1. In Vibrant Matter, a political ecology of things, Jane Bennett talks about the implications of categorizing matter as being either human or inert. She speaks of how different the world would work toward progress if there was an “absence of the assumption that the only source of vitality in matter is the soul or spirit.” Even further she “defends” innate objects’ ability to influence the world and talks about how contemporary perception of the inhuman world around us shapes the world into an ultimately dystopic view point. How would this philosophy apply to architecture, specifically, does architecture have the ability to help enforce Bennett’s point of view? How would architecture as a profession respond to this discourse and look to adopt a different methodology to the application of materials.
2. Manuel De Landa in Uniformity and Variability speaks about the dilution of the physical and metaphysical world into homogenous classifications. He talks of this phenomenon as a by-product of technological progression and the overall push to classify everything in our environment. As De Landa says, this is not an entirely negative aspect of the contemporary world, “As with the already mentioned homogenizations performed by scientists in their conceptions of matter, there were undoubtedly some gains. The question is, what got lost in the process”. Gains such as ease of manufacturing, ability to break-down the steps into easily trained professions and ease of construction are not lost by De Landa but he does speak of the loss of the “art” of building. In architecture this is readily apparent by the propagation of unitized systems, prefabricated building components and BIM design. Though these are not necessarily negative changes to architecture, what would be the advantage to attempting to steer away from these systems and to go back to artisanal methods of construction? Is the current push toward homogenous systems a result of the current perception of higher education versus education in vocational trade?
3. Meredith Miller and Thom Moran in Post Rock, Material and Medium talk about how the essence of materials is lost by architects and other professionals who rely on digital renderings to examine the interactions of materials. They speak of how the actual process of creation is done in a 3-D model space and there is a reliance on computer algorithms to generate material properties. This phenomenon is seen as negative by Miller and Moran, as technology cannot truly represent the randomness of material and thereby creates a disconnect between those who create something digitally and those who are tasked to take this information to produce a physical object. This can translate to the digital creation of an object made from a material that cannot physically be manipulated in that way. Have architects lost the ability to actually understand materials? Is this a result of the constant evolution of technology or is it due to current education styles? Or is it a result of current construction trends?
This lecture examined how material and form have split from each other in contemporary design. Technology and ever-growing capabilities in the digital sphere are huge factors in shaping this revolution. As a result, this lecture examined schools of thought that see this conceptual divide as both positive and negative results of the technological era. Materiality is not examined to the same degree now as it was in the past, and this leads to, ultimately, a slightly different education about shaping the physical world. Though this does open the door to possibilities of different design approaches and allows for the creation of forms otherwise unheard of, at the end of the day, to be successful in translating from one reality to another is still a well-honed skill that requires a balance in knowledge of the physical world and the “virtual” world. The conclusion of this lecture is that the divide is apparent and in-escapable, but the fundamental disservice to the art and skill of “creation” is to negate one in favor for the other, following the false mentality that “digital technology is the future”.
1. “Load Test is a slab building predicated on the realization that anything can perform structurally. Here, piles of raw matter replace columns. The age-old drama between architecture and gravity is restaged…” As rudimentary as structure can be should we really be using such odd elements to support such structures? Structure is mostly a science, but if Holgers taught me anything it would be that structure can be an art as well in the right hands. So instead of playing around with unpredictable forms with who knows how many unknowns, why not just put a little more thought into structure rather than the basic column and beam aspect.
2. “A crack or fracture needs energy to spread through a piece of material and so any mechanism that takes away energy from the crack will make the material tough. In metals, the mechanism seems to be based on certain defects or imperfections…” First off if we can predict where a material or element will crack or break can we design an imperfection around that area so if or when the material decides to crack the energy will be displaced by the imperfection which will reduce the odds of the material breaking at that specific point?
3. What are the other potentials of Plastiglomerate?
1. Uniformity and Variability, Manuel De Landa, emphasizes how the materiality use became more Relevant after the 19th century, where mineral materials experimentation became routine and hence, unremarkable, to create new innovations and techniques of construction. The new creation of materials such as steel and fiberglass and other composites, as opposed to the simpler and more predictable behaviour of uniform, homogeneous materials such as industrial-quality steel. What kinds of innovations are there in the world that people are researching or developing that’s somehow promote steel use?
2. Post Rock, Meredith Miller, gone over how the post rock doesn’t Invert a new material, but instead, reconfigure, and explore new use of it, for example now with these tendencies of material research that has identified, people use differently the materials. Can be a different way or technique to create a concrete?
3. Going off that last question, such as digital world has exposed to the researching and innovating to form founding like a 3d print concrete or scans of the cast, so can an interdisciplinary architecture firm develop and promote the sustainable concrete design?
