about how the camera, as a medium, can be restrictive to the designer, as can many other digital media can be to convey an architectural idea. How can we, as architecture students, strive to change our process to compensate for this fact?
2. Formlessfinder states that architects are struggling to consider material in their initial design process, only to hit a wall in the design and development part of the design process. Is this fact pushing architects to figure out new materials to accomplish what they need to accomplish for their design? Or is it detrimental to the design process?
3. In “Uniformity and Variability,” Manuel De Landa talks about how modern fabrication methods are designed to be quick and efficient, favoring mechanized methods of fabrication over hand-craft. Both the methods of handcrafting and mechanical fabrication prove to be better than the other when working with specific materials and designs that it is hard to figure out a fixed, consistent method to craft the majority of common materials used. Is there a method of fabrication where handcrafting and mechanical fabrication can hybridize and work harmoniously to mass produce objects while still keeping the quality of hand-craft?
Materiality is something that all architects have had to consider at some point during their time as designers. Whether it be a structural material capable of holding massive loads, or a smaller scale material that is used to capture tiny details and is much less restrictive in terms of how it can be used. However, in the age we live in, technology is advancing at a breakneck pace and more ways of fabrication are being considered that would change how architects consider materiality forever. For example, a new method of fabrication is being explored to figure out if the properties of a material and the environment of around the material is the manner with which the material creates something out of itself. This process is called 4D printing and renegotiates the relationship between how the user determines what the material makes and how the material reacts to the manner with how the designer tries to manipulate it.
1. In “Post Rock” the idea to reproduce a stone is brought up. It contains parts of other stones, but at what point does this become completely synthetic rather than a reproduction of a stone? What are the social and political issues with producing a stone/plastic synthesis? Especially those that will likely reside in and near the ocean.
2. In “Uniformity and Variability” De Landa discusses the issue that we as a whole or even categorized into smaller groups tend to study things to the extent that we choose and overlook the rest. We often see what a material can do, and not worry about where it came from, what it would be better used for, or even the effect it has on everything else. What causes this separation between usefulness and the whole picture? Are there ways that we could turn this around and begin looking at the whole picture rather than the part we care about? If we did change our view point, what level of impact would this have on the materiality of many goods in today’s society?
3. In “Vibrant Matter – A Political Ecology of Things” it appears that Jane Bennett is bringing up the idea that nothing will ever be greater or less than it started out as, and that everything starts out equal. If this is true how do we justify spending so much time studying and testing certain materials or products for their durability, usability, and other likeable qualities that we look for in products? If they are equal does that simply mean that they all have an equal opportunity to be the best material for a product rather than they all are equally fit to be used for one specific product?
There are many aspects to materiality that we rarely think about when using a product, unless the materials happen to not be the right ones for the job. There are so many decisions that go into deciding upon a specific material, whether the deciding factor is for aesthetic purposes, durability, or any other reason imaginable. The interesting thing about materials is that they are rarely completely natural. They often have another additive or component that makes then synthetic in some way. New materials are constantly being made by combining multiple other materials into a new one, often this synthesis is to have the better qualities of the two materials without less of the lacking qualities. However, with these new materials often comes new problems. Some of these problems include the ethical issues related to the material. The idea of synthesizing organic materials with plastics and other non-organic materials. Some of the organic materials include rocks, shells, and other objects found in the ocean. These would be combined with plastics for various reasons, however, there are many issues that this can cause, maybe not to the extent that plastic in the ocean is causing right now but quite similar issues. Another idea for materials is to recreate stone, this will cause other ethical issues, because to our society stones are natural, however, at one point of us create stones do we go from calling stones natural to them being completely synthetic. Is it okay for us to turn our naturally occur objects into a mixture of natural and unnatural? Similarly, we have issues with littering, however, this isn’t anything that says that creating a stone and using it as a real stone, is littering. We already do this a little when we buy garden gravel or other fillers to make our gardens or potted plants look more perfect. While these stones may not be completely synthetic they are milled and sanded and even polished many times to make them smooth and round when many naturally occurring stones are far from that. We need to think about more than just the benefits of a new material and start thinking about the issues with them, ethical and otherwise.
1. In the “Formless Interview” reading, it was said that due to the heavy reliance on technology the field of architecture is lacking intelligence and innovation. The article also goes on the say that the “formless” view is a reimagining of architecture’s attributes. Since ‘formless’ and many other ideas are not novel, but instead remakes of already existing ideas, it is accurate to say that architecture has reached an innovative standstill? That we have entered an era where the “new” does not exist?
2. With all of the developments in science and construction, new materials are being created. Should architects start to look into materials and construction as an avenue for creating a ‘new’ architecture? Will that previously mentioned architecture be considered new if the design concepts are the same, but the construction techniques are novel?
3. In “Vibrant Matter” Bennett mentions how one thing can be represented, and approached, in a plethora of ways. As architects living in the digital age, is it possible that we overlook materials that can’t easily be 3D modeled? Are we ignoring potentially amazing materials out of ignorance of how to correctly represent them?
This week’s discussion went in depth with inquiries about materiality and architecture. How the two are related and where they are heading in the future. Materiality and architecture have become almost synonymous with architects being expected to be experts in different types of materials and their assemblies. But this brings up the question, should architects be this concerned with materials? Yes, materials are needed to construct a building and if an architect is well versed in materials than they will be able to better demand what they want. But on the other hand, if architects focus too much on materiality they could start to lose some of the essential design elements. So where is the happy medium? Where do materiality and architecture meet, but not overlap?
1. In “F*ck Your Tectonics” Form is described as an important tool used in architecture for centuries. The importance that form gives to works of architecture is describe as a giver of shape and organization. Yet in this reading, the technological softwares used for architectural purposes in the past couple decades is seen as a downfall for form in architecture as a whole. Many famous architects like Zaha Hadid are known for their use of these technologies to create beautiful works of functional form. How does technology really affect the creative process that exists in architecture when there is proof that architecture can still be beautiful and functional even when relying on softwares? Is the material process of architecture really affected by advanced techniques?
2. “Uniformity and Variability” seems to have an engineering perspective as a whole. Manuel De Landa makes powerful arguments against the mechanizing frenzy that the world seems to have adapted in the past centuries. There seems to be a belief that technology could replace humans at some point in time due to their perfect nature of work. Yet this raises a question of wether or not machines are the answer to many problems humans face? Will there exist a point in which machines will be geared towards making less materials thus decreasing the cost of manufacturing? How could architecture be affected by such change?
3. “Post Rock” as an essay explores the possibilities that could come from the combination of multiple everyday use items. How could these objects like an iPhone camera become tools for creating physical objects? The “Post Rock” approaches materiality at a different scale. How could one take advantage of the tools possessed in order to achieve maximum accuracy in terms of production, specially with materials that are volatile in the way they act and mold. How could using different techniques help use, reuse and recycle accidental elements created by mankind in order to further the material world?
Material is a broad term in terms of architecture; materials are the ethos of architecture since without matter, architecture wouldn’t be able to materialize from ideas to physical objects. The choice of material used in a project has a conducive power that individualizes each work of architecture.
When looking to the past, one can immediately notice that buildings in ancient times often look similar in terms of materiality due to the lack of technological advances in this sense. When looking at current building techniques, a blend of different materials is often preferred by architects and engineers due to the individual characteristics each element brings to the table. As technology advances towards the future, we will see improved technologies of 3D printing and other techniques used yet ones that aren’t entirely viable. The world is moving towards a use, reuse and recycle mindset and this idea could allow for strong and aesthetically pleasing materials to potentially be used in the future. Materiality Reconsidered is a concept that aims to rethink the ways in which materials and architecture work together.
1. In F*ck Your Tectonics, Formlessfinder has a project called Load Test in which the inverse of what an engineer would do (calculate forces to figure out which material is best for a form) is done. Do you think this approach holds merit in which form follows the chosen material of a building? Or does it cause more problems (spatially, contextually, etc.) than is worth to prove the point that material matters?
2. In Post Rock , the authorship of unpredictable material processes are described. Do you believe studios, especially first and second year, are not exposed or encouraged enough to explore material unknowns whether it be aesthetics or tectonics? Too much taskboard???
3. Manuel De Landa discusses in Uniformity and Variability how we have become so accustomed to uniformity, that we avoid variation or see it as something that needs to be fixed in our perfect uniform world. While uniformity is important for some material’s efficiency and strength, how important is it aesthetically? Why are we putting these invisible, nonexistent restrictions on ourselves when it comes to uniformity?
This week’s presentation and discussion was centered around the importance of material in architecture and where it does and maybe should fall in design process and priority. With the ever looming dangers of climate change right in front of us it is not only important, but vital as architects to pay attention to the ecological effects certain materials possess- manufacturing process or overall performance. Another point brought up was how rendering especially in architecture school warps our perspective of material. With the ease of applying materials on V-Ray we hold little to no thought on material properties and how they would actually affect the design. Taskboard, MDF, and acrylic become the norms in studios. First year seems to be most experimental material wise, which is maybe a backwards way to look at it from a learning perspective. As we go through school, shouldn’t we be experimenting with the properties of different or unforeseen materials in our physical models? How would this change a project? This brings up the interesting point of reconsidering how we prioritize material over form or vice versa.
1. In “uniformity and variability “ it talks about the properties of metals and how we have been able to use them in different ways, but it also talks about the progress of material science and I’m curious as to what the next building technology will take over, such as shape, form , chemicals, and change how we build?
2. Also, in “uniformity and variability” it talks about materials becoming less and less significant because they have become extremely common? How can we use new materials and these materials in ways to create new and original architecture?
3. In “fuck your tectonics “it talks about materials and form contributing as reason for unsustainable design since concept is usually more sought after. So, because the type of material used in a project defines the concept, does this influence the conceptual design or is there a concept even if its formless?
Architecture today is at an extremely interesting point, where its not as defined as it used to be. There are many new tools and materials to work with. Which is an interesting explanation to why the focus of architecture has shifted importance to materiality. People have this desire to be inventive and unique. By creating new processes and materials unique to architecture helps stray from repeating architecture. By exploring materiality, it fulfills people’s desire to design something new.
1. Formlessfinder’s unconventional design strategies pave entirely new architectural avenues: tectonic back-streets, sovereign of institutional constraint. ‘Bag Pile,’ the firm’s best example of architectural ambition, presents a novel tectonic that is both spatially provoking and structurally plausible. Was this project ever realized at human scale, and to what degree of permanence?
3. Miller and Moran compose ‘Erratics’ with frank conspicuousness, an out of place geological-landmark that sparks intrigue and facilitates movement. In both sculpture and architecture, this technique can be employed very successfully. Contrarily, however, many modern buildings that attempt to ‘stand out from the rest’ join the list of false-icons that flaunt out-of-place design choices at public dismay (EMPAC). Do architects make these choices because they ultimately design what they want and build what they think looks good, or do they genuinely feel that cities need more ‘iconic’ buildings?
2. One of the most intriguing morsels from this week’s readings is Rose/Ricardi’s assertion that “most implementations of digital technology fail before they even begin, because they try to use technology to chase an idea.” Befittingly, this statement marinates deeply within my tech-school memory-pool, as we are thrust into a digital form-finding methodology, our majority of projects dominated by computation. Beyond incepting projects with analog studies, how can contemporary design more effectively balance the necessary metaphysical rationale (that can only exist outside of technology) with its inescapable tech-ubiquity?
I appreciate the work of Formlessfinder for the guile and intrigue that they present in their work, but also for their candid rejection of conventional norms. ‘Bag Pile,’ for example, would almost instantly be rejected as a public project or contest-entry, for its raw irregularity is not contained by institutionalized rulings or guidelines. Who would trust this structure to withstand the test of time, let alone the firestorm of its critique? The point, I suppose, was not to imagine these towering arches of billowing mesh as literal construction but as a theoretical apposite: the antithesis to architecture. To visualize relaxation among the rock-anchored tubes is to imagine a world without formal architecture altogether: a realm where post-and-beam never occurred, the uniform module was never crafted, and form was thus always irregular and amorphous.
1. In “F*ck Your Tectonics”, makes a claim that we should reconsider what “form” in architecture means, showing concepts where “typical” architectural form has been replaced with simple matter, as in Load Test. By doing away with presumptive “form”, what are we allowing ourselves to design? How does the aberration from built “form” revolutionize the field in the ways that we think about and construct architecture?
2. In “Post Rock”, Meredith Miller and Thom Moran take a look at how we can use “post rock”, or rather, a modern form of ancient material construction tactics. By going back to our roots in construction, a new world of design possibilities unfold right in front of our eyes. What are the merits, and conversely, the pitfalls of going back to our foundations in materiality and construction? Will we find things that we have since lost with the technologization of construction, or would trying to bring back the natural ways of construction hinder the progress we’ve made in terms of materiality and construction?
3. “Post Rock” harks on the positives of going back to the earth to find materials with which to build and help create more productive and efficient design. In regards to sustainability and recycling, where does this return to the earth lie? Is it a sustainable practice, or is this something that seems like an idea that in theory would work quite well, but in practice would fail? Or does it lie somewhere in between?