As the future continues to present us with new technologies such as the ability to 3D print large scale and Now the materiality integration became more Relevant after the 19th century exploration of steel or other minerals, where mineral materials experimentation became routine and hence, unremarkable, to create new innovations and techniques of construction. It’s interesting how one must look to other domains in order to realize the potential in another, but as far as architectural materiality is concerned, it has more of a significant role to play not only to complete a project, but to make it sing. There is an obligation to integrate this aspect of the design as a means of not only improving aesthetic excellence, but also revitalizing the core of the design in a new language/technique. The new creation of materials such as steel and fiberglass and other composites, as opposed to the simpler and more predictable behaviour of uniform, homogeneous materials such as industrial-quality steel.
1. In “Post Rock: Material and Medium” by Meredith Miller and Thom Moran, they discuss the use of studio materials and how they are becoming more and more technological every year. With technology advancing, there are easier way to make models and more accurate to your 3D digital model. As new, more “green” materials are found and people have more accessibility to them, do you think that model building will drastically change just within a few years? will natural resources start being used more?
2. 3D printing used to be a big foreign concept to people in architecture a decade ago. Now it is accessible to everyone and advancing at a very fast past. Even actual houses are being 3D printed out of special concrete. Do you think they could use plastiglomerate instead of concrete? So that they are technically recycling materials? This would be helping clean the pollutants and trash out of the ocean and also be helping with building homes for people who don’t have them.
3. In “Uniformity and Variability” by Maniel De Landa, it is said that “Steel, especially mild steel, might euphemistically be described as a material that facilitates the dilution of skills…” I feel as though this is not the correct way to look at steel as a material. Yes, it has become a very common building material because it is very easy to get and manufacture. Just because we have explored an building material element and cut it down to a simple science, that does not mean that it is not an important material anymore. There are other ways that we can explore steel and change it’s form and it might have a property that we don’t know about. Are other common building materials, such as wood and glass, considered to also be described as a material that facilitates the dilution of skills just because we have cut it down to a simple science on how to manufacture it?
Materiality of a building used to be very limited centuries ago due to the amount of resources available in that environment and time period. Now there is an unlimited amount of some resources for building and technology is constantly advancing to make resources more accessible and manufacturable for people to get and use. Houses have become 3D printable and this is just the beginning of a technology era. Soon we will find resources that will make it easier for shelters and homes to be built for disaster relief. Steel and other more common building materials shouldn’t be downplayed just because they are common. They should be used to their advantages so that we can combine them and newer technology to make easier and faster to make homes and building that if washed away by natural disasters will not containment the Earth.
Materiality is something that does not effect a building as much anymore. Centuries ago, builders have limited resources by the environment and time of technology that was developed. Now that is not an issue anymore. Resources are more accessible and easier to manufacture. As time goes on and technology continues to advance, it will make it easier to build and manufacture shelters or homes for after disaster relief. Using common building materials like steel and concrete would not make them less important. We have found them to be very stable and durable materials that is why they are used so much. The overall goal clearly would be to find a natural building material to use. Therefore if there is a natural disaster and the buildings are destroyed, the materials will go back into nature and not containment the Earth or water.
1. In Material and Medium, Miller and Thoran introduce a new material called plastiglomerate, which is a hybrid creation made from waste plastics in the ocean ecosystem fused with rock and sand. These plastiglomerates were then enriched and strengthened through the combination of additional materiality to form the material Post Rock. Similarly, architecture is a collaboration between human and geological forces. How can architecture use material like Post Rock to brand itself or give itself a newer identity?
2. Post Rock brings a cultural and ecological territory into a physical and visual medium. Architecture is a physical and visual medium in a cultural and ecological context. What representational values can material choice bring to architecture? Can materiality add or subtract value from a building solely based off of its cultural and social context?
3. John Szot’s Formlessfinder argues that form tends to idealizes materiality or dematerialize architecture altogether. He proposes a shift from materiality to matter, from the symbolic to the actual. An example of architecture’s idealistic branding of materiality is bamboo. Bamboo is a cheap, sustainable material but to be accessible, it must be shipped around the world to reach certain areas. If it has to be shipped around the world to be accessible, which is not a sustainable approach, should it really be marketed as sustainable it is? Should architects focus less on materiality, and just focus on the matter that is right in front of them instead?