The idea of reconsidering materiality, and the metaphysics and aesthetics that it involves is very interesting. For decades, we have constructed a certain way, and have been extrapolating on modern construction and its relative materiality and such. But, if we take a deeper look at these things, we find that we can turn it on its head (quite literally) and reveal a wealth of possibilities when it comes to construction and materiality. As was in FormlessFinder’s Load Test, anything can become a structural or material aspect to a project. No longer do you have to subscribe to the standard forms of production, if you can use something to make a building stand up and look good, then go full steam ahead. This, in hand with the idea of post rock, where we return to the earth to look at materials that while are in the earth, are rarely used, really changes the narrative going forward for how we as architects and designers think about materiality and construction.
1. With the use and advance of technology, we can specifically design products and architecture so that it is that design that is a result. This point mentioned in the article “Post Rock” brings to question how past architects did it before. Did they design more simply for their world and tools were simplistic? Was it that they built first and designed after? Perhaps, it is about the change in education? Was it the fact that they were trained to visualize in 3D mentally while looking at 2D drawings? Have we impeded our education with relying on technology?
2. Typically, architects think of materiality toward the end of the design process for the form and shape are what contains the circulation and initiates communication. However, the materiality is the aspect that people see and the element that supports the movement. Therefore, if people would like to change how architects think about materiality focusing on either aesthetics or structure, should they not first change or evaluate what people actually notice when they of architecture? Is it the building’s form or its material? Do they think: glass, shape, color, or structure?
3. Is Bennett’s logic of everything being alive, including buildings, inaccurate since nowadays we are having to adjust buildings to become more sustainable and adaptable? Is it not an aspect of living things to adapt to their surroundings? Perhaps the sustainable buildings we are designing now will be living if they respond and continue to respond to the world’s needs.
As time has progressed, new technology has surfaced and been invented, leading to new designs and materials. In this case, technology has been efficient and positive in that new creativity is being produced in new ways. In addition, it seems that the new technology came at a necessary time. With the escalation of greenhouse gases and the increase in population, our Earth is rapidly changing and worsening in some cases. Therefore, technology has the opportunity to serve a greater good, especially if it can give way to new materials from our plastic trash. It seems that being Post Rock is leading to new opportunities with the new materials and technology; however, it is that new technology that has created for the new materials and solutions to be needed. It is the technology of the car, for example, that has led to the rapid increase of carbon dioxide, resulting in global warming. Yet, it is technology that can also help to solve the problem. Technology seems to be both a solution and a problem; or a problem but a solution.
1: In “Uniformity and Variability,” Material Scientist James E. Gordon is quoted describing steel as “A material that facilitates the dilution of skills.” Modern architecture has a much wider range of material to influence design with, which has shifted focus away from mastery to exploration. How does this wide open field of possible material uses and combinations affect our view, as architects, of the architectural profession, especially compared to how it may have been viewed in centuries past?
2: Categorizing materials is a philosophical and often emotional endeavor. How would a material be defined as chaotic or orderly, strong or weak, familiar or alien? How many ways can the connotational properties of a material be organized, sorted, and applied?
3: Miller describes the camera as a medium for expressing ideas and emotions, but to go beyond the camera is to realize that the things within the photograph, the landscape, materials, elements, lighting, time, space, all acts just as much an ideological and emotional medium as the camera does. This is not to say the existence of these other mediums takes away from the photograph’s ability to work as a medium itself. Rather it becomes a question: what can a medium provide, and how can the awareness of multiple layers of different mediums can be arrayed to produce spectacles that could not be done alone. What can be gained in an additional medium? And what is lost when mediums are combined?
1. John Szot discusses that today “architecture lacks intelligent innovative approaches to form”. One of his solutions to materials becoming more of a focus than the form is green architecture. How can processed materials follow the “non-constrained or resolved” raw material by becoming something of its own, and standing separately from the form of a building?
2. In Uniformity and Variability, the changing of materials brings up the durability of one change of matter versus the other. What materials could we potentially change to make structurally sound? How can we fuse materials to create more dynamic systems?
3. The materials we use define the approach to the design, the process, and the end result. A big difference today is how individuals rely on technology for the creation of a structure. How does the use of computers influence our choices in the materiality of a building?
Materials have drastically transitioned from carefully articulated and intricately detailed structures to geometries reacting to our environment. Today many of the homes, apartment buildings, and housing complexes are composed of prefabricated units. Quite often pre-manufactured structures cut down on cost, time, and efficiency for a project. A key part of the presentation included the environmental effects of certain materials. 3D printing was brought up several times as a means to reimagine materiality and effectiveness. Many of these 3D printed structures are beneficial in environmentally unstable areas. Gaia, “a new eco-sustainable house”, is composed of natural waste materials and connected to the rice production chain. Not only is it extremely energy efficient and healthy for inhabitants, but it has almost a zero percent impact on the environment. Because of its well-designed system, there is no need for air conditioning or heating systems. The change from design materials to efficient materials is going to dramatically change the way we move forward in architecture.
1. The “Formlessfinder” reading likes to describe form as a philosophical concept rather than a physical one (that would be matter). The material in architecture, or rather the architecture all together, are usually devalued by our over-valuing of the “form”. While I do see the point of how much we focus on form rather than matter, why is it a philosophical concept? Doesn’t everything, including matter (the physical) inherently have a form?
2. In the preface, Bennett deems that materiality does not live in economic or societal structure, because of our narcissistic humanity. She then says that materiality is placed in the echoes of anthropomorphism in nonhuman nature. Wouldn’t that contradict her first point, because putting human characteristics on nature instead of letting it stand on its own shows our narcissism?
3. In the DeLanda reading, materials don’t have a catagory in the metaphysical or the physical, in fact it doesn’t seem to have a placement at all. I see “materials” as a composite of “matter”, so why doesn’t it have space to like on the physical realm?
I felt like the materiality presentations were important to me, because I feel like there are so few classes that address matters (pun not intended) like this. The only way to get that kind of education is if we were to concentrate on that as a minor or for our Master’s. I also think that materiality is a broad concept on its own, which is why I questioned whether or not Bennett’s point on the restriction of the definition of materiality was valid. Materiality is in everything, whether or not it has anything to do with humanity. To answer my question from the DeLanda reading, I would say that the concept of materials is a part of the metaphysical (the ethereal), and that materials/tangible items are a part of the physical. I felt like DeLanda could’ve made a clearer distinction, or have a clearer argument on how “materials” are disconnected.
1. In the article of “Post Rock Material and Medium” by Meredith Miller, she talks about that people always pay more attention on the design after the material is built and crafted. Material itself is not the guiding role in the design part. How can architects start to let material become the leading part of the design? Can we use material before the design is finished?
2. In the article of “Uniformity and Variability” by Manuel De Landa, he talks about craftsman who cannot understand and know about the scientific phenomenon and processes though they are good at using materials. In this case, the knowledge for how to manipulate materials is very important. Is this kind of knowledge also can apply on architecture and architects?
3. In the article of “Uniformity and Variability” by Manuel De Landa, it states that machinic phylum is something that contains motion because it can fold and transform into another form. This process is based on materiality, and it mentions the concept of folding. Is the concept different from the folding in the previous lecture? How can we use that in architecture?
According to the presentation, materiality is very important for people to think more creative. People always tend to apply material after they design the buildings but not try to assign one kind of material at the beginning of the project to continue working on that material. This is a new way to let people think about something new and help them to understand the deeper knowledge about materiality. Also, it is important to change one person’s perspective. In this case, people may try to use material not just the way it is but more creative.
1. Formlessfinder states that most attempts to celebrate materiality still end up sublimating or idealizing material. In what ways can we stray from falling into these tendencies?
2. Gordon states, “the first danger is the idea that a single, universal material is good for all different kinds of structure,” is there a way to effectively use a single material for all sorts of structure without any negative effects?
3. With the creation of plastiglomerates, do you see plastiglomerates becoming more popular in the field of architecture, and how do you think plastiglomerates would be applied? Also, do you think that plastiglomerates could have any negative effect on the environment, as plastiglomerates will last a long time?
Materiality is a major aspect of architecture and shapes the way that we see the architecture put before us. Typically there is a wide variety of materials used in buildings, especially for the structure. However when looking at old, primitive architecture one can see that little variety in materials was used. It is not practical today to use one material for structure but also not impossible. As technology progresses new materials and techniques are created and we can see their positive effects on the environment. However, at times, new materials have long term negative effects that we aren’t aware of. For example, asbestos was used in building materials and cables for its fire and heat resistance. However, after years of using asbestos, it was discovered that the material can cause cancer, resulting in the termination of use of the material. Unfortunately, today there are still places that still contain asbestos.
1. Within “F*ck Your Tectonics,” there is a conversation about form and the formless, how the creation of the formlessfinder helps in developing architecture that doesn’t need a form. Many architects use the standard form because the durability of the building is guaranteed. If formless finder ends up being as successful as intended, would the common architect try to create formless architecture, or continue using form as they have before?
2. The reading “Uniformity and Variability” explains the existence of change within materials such as steel. Depending on how it is worked on, it can end up strong yet brittle or more durable at the cost of being malleable. Considering this, is it possible for all materials to have some form of variety similar, or is that trait limited to certain ones?
3. “Post Rock” mentions a newly discovered material known as “plastiglomerate.” This material is formed within the ocean when human trash fuse with the sand and rock found within. Considering that the material uses trash to be made, could it be possible that the production and use of this material could help in the cleaning of pollution found in the ocean and other parts of the world?
The emergence of the internet has created massive changes to how architecture can be looked at. With the simplicity of now creating the designs on a computer, it is now possible to make more complex and nonformal architecture. There have also been new materials that have been developed in this time, whether on purpose or on accident. The purposeful one have been seen to be built to what a building needs, whether harder for areas of intense, temporary force or more durable for should the metal stay under constant stress. Alternatively, there have been materials that only exist now due to human action. One such example is the fusion of the plastics found in the ocean and the dirt, sand, and other similar materials. The result gives the idea to removing pollution in unique ways. Instead of leaving trash in landfills, we could reuse it to create architecture, which additionally adds space instead of removing it. Because of the internet, the possibilities of architecture has only grown.
1. Materiality is given less of a wow factor due to consumerism, as we used to use materials that people wouldn’t even think of, but now that there is so much that people know now and that has been invented, there is little surprise.
2. Trying to create uniform materials throughout many different projects does cause a lack of uniqueness. If everyone is using the same materials, everything starts to blend and differences are hard to spot.
3. Metaphysics gives people a different understanding of why we have certain materials and why we use them in specific places.
1. Will “the age-old drama” relationship between architecture and gravity change in the future? At that time, could tectonic forms come back to the position of “triumphant hero” again? If not, what kind of form will dominate our vision?
2. By using plastiglomerate as the main material for future architectural proposals, this method eliminates the pollution while boost the production. Would this invention lead human focus more on the transforming the necessary pollution instead of avoiding it?
3. The idea of variability and uniformity reads as two contradictory comcepts. How do designers take advantages of one of them yet still interact with the rules of another one? What will the result be if integrate both of them philosophically?
Materiality speaks when visitors come near to a building. This topic introduces a whole new consideration direction on how and why materials should be used. New materials are always invented with specific new features, whatever flexibility or uniformity. In the future, materials will be able to adjust themselves to adapt to the different times and seasons for the specific location they stay. On the other hand, materials convey what architects think about to the viewers, which also push the process of materials determination to a more exciting result.
1. The Formlessfinder manifesto states that form suppresses material. Could the same be said for material suppressing form, due to structural or cost constraints?
2. De Landa discusses an increasing uniformity among human materials as of late. Does uniformity in material lead to uniformity in construction? or does it encourage creativity even more?
3. Miller and Moran bring up the unique designs of Best stores in the 1970’s as using material to convey different environments. This commercial application of architecture is one that we don’t see as often today. Is it a good thing that architecture and consumerism rarely cross over?
Materials in architecture often leave much to be desired, especially when we live in times where material science and biochemistry are in such rapidly advancing states. We live in a world where self-assembly is such a fascinating, applicable field yet so few are participating in it. People like Skylar Tibbits at the Self Assembly Lab are creating materials that change form completely when heated or cooled, or structures that can form while mid-air. These technologies could have fantastic implications for shading, emergency relief, and more, yet so much of the architectural world is caught up in petty aesthetic challenges. I’m not saying that we should abandon aesthetics as a whole, but so many material arguments today are issues that have been disputed for years. In order to push the field forward, perhaps we should be focusing more on the functionality of material, rather than solely on the aesthetic qualities.
Contemporary Design Approaches 
1) In Miller’s ‘Post Rock’ a material is being made that is difficult to describe with drawings and pointless to design specifically. Out of the tools available it’s pointed out that the camera is a fundamental tool in order to bridge the material and digital representations of the design. It allows for quick iterations and ambiguous avenues to take the architectural object. What other tools do we as architects posses that prevent us from imposing our design biases and allow us quicker ways to move in between the analog and digital realms of project development?
2) De Landa looks into the disconnect between the metaphysics and scientific properties of materials. The Enlightenment & Industrial Revolution removed prestige from craftsmen and master builders who understood materials for their combined properties. Architecture has developed into a discipline that holds drawings and non-material representation to high regard and placed the contractor/construction worker under the architect’s guidance. Should architect’s as professionals position themselves as master builders once again? What effect would this have on the current scheme of project management?
3) In ‘Uniformity & Variability’ they also talk about how craftsman were adept at manipulating materials even though they didn’t understand nor could they explain the scientific occurrences. Can excess knowledge be a hindrance in our craft as professional architects?
LikeLike
There’s an intimate relationship between us and the matter that makes up our reality. Not so long ago, within human history at least, there were craftsman and master builders who not only had the talent to build but had the knowledge of how to work these materials through introduction of heat and other materials. The industrial revolution and enlightenment eras shifted this intimate relationship between man and material by making careers and the sciences more compartmentalized. This wouldn’t be an issue if life were compartmentalized; but it’s not. The universe and the matter that makes it up are full of interconnected relationships that in many cases our minds are incapable of understanding. The computers we created ran on processing techniques similar to our own binary way of understanding things. There’s only so much you can get out of that way of processing the world. With the advent of atomic computing we are able to run multiple processes at the same time. I believe it’s the architect’s responsibility to not focus too much on just the drawings, but to communicate with the builders and even become one. There needs to be a renaissance for architects to become master builders again, in order for our works to do something that no one has ever imagined.
LikeLike
1. In Jane Bennet’s “Vibrant Matter,” she remarks that via American materialism, there has been a depreciation in value of materiality due to hyperconsumerism and massive volume of commodities available. However, similarly to the hoarding of materials and over-appreciation of the objects as read in Bennett’s “Power of the Hoard: Further Notes on Material Agency,” does hyperconsumerism have any positive attributes, as an additive process? To ensure that materials are valued and understood for more than their physical attributes, does this call for the eradication of capitalism and modern ideas of consumerism, or an increase in native ideas subtraction through perception?
2. In “Uniformity and Variability,” Manuel De Landa remarks that there is a value in heterogeneous materials or those that can be considered composites, as opposed to isotropic materials that only operate within one spectrum of structural integrity.
3. Within the age of Post Rock, Miller and Moran write that plastiglomerates function as representational objects, wherein visible fragments help to communicate the history of the rock, representing both physical and chemical processes. However, recent developments within this period have spawned the recombination of everyday things and objects into one fluid composite, indistinguishable of its previous identity, color, and form. Likewise, should architecture begin to adapt and adjust its notions of materiality to ensure that the history and context of objects are readily understood within the construction, or will distinguishable characteristics of materials continue to be subdued to generate notions of uniformity?
LikeLike
How do you think the outcome of our projects would differ from now if we had decided to let the material that we use guide the project based on its properties instead of trying to use the material in a completed project without considering its properties?
In the reading “Post Rock” the author brings up an interesting point in how materiality of designs relies heavily on the drawings. Do you think there’s a way to account for that prior to the production of drawings?
Talking about materiality and its uses mainly almost all of the mentioned materials have been in some way man made. Do you believe that are any natural materials that are a better fit for a project or would perform better as completely natural material project rather than man made ones?
LikeLike
Reconsidering Materiality is something that we have not really taken into account before. Would everything still work and function the same of the material was different? We can use some extremes and make submarines made out if glass. Which is known not to be reasonably possible, but it would make you wonder how it would work if it were. Moving on to more reasonable things, take sky scrapers for example. They’re made out of various metals and glass, and in doing so the building follows a set code and way of being. It also gives the interior a specific feel as well. But what of the sky scrapers were made out of brick? Would it still have the same sleek and seemingly weightless feel to it? Or would it give a very condensed, cold, and heavy feel due to the material used to build it? The point I’m trying to get at is that you can change the whole purpose of an object.
LikeLike
Talking about materiality and its uses mainly almost all of the mentioned materials have been in some way man made. Do you believe that are any natural materials that are a better fit for a project or would perform better as completely natural material project rather than man made ones?
n the reading “Post Rock” the author brings up an interesting point in how materiality of designs relies heavily on the drawings. Do you think there’s a way to account for that prior to the production of drawings?
How do you think the outcome of our projects would differ from now if we had decided to let the material that we use guide the project based on its properties instead of trying to use the material in a completed project without considering its properties?
LikeLike
In architecture specifically, materiality is something that is primarily considered once the basic structural aspects of the project have been resolved. However, through the lecture, it was revealed that materiality is not only essential in terms of aesthetic, but also in establishing a thorough understanding of a project from start to finish. As opposed to suppressing structural and physical characteristics of materials, they should be readily understood from their reading and acknowledged for their value beyond the aesthetic. Furthermore, in reevaluating both the significance and understanding of materials, we can expand our comprehension of materials to include its atomic composition. The expansion of the technology within the digital and internet age allows architects to thoroughly understand tectonic choices, and give way to the development of material composites that adapt to different settings, functions, and purposes. As a discourse, it is our job to push the boundaries of architecture, as well as expand our knowledge of relating subjects, like materiality its corresponding science.
LikeLike
1. De Landa describes materiality and the properties of materials as being less understood in the modern frame of mind due to historical events such as the industrial revolution. Architecture most recently has placed such a high importance on drawings because of their plasticity and ability to detach themselves from reality for a more abstract media. Would architects understanding of materials changed if we placed a higher importance on models and ways of representations which did deal with materiality?
2. “Post Rock” begins to emphasis the idea in which materials are not always captured the best in renders or other medias which are easily accessible and easy to create which iterations of a representational form. How would project management and project development change if our representational mediums were more geared to the emphasis materiality has on a structure? Would it force projects to go on for much longer since it is the physical properties of materiality are not the easiest to replicate on a digital format?
3. Following the same logic of “Post Rock” Architects focus on renderings and creating digital spaces which arguably come to life and have a greater ability to emphasis the conceptual ideas and greater impact. Do architects have a form of medium which carry the materiality over physically but still keep a digital realm to create such spaces? Should a greater emphasis be made on developing a hybrid of a drawing which is comprised of photos of a physical material with digital linework and lighting?
LikeLike
Materiality in its own way holds a material intelligence and strength within the type of material. In class the example of different types of steels was given to express the diversity one material holds for different properties. Architecturally materiality historically influences form though strength both tensile and compressive to alter its performance from within as well as malleability to create several different architectural expressions. In architecture though a materials property to either be shown and juxtaposed though its several properties of strength and malleability or though conceptual drive create different effects of minimalism or of detachment. Peter Eisenman as a concept for his works carried the idea of suppressing materiality in order to show architecture as notations. Conceptually different material properties can help create a formal language of order and regularity. The architectural trend of suppressing materiality so that the concept could be left as the overall effect can and should be reconsidered because even though minimally materiality and understanding it can leave a greater impact conceptually.
LikeLike
1. In Vibrant Matter, there is a discussion in chapter 8 about whether or not environmentalism is the best “persuasive rubric” to convince the American public to shift to more sustainable living. The argument here is about what people care about, and how very few people actually are concerned with the ecological ramifications about capitalism and wanton consumption. The idea presented in this chapter is to shift from environmentalism to vital materialism to encourage the general public to be more aware of the issues at hand, but does this not then pose a problem for future generations who may not be so materialistically inclined? Last week, there was a discussion of the shift towards the digital; would this not imply there be a shift away from the material then? And as such should persuasive rhetoric towards the future generations not be more digitally inclined?
2. In Uniformity and Variability, the term “machinic” is defined as the process by which heterogeneous material is brought together to create a structure without homogenization. Does this term specifically refer to processes of metallurgy or can it be used in a broader context? If it is the latter, are not most things machinic? Architecture specifically calls for bringing together diverse materials to create one work, but each piece of the design still reads as its original components.
3. Plastiglomerates are composed of plastic waste in the ocean as well as remnants of marine life. Are there ways to bring this out of the ocean and on land? Is there a specific type of landscape that is conducive to gathering these materials apart from an oceanic approach? Or is it only economically feasible to fish plastic out of the ocean rather than on land clean up?
LikeLike
1. With shifting aesthetic and cultural values, the methods through which we attempt to convince future generations of the importance of our ecological ramifications not only as architects but also a humans. The discussion this week focused on the importance of material- as we make the shift into the digital world (a shift we have perhaps already started and finished) the importance of material may change as may the very definition. As such, we will have to change our language when speaking of the environment and how we attempt to convince the coming generations to preserve it.
2. Machinic can refer to anything and everything coming together, from materials to the larger context of architecture. The more interesting uses of machinic are when this idea begins to apply to how people interact with materials and the larger context, showing that what we do is not inherently contained to ourselves or even within our own environments.
3. The answer to this last question is one that was not spoken of in the presentation, but is something that should be looked into further; landfills are contaminating water supplies as well as contaminating the soil they sit upon so using current technologies to start reusing some of these wasted materials would go a long way in preserving what is left of the natural environment.
LikeLike
1) Right now we consider matter to be dead. In Jane Bennett’s Vibrant Matter she says “The image of dead or thoroughly instrumentalized matter feeds human hubris and our earth-destroying fantasies of conquest and consumption.” If we shift our thinking and see matter as alive, matter that breathes life, will we make more conscious choices to reduce the use and waste of matter?
2) In Uniformity and Variability author Manuel De Landa talks about how the only people who really knew about materials like metals and alloys throughout most of history were blacksmiths and craftsmen. In contemporary architecture we know a lot more about the behavior and science of materials. Does knowing about materials’ properties and science actually give us a better understanding of how to use them, or does it simply make them less interesting and mysterious?
3) In Post Rock Material and Medium author Meredith Miller stresses that they focus on the design after the material has been crafted. They aren’t looking for a specific outcome when prototyping materials, the design is cultivated from the outcome of the material object. How could the world of architecture change if we allowed ourselves to let the material guide the design, instead of choosing a material to fit the finished design?
LikeLike
This weeks presentation was interesting because they really delved into every topic that was covered in the readings and tried their best to explain them. I enjoyed when they gave examples of materials that have been scientifically created like the recycled polymer wood. It answered my question about how knowing the science of materials can help us by giving us the knowledge to create new materials that are recycled and better for the environment. Knowing the behavior of materials and the science behind them can open doors for architects, allowing us to make better informed decisions about the type of material being used in a project. I think if architects took Meredith Millers approach to design, and let the material guide the design, we would have buildings that are much more suited to the materials that make them up. There are tons of factors that can be used to determine if a material is right for a project, such as texture, its impact on the environment, its level of waterproofness, and many more.
LikeLike
1. In Manuel de Luna’s “Uniformity and Variability”, he talks about how the philosophy of physical materials came from metallurgists, blacksmiths and other carpenters rather than philosophers or scientists. The study of material stress and strain came from people that worked directly with materials. That first-hand experience in building is lost in many architects, where there is a distinct split between designers and builders. Has this divide hindered architecture? Are there disparities?
2. Also in “Uniformity and Variability”, the concept of machinic phylum is discussed. It is defined as a body-plan of matter in motion, where it can fold and stretch to create a variety of forms. This brings back to the idea of the first lecture, dealing with fold. Our first lecture dealt with fold in conceptual design processes, this reading deals with fold based on materiality. How can machinic phylum influence the design process?
3. Post Rock is best defined as the product of human byproducts mixing into nature. A new configured material is created where melted plastic bonds aggregates together. If anything, it can act as concrete. Considering heat melts plastic, what may works built from Post Rock look like 10 years later?
LikeLike
I was quite intrigued by the readings and lecture this week. Relating back to last week’s lecture where we talked about the impact of technology and 3D modeling software, we are able to design and experiment with so many different components that would otherwise be limited if we only had pencil and paper. In a way, we were bound by the structure and forces of each material, but now we can manipulate and even create new materials. I really loved the video of Gramazio Kohler’s Rock Printing. It starts off as a stack of pebbles, with metal cables placed between pebble layers. It’s amazing to see the pebbles, after the formwork is taken away, stick together with only cables. It keeps it in tension. Structure is architectural and artistic. Materiality creates form, and form influences materiality.
LikeLike
1. In “Post Rock,” there is a point made about accounting for the materiality of a design when focusing so heavily on drawings. How can the effects of material be integrated into design and be grater planned for through drawing?
2. Miller and Moran lead their article by acknowledging that traditional Architectural design tools have been replaced with digital tools. How has this impacted our ability to perceive spaces and has it limited our understanding of them?
3. Going off of the question above, physical models and sketches, both things that are very hands-on in Architecture are fading. As seen last week, digital renders are becoming the visual representation of projects. Do you think the physical model offers something a render does not?