This week’s readings discussed the subject of materiality. Material and Medium introduced a new material called plastiglomerate, which is created by human and geological forces. Waste plastics in the ocean fuse with rock and sand to form this new hybrid material. Additional material like polyethene, limestone, and plastics can be added to polyglomerates to form a super-material, called Post Rock. The essay states that Post Rock translates a cultural and ecological territory into a physical and visual medium, making it a “meta-material”. Such material can give architecture a new brand, or identity. Bamboo for example, is branded as a sustainable material, given how cheap it is and how quickly it grows. However, bamboo grows in specific climates and thus would need to be transported, sometimes distances halfway across the world, to make it accessible. This brings into question how sustainability of bamboo’s marketing, because if such energy consumption is needed just to transport it, then is it really better to use it over a more local material choice? This segues into John Szot’s argument of matter over materiality. He states that architects should be focusing on the actual, not the symbolic. In the case of using bamboo as a sustainable material, it might be more environmentally efficient to use a more local material like lumber than to transport bamboo across a vast distance.
1. we see that materiality has seen a large advance over the last few years. How can this contribute to a new type of tectonic in building?
2. What materials are not vital to a building, and how can they be replaced by plastics?
3. When discussing rendering materials, there is a discrepancy is what is the real vs rendered material. How can there be more truth in rendering a true material?
1. In order to escape from form, must we first choose a materiality, if materiality can determine the shape, look, and finish of a building, as is the case with structural system of Load Test by Formless Finder?
2. With the ongoing push towards the disintegration of form, there is a lot of talk about matter and material. We often read that material and matter should be pushed outside its comfort zone to better tackle the pressing matter of formlessness. Does the experimentation of materials, as is described by Manuel De Landa, lead architects to focus most of the thing they seem to be trying to steer clear of most, the topic of form?
3. Plastiglomerates are a good example of a concept we have come back to almost every week since the beginning: can we actually create something new?
Following many theoretical speculations concerning many areas of life, inherent form or lack thereof, seems to flood the minds of humans. Everything, all the way down to the atomic level, has a form of equilibrium. If given the time and space, the form will be discovered with or without intervention. Skylar Tibbits visited RPI and gave a lecture my first of second year at RPI and I remember being so blown away by his discovery of the obvious nature of material and its ability to create form on its own. As is taught in Buddhism, what will be will be, it is up to us to accept it, try our best to understand it, and then come to love it. With this in mind, much of architecture can be treated the same way. There is no need to force a material to do something it is not meant to do. Its simple existence is enough of a miracle to drive us towards the integrated form and design in already holds within its being. New architecture can be created by simple trial and error, attention, and curiosity.
1. “Life is radically different from matter.” In Jane Bennett’s Vibrant Matter life id describes as “organized, active, self-propelled” and free; whereas matter is described as passive or moldable. How can we as humans take our attributes and influence surrounding matter to take on these more active attributes?
2. There is a constant drive to be more considerate to our environment and take an active role on making a sustainable change. However, Jane Bennett writes about the possibility of shifting from environmentalism to materialism. Do you think this shift is a viable strategy? Why or why not? Is it possible for these two stances to come together?
3. Interacting and experimenting with materials has vastly increased our knowledge and our craftsmanship in each material type. Some take the stance that this process has contributed an “immense gain” in knowledge, while others are questioning the overall need to shift these materials from what they once were. Accessing the pros and cons of both stances, which side do you tend to lean more towards.
It’s important to remember how the architecture around us is formed and the materials used to accomplish such. To recognize the research and experiments that have and continue to revolutionize. Materiality is constantly changing which has an effect on architectural design. For example, as many know the Notre Dame of Paris caught on fire this week and now there is a debate as to how to fix the damage and how long it will take (or even if it could be repaired). But one of the key aspects to this repair is the long timber that was used in original construction which is pretty scarce presently. Architects want to maintain the original integrity of the building but there is a possibility of a different material leading the forefront in the repairs.
It’s important to remember how the architecture around us is formed and the materials used to accomplish such. To recognize the research and experiments that have and continue to revolutionize. Materiality is constantly changing which has an effect on architectural design. For example, as many know the Notre Dame in Paris caught on fire this week and now there is a debate as to how to fix the damage and how long it will take (or even if it could be repaired). But one of the key aspects to this repair is the long timber that was used in original construction which is pretty scarce presently. Architects want to maintain the original integrity of the building but there is a possibility of a different material leading the forefront in the repairs.
1. From “F*uck Your Tectonics”, the members of Formlessfinder said in an interview, “We have had arguments with architects who have claimed that program-based architecture is, in a way, already formless, because it isn’t explicitly based on making form, but we usually don’t trust programmatic approaches”. I agree with the perspective of Formlessfinder, just because a building is not designed with form in mind, does not mean that you do not give it a form. Practically all buildings are designed to have program and therefore all buildings have form. Bataille attacked architecture but praised space for being formless. Programming space is how an architect controls and gives form to space. Can a real built project ever be formless? Under what circumstances could architects make a formless building? Would it be a building that doesn’t define its borders or would that still require a formal logic?