LikeLike
Given the example of Peter Eisenman’s House Two, and his stance on the use of materiality, it’s interesting to think about the effects that a material has on Architecture. He acknowledges the power of materials when he dismisses them in order to create a bare perception, focusing on the power of the spaces. However, materials seem to me to be what make people comfortable. Some of the Machine Age houses, like Villa Savoye for example, I can’t imagine would really feel comfortable. Especially when compared to any of Frank Lloyd Wright’s houses – known for being organic and materially expressive. Both architects were working on similar issues with space but their architecture were of two polar opposite personalities. I think materials certainly play a large role in determining the purpose and attitude of a piece of Architecture, and have a way of being persuasive towards their audience. While spaces and forms come first, materials should come next as a way to make an opinion on the space.
LikeLike
1) In “Uniformity and Variability”, De Landa refers to Gordon’s fear that steel is used for any purpose in the modern world. Many structures rely on the strength found in steel, thus many people design with the idea of using steel in their mind. What kinds of innovations are there in the world that people are researching that is somewhat up to par with steel?
2) In “Post Rock Material and Medium”, Meredith Miller talks about how Post Rock doesn’t invent a new material, but instead, reconfigure the material of the already made object. Can there be other kinds of waste used for the combination of making the stone-like material?
3) In Jane Bennett’s book “Vibrant Matter”, what is Bennett’s definition of life? She claims that even non-organic life is alive. Things we consider static/dead still are able to self-organize, according to Bennett. Does Bennett want us to pay more attention to inorganic matter?
LikeLike
Nature has some naturally occurring materials that are good to use. However, humans engineer new materials for more stability. Humans also engineer materials according to the problem or issues at hand. To build skyscrapers, we needed a material that is span long distances and still resist tension and compression. Therefore steel was born. There is a lot of different waste out there. Plastic is one of the biggest problems, this is the most well-known. However, any waste can be used to create material. I think people should stop making “new” materials. Instead, take the resources (and waste) we have and reconfigure them to make a new material.
LikeLike
1. In Material and Medium, when discussing the usage of post rock as an architectural replacement to plastiglomerates it discussed that it could translate cultural and ecological territory. If such material were to be used in architecture, would it be considered more for its structural properties or its aesthetic qualities?
2. Does the notion of the absolute drive a body’s existence or will to exist? Could this be the case although human bodies are knowing whereas things are just considerably vibrant matter?
3. Is recognizing “thing power” or to see things as things rather than objects and seeing the inanimate as a entity of its own with its own affects and its own properties rather than how the human body made/used/or disposed of them beneficial in how we see things, and if so how?
LikeLike
In this presentation, the physical science and metaphysics of materiality was discussed. Metaphysics could be considered beyond the physical nature and it was shown that it is present in architecture. For example, architect Peter Zumthor created metaphysical experience in his spaces. Another example is 4d printing and how variability is the future. 4d printing is where a 3d print transforms itself over the influence of something else such as energy, temperature or light. The relationship to human materiality in ecology was also brought up and that an agent and deodand is a materiality suspended between human and thing. It was interesting to contemplate how we define a life and the discussion of effective bodies. The post rock conglomerate was discussed in detail in this presentation and the fabrication of it as a physical model but an attempt to recapture features of a platiglomerate, which is a stone mixed with sedimentary grains and other debris held together by molten plastic. Its hybrid nature suggests an accidental collaboration between human and geological force. Post rock also exemplifies the experimentation of materials and engagement as designers in both a material and political/ cultural sense.
LikeLike
1. In UNIFORMITY and VARIABILITY, materiality is very important for metaphysical reasons in the architecture realm, but also it is very important in the engineering realm due to the constructability of the materials. Is it there a design expression can express both metaphysically and scientifically?
2. Façade is made because architects want the building to look cool yet with limited engineering knowledge, architects can’t design a cool building without facades. But what if an architect with both architectural aspiration and engineering knowledge, will the architecture being built expresses the architect’s idea without façade or various materials?
3. In “Post Rock Material and Medium”, Miller talked about replacing materials with new materials that is alike. The question is, if we could replace materials with any other materials that look alike without affecting structural stability, that why are there so many architects so pain in the butt about what exact materials they want to use, the architecture being built will never look exact from architect’s design ideas anyways.
LikeLike
1. Is there a way we create architecture that could cause people to ignore the form and only focus on the materiality?
2. Craftsmen are able to manipulate materials and know their potential and boundaries, but architects don’t have this extreme knowledge of materials. How are architects supposed to design buildings that have specific material constraints when they don’t know how that material will actually perform?
3. Do man made materials that exist possess a certain quality that couldn’t be replicated by more natural occurring materials?
LikeLike
1. If someone was to design a building that had a very simple form and used a very interesting material, this would be a very obvious way that someone would focus on the material instead of the form. Also, if a material is being used in a way no one has ever seen before this would draw people’s attention towards the material.
2. Sometimes it might be good to not have much knowledge about material because it could hinder what they could get the material to do. Although, the craftsmen have a good way to know what the material could do.
3. I think sometimes natural occurring materials could be a replacement for man made materials. However, some man made things are man made because they cannot be found in natural.
LikeLike
1. In Miller and Moran’s “Post Rock” they state that, “designers can hijack not only the process of producing a material, but also the cultural and economic assumptions that condition their production” by experimenting with materials. How can designers use these new techniques to combat the aesthetics of the plastiglomerates, which are quite ugly?
2. Going off that last question, could designers and scientists work together to create more of a harmony between all the materials used in these plastiglomerates so they don’t look like an “accidental collaboration between human and geological forces”? Can they look more like they have a purpose together?
3. De Landa says that “not only the production process was routinized this way, so was to a lesser extent the design process.” How does the routinization of design processes change the way we interact with materials?
LikeLike
With the issue of trash building up in our landfills and oceans, Miller offers a way to reuse objects that are found and build with them. These new rocks are called plastiglomerates and they are atrocious. Although the idea is nice, how can we create new building materials out of recycled objects that don’t look awful? Another issue with using recycled objects to create new materials such as bricks made out of waste is how the process of creating these new materials affects the environment. Plastics and metals can have harmful chemicals in them that when melted can go into the atmosphere. These fumes are definitely not safe for our planet so melting these things into a new material would not be effective. I think the idea Miller had is probably one of the better routes in reusing trash as new materials. Plastiglomerates need to be rethought so that they are either hidden in concrete or just nicer to look at.
LikeLike
1. No matter how sophisticated the modeling software is, a project’s form still exists as an underlying framework that circumscribes the processes of design and construction. In this, does the form relate to the diagram? Does the diagram still retain its importance in modern software?
2. Uniformity damages has caused material to become routine and unremarkable. However, we are able to recover from this when we think of the inherent potential of the materials rather than their appearance. How can designs make use of this inherent potential in their aesthetics?
3. Representation becomes embedded in the literal construction of architecture. By creating models and wall sections, we’re able to make unbuilt projects seem plausible. When the model becomes the representation, what role do renders play now? How do renders and models collaborate?
LikeLike
As design evolves, it continues to promote the theory of multi-dimensionality. Forms and objects are consistently described as having depth in their meaning, several infinite ways they can be represented. Only recently has this idea truly manifested itself in the physical representation of a design, i.e. the model. The presentation brings up an example of an odradek, an animated spool of thread. It straddles the line between inert matter and form and is senseless, yet there is a vitality in it. Similar to representation, it straddles the line between a diagram and a creation. It’s an in-between that’s not quite realistic, yet it’s an idea of realism.
LikeLike
1. In “Uniformity and Variability,” De Landa explains that any material with a form of complexity has the ability to organize into new forms and structures. If this idea was applied in architecture, architects would have a deeper understanding of materiality in relationship to their project. How much more significant would architectural projects be if materiality was prioritized?
2. In Jane Bennett’s “Vibrant Matter,” she describes that everything is alive that objects should be given a voice. In an architectural sense, how can we give architectural projects a “thing power”, and what kind of strategies could be used?
3. In “Post Rock,” Moran mentions that experimenting materials and representation is essential for architects as they can discover new forms of renders.With representation and materiality set as one of the key tools to a successful design portrayal, what are other design tools that are essential in a project that architects usually recede from?
LikeLike
Materiality is the application of various materials in a building. The significance of materiality is not its structural properties, but the experience it sets for the occupants in the building. Materiality is an aesthetic quality that has deep social and historical culture. Since architecture materiality has had an impact on the form and strength of a building, architects slowly began to recede from exploring materiality. This suppression is a step backward from discovering the potential properties and language materials can create. Thus, it is important for architects to explore new material combinations, but they must also have a sense of intuition and understanding that not all materials applied in architecture must be discovered. There needs to be a middle ground between minimalism and extravagant. Nowadays architects have a weakened sense of materiality where architects are leaning towards minimalist materials. It is not necessary to say that is irrational, but architects should be able to express all given aspects and assign a material that fits the design challenge.
LikeLike
1. Architecture as a field seems to be heavily invested in the innovation of materials in terms of efficiency and sustainability. On the contrary, the Formlessfinder interview stated that “Architecture lacks intelligent and innovative approaches to form,” and furthermore, “…form suppresses material and tends to either idealize architectural materials or dematerialize architecture all together.” In an effort to heighten architectural innovation in form without disregarding the obviously inherent necessity of material in a project, would it not be more logical to think of form and materiality in tandem, rather than as separate entities? It does not make sense to think of one without the other. What is the purpose of form if it dematerializes architecture? How is that helpful or even relevant beyond a conceptual framework?
2. While we have courses that focus on materiality, it is not a significant aspect of our core studios, which hold the highest credit weight and which tend to get the most attention from students and faculty alike. Our emphasis is formal, our earliest focus being generative. What would it look like if we started with materials, and allowed form to follow? Why do we force material to fit our designs, when we could be allowing our designs to fit material? Why do we treat materiality as an afterthought, when it is our most clear link to the built environment?
3. The move to digital design has enhanced our expectation for precise exactitude, and allows us to develop a level of perfection that, while absolutely necessary in a legal sense, is realistically unattainable in reality. If we conducted more material studies in the early phases of design, would we be more prepared for the unpredictability of material in the real world? Is our hyper obsession with the things we can control on our computers what causes us to shy away from the introduction of real materiality? Is this the same reason why some students are reluctant to build models before every element is designed exactly in a digital sense, or why so many of us wouldn’t think of picking up materials before opening our laptops? Currently, there seems to be a flaw in our process in which there is not enough material experimentation in the early phases of design, and too much at the end. How do we reverse this thinking to reprioritize material in schools, and thus the profession (or vice versa)?
LikeLike
I was most interested today with the proposed analogy of our body as the structure and the food we choose to eat as material. I think from a superficial standpoint, it is easy to think of our clothes as our materiality- this perception is linked, of course, to our tendency to describe a building’s materiality based on what is visible to the naked eye. It is important to consider materiality in terms of assemblage, not merely façade. In this light, the discussion regarding the relevance and importance of not only the foods we choose to eat, but the order in which we choose to eat them, becomes especially interesting. This is the assemblage component- simply eating the right things or choosing the right materials is not enough. The materials you pair them with and the pattern of their construction all makes up either “good” or “bad” assembly. Just as with eating, it is woefully easy to produce a “bad” assembly. So many components have to fit in the right way, at the right time, in the right places. But, just as with eating, it is of utmost importance that correct assemblage is made a priority. Your body is a temple, and every structure you build is your body of work. It is incredibly backward to consider materiality as an afterthought- it guides the whole production, and every move you make.
LikeLike
1. In the Formlessfinder it mentions that a material (bamboo) may scream sustainable but if we ship it across the world is it still considered sustainable. Would using the materials on site be a more sustainable option? Different materials have different properties so wouldn’t choice of material should be based on properties not sustainability or effect on environment?
2. In the load test project, a space was created by placing a slab on raw materials that acted as columns. This allowed him to discover new properties to old materials. “In architecture, matter can’t just be – it is always constrained, defined, circumscribed.” If materials are so important to the form of architecture, why don’t architects try to create new materials? We only use existing materials for buildings and rarely try to create a new one.
3. In Post Rock, it talks about how people were building and experimenting with materials before they fully understood all the properties of them. How come concrete technology has not evolved or changed much in the 2000 years since the Roman empire? Concrete is still being built the same way and only slightly more efficient since we have other materials to reinforce it.
LikeLike
Alchemy is the changing of one material into another. In the past society relied on alchemy to understand the different properties of materials. Knowing the different materialistic properties, we are able to create more interesting architecture. Herzog Ricola warehouse is an excellent example of utilizing the different properties of materials. When the concrete side of the building becomes wet it appears to have the reflective properties of the glass. By utilizing the properties of materials you can create seemingly impossible effects.
LikeLike
1. Formlessfinder’s thesis is that historically, form has carried architecture’s physical and symbolic methods of control, but now that architecture has a very strong trust in the digital, the field is losing intelligent or innovative approaches to form. Sometimes I feel like our school seems to be obsessed with form, often ignoring the actual possibilities or structural integrity of the forms we create. In this sense, we don’t really have an “intelligent” approach to form. Or do we? What do you think?
2. Manuel de Landa writes about Newton and Hooke, saying that Hooke was “intensely interested in what went on in kitchens, dockyards, and buildings- the mundane mechanical arenas of life…” Do you think most non-architects consider architecture mundane? How can we shift this perspective to bring back readings of architecture that inspire friction, cultural activation, social use?
3. Number 3 in Meredith Miller and Thom Moran’s essay is interesting to me: “The image serves as both documentation and speculation and is the primary representational device for advancing the design” If we can couple this notion with last week’s questions of rendering, this could imply that the image-making process of rendering itself becomes the primary design-making framework. This would be a huge shift for the way we design at this school; primarily in 3-D, taking into account spatial characteristics before structural or visual (material) properties. ‘How exactly do I want the design to look’ is a secondary question, as we complete our deliverables for pinups. How do you think things might be different, if we begin immediately by considering material and its atmospheric qualities? Similarly to the way Peter Zumpthor considers atmosphere?
LikeLike
Professor’s lecture yesterday had me thinking about something. Our school does not consider material at all until IDS it seems like. Even then, it is a secondary thought. Our school is so obsessed with form, that we ignore the tangible atmospheric qualities of material until the very end, when we must produce renders. In parallel, people like Skylar Tibbits are questioning whether the same geometric control that our school obsesses over can be ‘undermined’ by digital or material fabrication. Negotiating the interface between very impressive materials research like this and formal explorations could be a very valuable area of study.
LikeLike
1. Within Jane Bennett’s ‘Vibrant Matter – A Political Ecology of Things’ is the discussion of the agency of assemblages. Bennett describes the possibility of “thing power” as having a tie to a younger sense of perceiving the world and the objects within. The blurring between the animate, both human and not, and the organic calls us to recognize the dominating perception of the adults. With age comes organization from experience and an inherent disadvantage to see as other. This concept comes with the finality of understanding objects not as stable entities or passive existences, but rather as vibrant materials. What does Bennett, therefore, deem a vibrant material and how is this term embed itself into the architectural discourse?
2. John Szot’s interview with Formless Finder considers the image based push in architectural representation. Rendering becomes the form-giver, albeit an untrue one. How does this newly found interest in renderings as forerunner of the projects face devoid the form from the physical and spatial experience? How can this inherent linkage be mitigated or is this of importance within the discourse?
3. Discussed in the philosophy of matter essay by Manuel De Landa, genetically enhanced farms and crops become prime examples of the homogenizing process. Along with language and dialects, standardization is forced upon through the education systems and media. This quest for uniformity and efficiency brings on an onslaught of problems in reversing the diversification of all systems. Can this damaging effect be understood through the 19th-century obsession with uniformity, and how do we improve efficiency without endangering diversity?
LikeLike
Discussed in the previous student presentation was the notion of materiality as inert and unresponsive, meaning this current state of materiality renders itself as giving matter no real property makeup. This arises from a need for matter’s properties to not contaminate its form and concept. From Richard Serra’s verb list compilation comes an understanding of the different acts on which can be performed onto a material. These actions can become indexical as their traces provide a matter as part of the homogenous order. Matter is therefore no longer inert but rather materiality.
LikeLike
1. In the article Uniformity and Variability, Manuel De Landa has showed different explanation and perspective on how to explain uniformity. For example, uniformity can be defined as Aristotles’s four elements, platonic solid, and modern scene. To what extent do those various options affect modern people think about uniformity and apply them in contemporary architecture?
2. Jane Bennet has mentioned about life of materiality and said objects are alive because of its influence to other objects. Do you think does Bennet’s theory helps explains the reason why hoarders life to collect “abiotic” objects?
3. How does theories in metaphysics influence modern material science and how do architects apply metaphysics in architecture in general?
LikeLike
This week’s topic asked all architectures and designers to reconsider materials in a new and psychological way. Those new thoughts on how material interact with human life and its surrounding objects helps human understand not only about the precess of production but also let human get a glance of the history of materiality. Jane Bennet has related to materiality to philosophy and how does material alter human actants: not by denying humanity’s awesome, awful powers, but by representing these powers as evidence for our own constitution as vital materiality. It is interesting that she related this thought with the explanation to “hoarders”. Instead of seeing objects as a lifeless items, hoarders see their those materials in an insightful way.
LikeLike
1. In the Formlessfinder interview, they mention the Load Test which was to provide alternatives to traditional notions of tectonics. An example of using crushed spiders to hold up a building was used. Many times we find in nature, creatures that are able to sustain immense amounts of loads. Heavy duty submarines succumb to the immense deep sea pressure and thick concrete columns are needed to support heavy loads. However, simple crab thousands of feet below the surface can thrive and an ant can support its weight hundreds of times over which is the equivalent to a human lifting up an elephant. Could architecture draw more from less traditional forms and adopt a more biomimicry perspective?
2. In Uniformity and Variability, Gordon that the repertoire of materials that a designer uses should reflect the complexity and heterogeneousness of a structure. With more technological advancements and the study of nanocarbons, could we move from more conventional, familiar materials to something like nanocarbons that boasts 100x more tensile strength than steel?
3. In Post Rock, it is mentioned that the design is not thought out beforehand, rather it is developed through material prototyping. How would architecture change if materials were the first step and drove the design process instead of leaving it as a finishing thought?
LikeLike
I think there are a lot of different ways we can approach materiality. Peter Eisenman had an interesting take and took pride in the fact that the villa was interpreted as a model instead of an actual building. The lack of material gives more to the form of the architecture and concept, relying heavily on it to convey meaning. Materiality is now more concerned with the ambiance and environment that it creates for the inhabitants. It doesn’t always have a direct relationship to the design but more so how it makes occupants feel. It also acts as an indicator of the inhabitants and the purpose of the building. Gold leafing and high-end marble wouldn’t be found in a gym or a school, and this distinctive use of materiality offers a different perspective on how we use materials and why. For example, wood flooring and panels give a more calming and cozy environment while concrete would give a much colder, heavier feeling. Architecture would be much more different if designs were created based on the material and might achieve the same desired effects but have a stronger visual and conceptual relationship with the design and form. Architects should also venture out and experiment with different materials in various programs to break the norm and find how the desired effects of a building can be achieved in various ways.
LikeLike
1. In F*uck Your Tectonics, Formlessfinder states “Almost as soon as you figure out what form you want your building to take, you have to start figuring out what stuff you want to make it out of and how you are going to force that stuff into that shape and get it to stay there. In architecture, matter can’t just be – it is always constrained, defined, circumscribed.” The collective is ultimately comparing the notion of man’s obsessive nature to control and manipulate nature for our own gain with the architectural practice. Do you believe that architecture could truly exist without this intentional manipulative process that we call design? Are we not setting limitations for ourselves by opting for non-traditional, site specific materials, as these materials come predispose with their own structural and aesthetic limitations?
2. The idea of Post Rock, specifically in regard to the hybrid composite of waste plastic and rock known as plastiglomerate, presents a direct consequence of the harmful effect we have had on the environment. This material possesses a certain durability because of this fusion that will last for a very long time before its eventual breakdown. However, in an age of sustainability, do you believe that this material could be recycled into the construction of buildings as a way to mitigate the presence of this material in the natural world?
3. Materiality in architecture is often analyzed through two criteria: is structural and tectonic application and its aesthetic presence within our design. However, this only tackles the materiality on a physical level and does not address any other potential criteria from which to evaluate material. Is there other criteria from which to categorize materials and if so how can this reclassification alter the way in which we design with materials?
LikeLike
Has the digital age further steered architects away from the concept of materiality in our designs? Computer generated architecture further has enabled formal explorations never seen before and provides a platform in which the architecture is not influenced by gravity, buildability, or context. The virtual reality that was once projected on a piece of paper has now been transferred to a raster screen, further allows us to switch between the immaterial and material. Image editing and rendering software’s have allowed us to turn on and off layers of material making the materiality of the project more of an aesthetic decision rather than a tectonic decision. This lack of conformity to the properties of materials raises the discussion about whether the practice has been hindered by this arm’s length distance we have developed with materiality or revived by a new sense of virtual exploration and experimentation.
LikeLike
1. Miller and Miran in “Post Rock” discuss materiality as it applies to formal representation and the speculative/productive quality in the process of iteration. Can the way in which selected “tools” i.e mediums function in terms of their own autonomy in design produce qualities which are otherwise unachievable digitally thus suggesting the digital is too fluid; too sophisticated for these certain qualities that require a rougher and more defined edge?
2. The metaphysical speculation in De Landa’s “Uniformity and Variability” is quite a provocative relation of physical meaning and speculative symbolic simplification rooted in philosophy more so than science. De Landa states the early attempts at capturing the complexity of physical transmutations and effect of structure on properties was lost to emergent sciences and their emphasis on simple behavior. Is It the ability to aggregate material and understand it on an essential level missing in today’s digitally driven society that often provokes impalpable intricacies in design that rejects the metaphysical speculation De Landa proposes?
3. Bennet in “Vibrant Matter” discusses vitality, as a capacity of things, not only as a force which inhibits the design process but also act as forces in their own right. To give more leeway for material force and the relation of such force as it relates to political events. Is there a way in which the recognition of material force as a guiding factor, something ironically more intangible/ephemeral, as applied to design that is more than simply rooted in fundamental properties but more in line with effect—thus achieving vibrant materiality?
LikeLike
Peter Eisenman’s House Two is provocative in its understanding of materiality and its effects which arises from particular design considerations that in a sense begin to remove its essential material nature. Such effects hold power understood from many perspectives within formalist discourse. This certainly relates to Peter Zumthor who discusses a created atmosphere. The power of perception and the intangible in this way, as it relates to physical nature and more residual characteristics appears to stimulate some understanding of the blurred line between the inert material nature and immaterial effect. This has a relation to other topics discussed within the lecture such as 4D printing and vibrant matter in their ability for multi dimensional effect to take control of form and indeed reach a more metaphysical understanding of a work.
LikeLike
1. Post Rock is described as a combination of post-consumer polyethylenes , aggregates, and plastics using high heat. Miller and Moran gives examples of three architectural proposals utilizing Post Rock. While these are just proposals, how can Post Rock be incorporated into future architecture in a plausible way?
2. In “F*ck Your Tectonics,” John Szot shows an example and explanation of a load test where piles of raw material are used in place of columns. Going back to “Post Rock,” can Post Rock possibly be utilized in structural performance for a building like how these piles of materials are using for structure?
3. Manuel De Landa describes ways in which we got lost in the process of utilizing homogeneous materials in routinized production and design. Although he lists ways in which we got lost in this process, he does not tell how we can come back from it. How can we, as architects, utilize heterogeneous materials in our design in both structural and aesthetic performance?
LikeLike
The idea of Post Rock and its possible effects on the future is the only thing about this week’s topic that interested me. Although this idea was not really one that was discussed much in class. To me, the possibility of using a combination of materials, that could be sustainable and reusable, as structural components in a building is an important factor to future architecture. The world is practically getting shittier and shittier and this concept could change the way people live in the world. If Post Rock could be developed to its potential structural integrity, architects would be able to use these materials to their advantage and utilize them in an aesthetic way. It could change architecture for the better.
LikeLike
1) I found the arguments brought up in the Szot article very hard to accept. Despite his many truths about us as a generation or society being largely influenced by the imagery of designs and creations, I don’t feel that we would be taking steps forward without form. Should we, as architects and designers, truly stray away from the visual concept of form and spectacle?
2) In what ways does the concept of form hold us back as Architecture students? There seems to be a constant push-pull between many courses in our curriculum- encouraging us to strive for either fully symbolic designs or formless abstracts as projects. Is this detrimental to our future careers?
3) It seems ironic that formless design would not have come back into existence as a practice without the development and fruition of architecture with form. What would the concept of formlessness be without the definition of form? Does either one truly exist, or are they just pre-conceived notions that we as thinkers have came up with?
LikeLike
Today’s class discussion gave me a broader view on the topics i based my questions on. Our discourse on the development of Samurai Swords gave insight on how fundamental the concept of form becomes when it comes to the composition and structure of built objects. No matter how formless/ambiguous an object or material may seem, its inert- or developed- form comes to the top of its hierarchy as an individual thing. When it comes to this concept in a building-scale discussion, we must understand that even the most deformed buildings and spaces are made up of formal principles, whether that be through the symbolism, the people that inhabit them, or even their “molecular makeup”.
LikeLike
1.) Based on Landa’s assertion that human and material behavior must become predictable, what measures can be taken to ensure that little variation occurs in the end status of both the human action and the material action, and in what circumstances can limitations not be worked around or surpassed?
2.) Miller and Moran discuss the process of encouraging materials to confirm to architectural need. In what ways does this disrupt the architectural integrity of a project by way of bypassing the apparent necessity to make particular use of certain materials for their naturally occurring qualities?
3.) While anthropomorphizing matter, as Bennett suggests, has many virtues, there is unspoken indication that this can also be a harmful practice. Should the possible harms be ignored in order to let materials act without overarching human influence on their natural conditions, or does the risk of imperfection in aesthetic and structural quality eclipse this?
LikeLike
To claim that materiality must be reconsidered is to claim that materiality, in general, is ever given full thought to begin with. In the mindset of the architect, materials are seen as a tool by which creation can occur, but never as a method by which to create. A particular issue with contemporary architecture is that materials are often taken for granted, not only for their property and availability, but also on account of the expectation that they can be used to fulfill any particular goal. If architecture is designed without active consideration to how any particular material will behave, it will be naturally more prone to failure than any that is designed with materiality in mind. In this sense, humans can also be treated as a material, in that they have limited functions which tend to be unsurpassable. This can become an issue when architects are not able to have an appropriate amount of control when it comes to making use of a material, which, in the long run, can result in wastes of time, effort, and the material itself.
LikeLike
1. As discussed by Meredith Miller and Thom Moran in “Post Rock: material and medium”, much design is based on material sensibilities and immaterial effects. When working through hands on experimentation, the deliverables are unknown but there is an understanding of how something is made. As with creators such as Ant Farm, the design can approach a more transient atmosphere. While this can adapt and engage geography and culture, the effect and qualities of the design are outside of our control to plausibly construct. In this more surreal or ephemeral representation, how do we employ physical mechanisms and materials that can be used in buildings in order to achieve these effects? Is there a process to translate representation or does it come back to the hands on experimentation?
2. In “Uniformity and Variability”, Manuel De Landa states that by the time many Greek philosophers developed ideas on matter and the behaviors of materials, craftsmen had already discovered these properties by physically interacting with them. Over time this evolved to an understanding of materials as being dynamic rather than static. They can transform from strong and ductile to brittle and transfer energy. Rather than materials becoming routine or capitalized in an assembly production, how can they behave in more complex ways? Buildings utilize energy sources, but will they be able to transform energy in new ways as technology develops? Will buildings begin to shift and rotate in response to environmental situations?
3. John Szot’s profile and interview with Formlessfinder discusses the advancement in technology in relation to form. As technologies evolve, new geometries are being developed through parametrics and other processes. Szot argues this approach to architecture lacks innovation. Form drives architecture towards the image, as discussed last week. In the market of renderings and consumption, form is lost amongst the other media whereas material can demonstrate physical and spatial experience. Digital tools thereby force architects to chase the idea rather than coming up with the idea on their own and using digital tools to implement it. Will architects ever slow down their use of technology or turn away from processes like using parametrics? Or are they lost if they don’t keep up with the demand for this methodology?
LikeLike
The study of materials involves various scientific disciples as well as philosophies as discussed in the lecture today. This extended to the idea of the metaphysical in relation to materiality. It involves going beyond the physical world in order to invoke thoughts, feelings, or memories. By connecting to occupants in this way, space can be designed to motivate people to interact with their surrounding environments. The examples of Zumthor showed architecture, in his view, as an envelope for the human experience. Materials ultimately allow for a fabricated structure to create a familiar sense. Architecture can produce its own reality. 4D printing was also mentioned during the discussion as a way to consider the specific materials and objects that can evoke these experiences. 4D printing combines a rigid and expandable object so that it can change shape or adapt to other forms depending on various external conditions they undergo (such as daylighting or water). It is interesting to consider how this new technology can play into the metaphysical properties of architecture and invoke thoughts and emotions in the way that existing processes are able to.
LikeLike
1. In “Uniformity and Variability,” Manuel De Landa describes the disadvantages of modern material production, including the loss of material quality due to removing skilled craftsmen from the material production process. Weighing the advantages (more widely distributed and cheaper materials) and disadvantages (loss of quality/lifespan, impacts to the environment, etc.) of machine material production, do you think the shift towards machine-produced materials was worth it?
2. The firm Formlessfinder works with a type of architecture which they call formless, where “matter is left alone, in a raw state, and no longer has to be constrained or resolved.” They list many positive attributes of formless architecture, including sustainability. However, do you think this type of architecture could be considered sustainable, if there is no guarantee to the lifespan of the building?
3. In reading about the work of Formlessfinder, I noticed particular parallels to the “Boring” architecture we looked at earlier this semester. Both types of architecture employ very simple methods and aesthetics in order to force the audience into interaction and engagement. Do you think this ideological match works? How do you think these two architectural discourses could further interact with and build upon each other?
LikeLike
The readings and lectures this week presented two very different inquiries of study into the nature of materials: the first being the discoveries of craftspeople from the Stone Age onward, and the second being very recent material studies at the collegiate level. We have craftspeople to thank for nearly all material advances throughout our history, but recently, these fields of work have subsided in favor of the efficiency and homogeneity of machine-driven processes. As these fields die out, resources of advanced skills and experimentation will dwindle. At best, the new academic practices of material research can only hope to replicate some of the experimental energy of the past millennia of trades work in material study. Intimate physical knowledge of material, direct experience, and a fusion of pragmatism and experimentation are all at stake if trades continue to dwindle due to our changing economy and culture. Through overcoming societal differences between academics and tradespeople, the gap in material knowledge could be mended.
LikeLike
Q1: Bennett writes, “when diverse bodies suddenly draw near and form a public, they have been provoked to do so by a problem, that is, by the ‘indirect, serious and enduring’ consequences of ‘conjoint action.’” This relates directly to social protests, and the gathering of people to make their voices heard. Is there a moment in architecture where designers might group together in response to an injustice within the discipline?
Q2: Both Bennett and De Landa discussed the components of matter as being key to the combined object. In the latter essay, the heterogeneity of components changes the qualities of that meshwork. How can the parts selection process become more discerning to achieve the desired results?
Q3: From the “Post Rock” writing, “drawings can account for geometry but not unpredictable materiality.” This brings to mind the work of Mies, specifically his Barcelona Pavilion, and how he carefully considered the design of every surface in regards to its material properties. Are the authors correct in saying that certain features of a material cannot be anticipated, or is the pavilion just one of many projects that take into account these details?
LikeLike
The Materiality Reconsidered week has been packed with ideas on how components interact with each other and how this interaction impacts the final product. One example of this interaction would be food. The proper combination of foods can create a healthy body, like the right proportions vegetables to proteins, or vitamins and carbs. Another example we went through in class was the materiality of a sword. By adding carbon with iron, the sword becomes sharper and more durable. It is precisely this mixture of parts that the architect should manipulate in their designs. Each material should be selected for not only aesthetic, but also structural or formal reasons. Choosing concrete and steel over a wood frame construction has a twofold effect on the build. It becomes stronger, but also changes the look of the design due to some unpredictable features of the components.
LikeLike
1.) In “formlessfinder,” it was determined that anything can perform structurally. For example, a pile of raw materials is piled up in a way until it can structurally hold up a building in replace of columns. Are there any materials that are better than one another? does one hold up more and last longer than the other? is it even structurally safe? How far can it extend? how can it be applied to contemporary architecture?
2.) In “Post Rock,” by Miller, it describes that materials that are in the making is making it hard to comprehend with drawings. What are some techniques to prevent us from using too much material to the point that it ruins the drawings to making it a better digital format?
3.) Going off with the question above, is was discussed that replacing materials with new materials that is alike. Wouldn’t that affect the structural stability? All materials are made differently, some are not as structurally stable than others. Do materials need to be doubled to meet to standard requirements?
LikeLike
This weeks reading topic discussed the subject of materiality. We are in a world where there some universities don’t require you to draft by hand. As the world keeps on moving forward, so is technology. Digital technology today can create models without having to use any materials or supplies to make it, it can be made in a software. However, even though our lives is just a bit easier because of technology, it is also important to realize the importance of the materials that make up of what we build. Materials are so much more than what it holds, it is the fundamental in nature and mind consciousness in resulting material interactions with the world and society.
LikeLike
1. In “Uniformity and Variability”, Manuel De Landa unpacks a quote by James E. Gordon about the use of steel in design to be a warning to engineers and architects. He states that the danger is in “a single, universal material [that] is good for all different kinds of structure”. How has the discovery of multifunctional materials, in this case steel, posed a danger for the designer? Has it limited the architect’s choice of materials in a project? Or have strong, universal materials opened the world up to the creation of more complex designs that previously existed solely in the digital world?
2. In John Szot’s interview with Julian Rose and Garrett Ricciardi of Formlessfinder, they discuss the idea that “most attempts to celebrate materiality still end up sublimating or idealizing material”. Do designers place too much of a focus on material, to the point where the design intentions of the architect are lost? Or is the materiality the only way to achieve a desired effect of a design, rather than through the matter of the design as proposed by Formlessfinder?
3. “Post Rock: Material and Medium” by Meredith Miller and Thom Moran discusses the materiality of plastiglomerates and the authoring of Post Rock materials. The creation of Post Rock “translates a cultural and ecological territory into a visual and physical medium”. The composition of Post Rock is detailed and designed by the creator, allowing them to tell a story through their choice of materials that makes up their Post Rock. How can a uniquely created material impact a design? Can the chosen elements that make up the Post Rock be used to strengthen a conceptual idea, or does this new material create more erratic architecture that stands out among its surroundings?
LikeLike
As architects, we place a heavy focus on materiality in our projects. Designers like Peter Eisenman prompted a shift away from that heavy focus. After his House II was featured in a French magazine, someone commented on how it was nice to see a physical model on the site. However, it was the actual building, and this excited Eisenman. Removing the project from the actual material it was made of allows viewers to see the architect’s intentions rather than the material make up. At the same time, the need to remove the materiality has provoked creative experiments that test the boundaries of the materials at hand. The goal is to find new ways to create an effect of one material while using a completely opposite material. One example shown in class cut wood in precise ways that allowed the wood to become flexible. Wood, typically very rigid, is pulled out of the twisting sculpture, allowing the viewer to focus on form rather than the material choice.
LikeLike
1. In the introduction of the Formlessfinder Interview it’s stated by John Szot that “Form suppresses material and tends to either idealize architectural materials of dematerialized architecture altogether.” Does this reference the idea that architecture is becoming more and more digital? Where we create such a perfect architecture through our renders and drawings and then remove or rather deny new architecture of its beautiful qualities in real life. Are we taking away the physical qualities of architecture in order to create some of these modern and unrealistic forms?
2. Uniformity is the quality of something being uniform and all the same. Variability is quite the opposite as it’s the lack of consistency or a fixed pattern. How do these two opposing ideas work together and relate back to each other. How has uniformity over the years created its own variability? How do all things that are uniform vary?
3. Meredith Miller points out three important observations about the materials and tools we architects have at our disposal. The third being the image or our renders of a building. She says “The image serves as both documentation and speculation and is the primary representational device advancing the Design. Images enable us to move between the physical realm of material prototypes to the projective realm of design, and back to prototyping. While this is definitely an important step in the design process, when do we reach our limit of going overboard with what we do post processing and not enough in actually making our designs work properly?
LikeLike
Materiality by definition is the quality or character of being material or composed of matter. The definition further describes it as the quality of being relevant or significant. For architecture specifically, it is the concept and applied use of various materials or substances in building. Based on these definitions does a material have to be deemed relevant or important for it to be used? What qualities does it have to possess in order to receive this honor? The presentations this week looked into the history behind select materials and the trends they evoked. They way in which we use materials influence new methods of use and cause us to rethink the endless possibilities that stem from each of them.
LikeLike
1. Formlessfinder says that architects of today design a form and then struggle to get the materials they choose to fit the design. Are we making a mistake in post-rationalizing our material choices? Would designs be better if the material’s abilities drove the design instead of just form?
2. In “Vibrant Matter,” Jane Bennett talks about the growing masses of trash in our environment, tying into her essay on hoarding. This ties into the overconsumption of food as well. What can architects do about this cultural shift towards overconsumption, as our buildings and people are getting more massive?
3. Meredith Miller and Thom Moran discuss their experimentation with different types of plastics in “Post Rock.” How can architects be experimental with more traditional materials like wood and concrete?
LikeLike
This week’s discussion questioned the contemporary architect’s relationship with materiality. The disadvantage to digital modeling is that we cannot express the material’s specific properties. We often appy material as an afterthought, trying to work against the material to get it to comply with our needs. We have to be more responsible with our materials, experimenting with them and letting them design instead of us. We discovered steel by initially just trying to make a cooler sword, so it is not always necessary to have a deep meaning or intent with material, unlike with other aspects of design. Experimentation is the most important part of materiality.
LikeLike
1. In Miller’s “Post Rock,” Miller describes the camera as a medium with which designers can convey a thought or idea through an image. Miller goes on to talk about how the camera, as a medium, can be restrictive to the designer, as can many other digital media can be to convey an architectural idea. How can we, as architecture students, strive to change our process to compensate for this fact?
2. Formlessfinder states that architects are struggling to consider material in their initial design process, only to hit a wall in the design and development part of the design process. Is this fact pushing architects to figure out new materials to accomplish what they need to accomplish for their design? Or is it detrimental to the design process?
3. In “Uniformity and Variability,” Manuel De Landa talks about how modern fabrication methods are designed to be quick and efficient, favoring mechanized methods of fabrication over hand-craft. Both the methods of handcrafting and mechanical fabrication prove to be better than the other when working with specific materials and designs that it is hard to figure out a fixed, consistent method to craft the majority of common materials used. Is there a method of fabrication where handcrafting and mechanical fabrication can hybridize and work harmoniously to mass produce objects while still keeping the quality of hand-craft?
LikeLike
Materiality is something that all architects have had to consider at some point during their time as designers. Whether it be a structural material capable of holding massive loads, or a smaller scale material that is used to capture tiny details and is much less restrictive in terms of how it can be used. However, in the age we live in, technology is advancing at a breakneck pace and more ways of fabrication are being considered that would change how architects consider materiality forever. For example, a new method of fabrication is being explored to figure out if the properties of a material and the environment of around the material is the manner with which the material creates something out of itself. This process is called 4D printing and renegotiates the relationship between how the user determines what the material makes and how the material reacts to the manner with how the designer tries to manipulate it.
LikeLike
1. In “Post Rock” the idea to reproduce a stone is brought up. It contains parts of other stones, but at what point does this become completely synthetic rather than a reproduction of a stone? What are the social and political issues with producing a stone/plastic synthesis? Especially those that will likely reside in and near the ocean.
2. In “Uniformity and Variability” De Landa discusses the issue that we as a whole or even categorized into smaller groups tend to study things to the extent that we choose and overlook the rest. We often see what a material can do, and not worry about where it came from, what it would be better used for, or even the effect it has on everything else. What causes this separation between usefulness and the whole picture? Are there ways that we could turn this around and begin looking at the whole picture rather than the part we care about? If we did change our view point, what level of impact would this have on the materiality of many goods in today’s society?
3. In “Vibrant Matter – A Political Ecology of Things” it appears that Jane Bennett is bringing up the idea that nothing will ever be greater or less than it started out as, and that everything starts out equal. If this is true how do we justify spending so much time studying and testing certain materials or products for their durability, usability, and other likeable qualities that we look for in products? If they are equal does that simply mean that they all have an equal opportunity to be the best material for a product rather than they all are equally fit to be used for one specific product?
LikeLike
There are many aspects to materiality that we rarely think about when using a product, unless the materials happen to not be the right ones for the job. There are so many decisions that go into deciding upon a specific material, whether the deciding factor is for aesthetic purposes, durability, or any other reason imaginable. The interesting thing about materials is that they are rarely completely natural. They often have another additive or component that makes then synthetic in some way. New materials are constantly being made by combining multiple other materials into a new one, often this synthesis is to have the better qualities of the two materials without less of the lacking qualities. However, with these new materials often comes new problems. Some of these problems include the ethical issues related to the material. The idea of synthesizing organic materials with plastics and other non-organic materials. Some of the organic materials include rocks, shells, and other objects found in the ocean. These would be combined with plastics for various reasons, however, there are many issues that this can cause, maybe not to the extent that plastic in the ocean is causing right now but quite similar issues. Another idea for materials is to recreate stone, this will cause other ethical issues, because to our society stones are natural, however, at one point of us create stones do we go from calling stones natural to them being completely synthetic. Is it okay for us to turn our naturally occur objects into a mixture of natural and unnatural? Similarly, we have issues with littering, however, this isn’t anything that says that creating a stone and using it as a real stone, is littering. We already do this a little when we buy garden gravel or other fillers to make our gardens or potted plants look more perfect. While these stones may not be completely synthetic they are milled and sanded and even polished many times to make them smooth and round when many naturally occurring stones are far from that. We need to think about more than just the benefits of a new material and start thinking about the issues with them, ethical and otherwise.
LikeLike
1. In the “Formless Interview” reading, it was said that due to the heavy reliance on technology the field of architecture is lacking intelligence and innovation. The article also goes on the say that the “formless” view is a reimagining of architecture’s attributes. Since ‘formless’ and many other ideas are not novel, but instead remakes of already existing ideas, it is accurate to say that architecture has reached an innovative standstill? That we have entered an era where the “new” does not exist?
2. With all of the developments in science and construction, new materials are being created. Should architects start to look into materials and construction as an avenue for creating a ‘new’ architecture? Will that previously mentioned architecture be considered new if the design concepts are the same, but the construction techniques are novel?
3. In “Vibrant Matter” Bennett mentions how one thing can be represented, and approached, in a plethora of ways. As architects living in the digital age, is it possible that we overlook materials that can’t easily be 3D modeled? Are we ignoring potentially amazing materials out of ignorance of how to correctly represent them?
LikeLike
This week’s discussion went in depth with inquiries about materiality and architecture. How the two are related and where they are heading in the future. Materiality and architecture have become almost synonymous with architects being expected to be experts in different types of materials and their assemblies. But this brings up the question, should architects be this concerned with materials? Yes, materials are needed to construct a building and if an architect is well versed in materials than they will be able to better demand what they want. But on the other hand, if architects focus too much on materiality they could start to lose some of the essential design elements. So where is the happy medium? Where do materiality and architecture meet, but not overlap?
LikeLike
1. In “F*ck Your Tectonics” Form is described as an important tool used in architecture for centuries. The importance that form gives to works of architecture is describe as a giver of shape and organization. Yet in this reading, the technological softwares used for architectural purposes in the past couple decades is seen as a downfall for form in architecture as a whole. Many famous architects like Zaha Hadid are known for their use of these technologies to create beautiful works of functional form. How does technology really affect the creative process that exists in architecture when there is proof that architecture can still be beautiful and functional even when relying on softwares? Is the material process of architecture really affected by advanced techniques?
2. “Uniformity and Variability” seems to have an engineering perspective as a whole. Manuel De Landa makes powerful arguments against the mechanizing frenzy that the world seems to have adapted in the past centuries. There seems to be a belief that technology could replace humans at some point in time due to their perfect nature of work. Yet this raises a question of wether or not machines are the answer to many problems humans face? Will there exist a point in which machines will be geared towards making less materials thus decreasing the cost of manufacturing? How could architecture be affected by such change?
3. “Post Rock” as an essay explores the possibilities that could come from the combination of multiple everyday use items. How could these objects like an iPhone camera become tools for creating physical objects? The “Post Rock” approaches materiality at a different scale. How could one take advantage of the tools possessed in order to achieve maximum accuracy in terms of production, specially with materials that are volatile in the way they act and mold. How could using different techniques help use, reuse and recycle accidental elements created by mankind in order to further the material world?
LikeLike
Material is a broad term in terms of architecture; materials are the ethos of architecture since without matter, architecture wouldn’t be able to materialize from ideas to physical objects. The choice of material used in a project has a conducive power that individualizes each work of architecture.
When looking to the past, one can immediately notice that buildings in ancient times often look similar in terms of materiality due to the lack of technological advances in this sense. When looking at current building techniques, a blend of different materials is often preferred by architects and engineers due to the individual characteristics each element brings to the table. As technology advances towards the future, we will see improved technologies of 3D printing and other techniques used yet ones that aren’t entirely viable. The world is moving towards a use, reuse and recycle mindset and this idea could allow for strong and aesthetically pleasing materials to potentially be used in the future. Materiality Reconsidered is a concept that aims to rethink the ways in which materials and architecture work together.
LikeLike
1. In F*ck Your Tectonics, Formlessfinder has a project called Load Test in which the inverse of what an engineer would do (calculate forces to figure out which material is best for a form) is done. Do you think this approach holds merit in which form follows the chosen material of a building? Or does it cause more problems (spatially, contextually, etc.) than is worth to prove the point that material matters?
2. In Post Rock , the authorship of unpredictable material processes are described. Do you believe studios, especially first and second year, are not exposed or encouraged enough to explore material unknowns whether it be aesthetics or tectonics? Too much taskboard???
3. Manuel De Landa discusses in Uniformity and Variability how we have become so accustomed to uniformity, that we avoid variation or see it as something that needs to be fixed in our perfect uniform world. While uniformity is important for some material’s efficiency and strength, how important is it aesthetically? Why are we putting these invisible, nonexistent restrictions on ourselves when it comes to uniformity?
LikeLike
This week’s presentation and discussion was centered around the importance of material in architecture and where it does and maybe should fall in design process and priority. With the ever looming dangers of climate change right in front of us it is not only important, but vital as architects to pay attention to the ecological effects certain materials possess- manufacturing process or overall performance. Another point brought up was how rendering especially in architecture school warps our perspective of material. With the ease of applying materials on V-Ray we hold little to no thought on material properties and how they would actually affect the design. Taskboard, MDF, and acrylic become the norms in studios. First year seems to be most experimental material wise, which is maybe a backwards way to look at it from a learning perspective. As we go through school, shouldn’t we be experimenting with the properties of different or unforeseen materials in our physical models? How would this change a project? This brings up the interesting point of reconsidering how we prioritize material over form or vice versa.
LikeLike
1. In “uniformity and variability “ it talks about the properties of metals and how we have been able to use them in different ways, but it also talks about the progress of material science and I’m curious as to what the next building technology will take over, such as shape, form , chemicals, and change how we build?
2. Also, in “uniformity and variability” it talks about materials becoming less and less significant because they have become extremely common? How can we use new materials and these materials in ways to create new and original architecture?
3. In “fuck your tectonics “it talks about materials and form contributing as reason for unsustainable design since concept is usually more sought after. So, because the type of material used in a project defines the concept, does this influence the conceptual design or is there a concept even if its formless?
LikeLike
Architecture today is at an extremely interesting point, where its not as defined as it used to be. There are many new tools and materials to work with. Which is an interesting explanation to why the focus of architecture has shifted importance to materiality. People have this desire to be inventive and unique. By creating new processes and materials unique to architecture helps stray from repeating architecture. By exploring materiality, it fulfills people’s desire to design something new.
LikeLike
1. Formlessfinder’s unconventional design strategies pave entirely new architectural avenues: tectonic back-streets, sovereign of institutional constraint. ‘Bag Pile,’ the firm’s best example of architectural ambition, presents a novel tectonic that is both spatially provoking and structurally plausible. Was this project ever realized at human scale, and to what degree of permanence?
3. Miller and Moran compose ‘Erratics’ with frank conspicuousness, an out of place geological-landmark that sparks intrigue and facilitates movement. In both sculpture and architecture, this technique can be employed very successfully. Contrarily, however, many modern buildings that attempt to ‘stand out from the rest’ join the list of false-icons that flaunt out-of-place design choices at public dismay (EMPAC). Do architects make these choices because they ultimately design what they want and build what they think looks good, or do they genuinely feel that cities need more ‘iconic’ buildings?
2. One of the most intriguing morsels from this week’s readings is Rose/Ricardi’s assertion that “most implementations of digital technology fail before they even begin, because they try to use technology to chase an idea.” Befittingly, this statement marinates deeply within my tech-school memory-pool, as we are thrust into a digital form-finding methodology, our majority of projects dominated by computation. Beyond incepting projects with analog studies, how can contemporary design more effectively balance the necessary metaphysical rationale (that can only exist outside of technology) with its inescapable tech-ubiquity?
LikeLike
I appreciate the work of Formlessfinder for the guile and intrigue that they present in their work, but also for their candid rejection of conventional norms. ‘Bag Pile,’ for example, would almost instantly be rejected as a public project or contest-entry, for its raw irregularity is not contained by institutionalized rulings or guidelines. Who would trust this structure to withstand the test of time, let alone the firestorm of its critique? The point, I suppose, was not to imagine these towering arches of billowing mesh as literal construction but as a theoretical apposite: the antithesis to architecture. To visualize relaxation among the rock-anchored tubes is to imagine a world without formal architecture altogether: a realm where post-and-beam never occurred, the uniform module was never crafted, and form was thus always irregular and amorphous.
LikeLike
1. In “F*ck Your Tectonics”, makes a claim that we should reconsider what “form” in architecture means, showing concepts where “typical” architectural form has been replaced with simple matter, as in Load Test. By doing away with presumptive “form”, what are we allowing ourselves to design? How does the aberration from built “form” revolutionize the field in the ways that we think about and construct architecture?
2. In “Post Rock”, Meredith Miller and Thom Moran take a look at how we can use “post rock”, or rather, a modern form of ancient material construction tactics. By going back to our roots in construction, a new world of design possibilities unfold right in front of our eyes. What are the merits, and conversely, the pitfalls of going back to our foundations in materiality and construction? Will we find things that we have since lost with the technologization of construction, or would trying to bring back the natural ways of construction hinder the progress we’ve made in terms of materiality and construction?
3. “Post Rock” harks on the positives of going back to the earth to find materials with which to build and help create more productive and efficient design. In regards to sustainability and recycling, where does this return to the earth lie? Is it a sustainable practice, or is this something that seems like an idea that in theory would work quite well, but in practice would fail? Or does it lie somewhere in between?
LikeLike
The idea of reconsidering materiality, and the metaphysics and aesthetics that it involves is very interesting. For decades, we have constructed a certain way, and have been extrapolating on modern construction and its relative materiality and such. But, if we take a deeper look at these things, we find that we can turn it on its head (quite literally) and reveal a wealth of possibilities when it comes to construction and materiality. As was in FormlessFinder’s Load Test, anything can become a structural or material aspect to a project. No longer do you have to subscribe to the standard forms of production, if you can use something to make a building stand up and look good, then go full steam ahead. This, in hand with the idea of post rock, where we return to the earth to look at materials that while are in the earth, are rarely used, really changes the narrative going forward for how we as architects and designers think about materiality and construction.
LikeLike
1. With the use and advance of technology, we can specifically design products and architecture so that it is that design that is a result. This point mentioned in the article “Post Rock” brings to question how past architects did it before. Did they design more simply for their world and tools were simplistic? Was it that they built first and designed after? Perhaps, it is about the change in education? Was it the fact that they were trained to visualize in 3D mentally while looking at 2D drawings? Have we impeded our education with relying on technology?
2. Typically, architects think of materiality toward the end of the design process for the form and shape are what contains the circulation and initiates communication. However, the materiality is the aspect that people see and the element that supports the movement. Therefore, if people would like to change how architects think about materiality focusing on either aesthetics or structure, should they not first change or evaluate what people actually notice when they of architecture? Is it the building’s form or its material? Do they think: glass, shape, color, or structure?
3. Is Bennett’s logic of everything being alive, including buildings, inaccurate since nowadays we are having to adjust buildings to become more sustainable and adaptable? Is it not an aspect of living things to adapt to their surroundings? Perhaps the sustainable buildings we are designing now will be living if they respond and continue to respond to the world’s needs.
LikeLike
As time has progressed, new technology has surfaced and been invented, leading to new designs and materials. In this case, technology has been efficient and positive in that new creativity is being produced in new ways. In addition, it seems that the new technology came at a necessary time. With the escalation of greenhouse gases and the increase in population, our Earth is rapidly changing and worsening in some cases. Therefore, technology has the opportunity to serve a greater good, especially if it can give way to new materials from our plastic trash. It seems that being Post Rock is leading to new opportunities with the new materials and technology; however, it is that new technology that has created for the new materials and solutions to be needed. It is the technology of the car, for example, that has led to the rapid increase of carbon dioxide, resulting in global warming. Yet, it is technology that can also help to solve the problem. Technology seems to be both a solution and a problem; or a problem but a solution.
LikeLike
1: In “Uniformity and Variability,” Material Scientist James E. Gordon is quoted describing steel as “A material that facilitates the dilution of skills.” Modern architecture has a much wider range of material to influence design with, which has shifted focus away from mastery to exploration. How does this wide open field of possible material uses and combinations affect our view, as architects, of the architectural profession, especially compared to how it may have been viewed in centuries past?
2: Categorizing materials is a philosophical and often emotional endeavor. How would a material be defined as chaotic or orderly, strong or weak, familiar or alien? How many ways can the connotational properties of a material be organized, sorted, and applied?
3: Miller describes the camera as a medium for expressing ideas and emotions, but to go beyond the camera is to realize that the things within the photograph, the landscape, materials, elements, lighting, time, space, all acts just as much an ideological and emotional medium as the camera does. This is not to say the existence of these other mediums takes away from the photograph’s ability to work as a medium itself. Rather it becomes a question: what can a medium provide, and how can the awareness of multiple layers of different mediums can be arrayed to produce spectacles that could not be done alone. What can be gained in an additional medium? And what is lost when mediums are combined?
LikeLike
1. John Szot discusses that today “architecture lacks intelligent innovative approaches to form”. One of his solutions to materials becoming more of a focus than the form is green architecture. How can processed materials follow the “non-constrained or resolved” raw material by becoming something of its own, and standing separately from the form of a building?
2. In Uniformity and Variability, the changing of materials brings up the durability of one change of matter versus the other. What materials could we potentially change to make structurally sound? How can we fuse materials to create more dynamic systems?
3. The materials we use define the approach to the design, the process, and the end result. A big difference today is how individuals rely on technology for the creation of a structure. How does the use of computers influence our choices in the materiality of a building?
LikeLike
Materials have drastically transitioned from carefully articulated and intricately detailed structures to geometries reacting to our environment. Today many of the homes, apartment buildings, and housing complexes are composed of prefabricated units. Quite often pre-manufactured structures cut down on cost, time, and efficiency for a project. A key part of the presentation included the environmental effects of certain materials. 3D printing was brought up several times as a means to reimagine materiality and effectiveness. Many of these 3D printed structures are beneficial in environmentally unstable areas. Gaia, “a new eco-sustainable house”, is composed of natural waste materials and connected to the rice production chain. Not only is it extremely energy efficient and healthy for inhabitants, but it has almost a zero percent impact on the environment. Because of its well-designed system, there is no need for air conditioning or heating systems. The change from design materials to efficient materials is going to dramatically change the way we move forward in architecture.
LikeLike
1. The “Formlessfinder” reading likes to describe form as a philosophical concept rather than a physical one (that would be matter). The material in architecture, or rather the architecture all together, are usually devalued by our over-valuing of the “form”. While I do see the point of how much we focus on form rather than matter, why is it a philosophical concept? Doesn’t everything, including matter (the physical) inherently have a form?
2. In the preface, Bennett deems that materiality does not live in economic or societal structure, because of our narcissistic humanity. She then says that materiality is placed in the echoes of anthropomorphism in nonhuman nature. Wouldn’t that contradict her first point, because putting human characteristics on nature instead of letting it stand on its own shows our narcissism?
3. In the DeLanda reading, materials don’t have a catagory in the metaphysical or the physical, in fact it doesn’t seem to have a placement at all. I see “materials” as a composite of “matter”, so why doesn’t it have space to like on the physical realm?
LikeLike
I felt like the materiality presentations were important to me, because I feel like there are so few classes that address matters (pun not intended) like this. The only way to get that kind of education is if we were to concentrate on that as a minor or for our Master’s. I also think that materiality is a broad concept on its own, which is why I questioned whether or not Bennett’s point on the restriction of the definition of materiality was valid. Materiality is in everything, whether or not it has anything to do with humanity. To answer my question from the DeLanda reading, I would say that the concept of materials is a part of the metaphysical (the ethereal), and that materials/tangible items are a part of the physical. I felt like DeLanda could’ve made a clearer distinction, or have a clearer argument on how “materials” are disconnected.
LikeLike
1. In the article of “Post Rock Material and Medium” by Meredith Miller, she talks about that people always pay more attention on the design after the material is built and crafted. Material itself is not the guiding role in the design part. How can architects start to let material become the leading part of the design? Can we use material before the design is finished?
2. In the article of “Uniformity and Variability” by Manuel De Landa, he talks about craftsman who cannot understand and know about the scientific phenomenon and processes though they are good at using materials. In this case, the knowledge for how to manipulate materials is very important. Is this kind of knowledge also can apply on architecture and architects?
3. In the article of “Uniformity and Variability” by Manuel De Landa, it states that machinic phylum is something that contains motion because it can fold and transform into another form. This process is based on materiality, and it mentions the concept of folding. Is the concept different from the folding in the previous lecture? How can we use that in architecture?
LikeLike
According to the presentation, materiality is very important for people to think more creative. People always tend to apply material after they design the buildings but not try to assign one kind of material at the beginning of the project to continue working on that material. This is a new way to let people think about something new and help them to understand the deeper knowledge about materiality. Also, it is important to change one person’s perspective. In this case, people may try to use material not just the way it is but more creative.
LikeLike
1. Formlessfinder states that most attempts to celebrate materiality still end up sublimating or idealizing material. In what ways can we stray from falling into these tendencies?
2. Gordon states, “the first danger is the idea that a single, universal material is good for all different kinds of structure,” is there a way to effectively use a single material for all sorts of structure without any negative effects?
3. With the creation of plastiglomerates, do you see plastiglomerates becoming more popular in the field of architecture, and how do you think plastiglomerates would be applied? Also, do you think that plastiglomerates could have any negative effect on the environment, as plastiglomerates will last a long time?
LikeLike
Materiality is a major aspect of architecture and shapes the way that we see the architecture put before us. Typically there is a wide variety of materials used in buildings, especially for the structure. However when looking at old, primitive architecture one can see that little variety in materials was used. It is not practical today to use one material for structure but also not impossible. As technology progresses new materials and techniques are created and we can see their positive effects on the environment. However, at times, new materials have long term negative effects that we aren’t aware of. For example, asbestos was used in building materials and cables for its fire and heat resistance. However, after years of using asbestos, it was discovered that the material can cause cancer, resulting in the termination of use of the material. Unfortunately, today there are still places that still contain asbestos.
LikeLike
1. Within “F*ck Your Tectonics,” there is a conversation about form and the formless, how the creation of the formlessfinder helps in developing architecture that doesn’t need a form. Many architects use the standard form because the durability of the building is guaranteed. If formless finder ends up being as successful as intended, would the common architect try to create formless architecture, or continue using form as they have before?
2. The reading “Uniformity and Variability” explains the existence of change within materials such as steel. Depending on how it is worked on, it can end up strong yet brittle or more durable at the cost of being malleable. Considering this, is it possible for all materials to have some form of variety similar, or is that trait limited to certain ones?
3. “Post Rock” mentions a newly discovered material known as “plastiglomerate.” This material is formed within the ocean when human trash fuse with the sand and rock found within. Considering that the material uses trash to be made, could it be possible that the production and use of this material could help in the cleaning of pollution found in the ocean and other parts of the world?
LikeLike
The emergence of the internet has created massive changes to how architecture can be looked at. With the simplicity of now creating the designs on a computer, it is now possible to make more complex and nonformal architecture. There have also been new materials that have been developed in this time, whether on purpose or on accident. The purposeful one have been seen to be built to what a building needs, whether harder for areas of intense, temporary force or more durable for should the metal stay under constant stress. Alternatively, there have been materials that only exist now due to human action. One such example is the fusion of the plastics found in the ocean and the dirt, sand, and other similar materials. The result gives the idea to removing pollution in unique ways. Instead of leaving trash in landfills, we could reuse it to create architecture, which additionally adds space instead of removing it. Because of the internet, the possibilities of architecture has only grown.
LikeLike
1. Does the value of materility decrease due to hyperconsumerism?
2. While trying to create uniformity through materials, does it start to create a lack of uniqueness to a project?
3. How does metaphysics influence material science and in turn architecture itself?
LikeLike
1. Materiality is given less of a wow factor due to consumerism, as we used to use materials that people wouldn’t even think of, but now that there is so much that people know now and that has been invented, there is little surprise.
2. Trying to create uniform materials throughout many different projects does cause a lack of uniqueness. If everyone is using the same materials, everything starts to blend and differences are hard to spot.
3. Metaphysics gives people a different understanding of why we have certain materials and why we use them in specific places.
LikeLike
1. Will “the age-old drama” relationship between architecture and gravity change in the future? At that time, could tectonic forms come back to the position of “triumphant hero” again? If not, what kind of form will dominate our vision?
2. By using plastiglomerate as the main material for future architectural proposals, this method eliminates the pollution while boost the production. Would this invention lead human focus more on the transforming the necessary pollution instead of avoiding it?
3. The idea of variability and uniformity reads as two contradictory comcepts. How do designers take advantages of one of them yet still interact with the rules of another one? What will the result be if integrate both of them philosophically?
LikeLike
Materiality speaks when visitors come near to a building. This topic introduces a whole new consideration direction on how and why materials should be used. New materials are always invented with specific new features, whatever flexibility or uniformity. In the future, materials will be able to adjust themselves to adapt to the different times and seasons for the specific location they stay. On the other hand, materials convey what architects think about to the viewers, which also push the process of materials determination to a more exciting result.
LikeLike
1. The Formlessfinder manifesto states that form suppresses material. Could the same be said for material suppressing form, due to structural or cost constraints?
2. De Landa discusses an increasing uniformity among human materials as of late. Does uniformity in material lead to uniformity in construction? or does it encourage creativity even more?
3. Miller and Moran bring up the unique designs of Best stores in the 1970’s as using material to convey different environments. This commercial application of architecture is one that we don’t see as often today. Is it a good thing that architecture and consumerism rarely cross over?
LikeLike
Materials in architecture often leave much to be desired, especially when we live in times where material science and biochemistry are in such rapidly advancing states. We live in a world where self-assembly is such a fascinating, applicable field yet so few are participating in it. People like Skylar Tibbits at the Self Assembly Lab are creating materials that change form completely when heated or cooled, or structures that can form while mid-air. These technologies could have fantastic implications for shading, emergency relief, and more, yet so much of the architectural world is caught up in petty aesthetic challenges. I’m not saying that we should abandon aesthetics as a whole, but so many material arguments today are issues that have been disputed for years. In order to push the field forward, perhaps we should be focusing more on the functionality of material, rather than solely on the aesthetic qualities.
LikeLike