2. De Landa often speaks about the contrast between philosophers and metallurgists. Architecture seems to occupy both positions as the maker and the thinker. To what degrees should we value these two ways of approaching design?
3. Is there an impetus for architecture as a profession to shift to material driven design? Most projects are not driven by material, they are driven by the client/society and economy. What would it take to shift the paradigm of architectural practice to a material design process as the foundation of a project?
Michelangelo famously said “Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it”. Materiality was once important to design. Now we seem to have traded it for sterile environments and replaced liveliness with digital renders. This week’s readings and lectures demonstrated material design as a reaction to modern architecture and design. Between the works of Formessfinder, Skylar Tibbits’ and Gramazio Kohler’s “Rock Print”, and the studies into plastiglomerate, materiality is in the position where it has to be forced back into our designer mindset. Design is most successful when it can find a place in our material world. We need to enforce materiality as a primary design motivator if architecture is going to have any lasting effects on the world.
1. In their interview, Formlessfinder suggests constructing with materials that have been brought to the site. how do we deal with the waste products and how can we predict the cost of the building?
2. How can we use our understanding of the dynamic motion of matter
in aggregates to better improve our designs for human aggregates like crowds and public spaces?
3. These essays seem to be hailing back to an era where the control of matter and its thing-power was in the hands of the craftsmen and blacksmiths. Is it possible for the current postdigital era to return to such a state now with the advances in 3D printing and manufacturing that are more accurately reproducing digital models?
Material science and technology are advancing at a never before seen pace in human history. The level of control we have now is exponentially getting closer to being able to be labeled as alchemic transmutation and witchcraft. However, our pursuit of more and more control over these materials in order to replicate the digital models that we construct requires a serious meditation. Sometimes, it may be better to let go of the total control we like to impose onto our designs in the shape of the form and allow the materials to act on their own. They will regardless as is evident in the difficulty in getting materials to conform to shapes that they prefer not to take. As with the craftsman of old, we must reconnect with the materials on a more intimate level and allow them to speak for themselves when they want to be heard instead of suppressing them.
1.) In the Miller + Moran reading on Post Rock, they talk about the idea of the black box. Where the input is economics, taste, and culture and the output is a standardized process and product set. Recycling material and sustainability have become buzz words in our field, but how do you feel the idea of the black box really applies to architecture outside of the frame of reference? Do the architects themselves act as black boxes?
2.) Material in architecture is a constant moving set of ideas and principles. Locally sourced, sustainable, beautiful, are all ways to describe materials and architects are in charge of using these describing words to make architecture. Too much and the building becomes too ornamented and complicated to celebrate every interface between materials, but not enough and you lack the dynamic range for flexibility. How many materials makes up a good building? Do they need to be heterogeneous for a building to be successful?
3.) Material has often been our key in the fight against the forces of architecture. be it weather, gravity, or sun we have to respond in a sensible way to all conditions surrounding. In the formless finder interview they propose and instillation that uses gravity not to oppose, but to work along side. They allow the forms to fall and move where they’d like creating unique and initially formless spaces. How can architecture better take into consideration the range of material performance? Does it always have to seal or oppose?
1. In Uniformity and Variability, it talks about the change within materials. How can the change within materials affect our designs?
2. In F*ck Your Tectonics, it states that form is the main factor of architecture. What would architecture look like if we put material as the main factor of architecture?
3. From “Vibrant Matter” by Jane Bennett, she states that humans see matter as dead but that objects are actually alive and should have a voice. If we viewed matter as alive, how would our relationship with matter change? How would we treat them differently? Would we produce as much waste as we do today?
Do architects fully understand the use of materials? We think of the form of the building first, then apply the material, but what if we chose the material first then based the form off of that? The way how we view objects other than humans affects how we treat them, and maybe trying to change our perspective will create a different relationship with them. How much do we actually know about objects? We treat certain objects better than others, take advantage of some objects, and damage objects through other objects. Maybe viewing objects as actual communicators, such as materials, will help us take care of our planet better.
1. In “Uniformity and Variability, Manuel De Landa expresses that the scientific structures of material is a very important factor when it comes to what elements architects decide to use. Do you agree with De Landa that we have to do that in depth with materiality? Should the architecture curriculum in school include a require science class that will educate students?
2. Do you agree with Jane Bennett when she says we should not see materials as dead? Is there an advantage in seeing material as a conscious item?
3. The digital tool helps the architect envision the project with the materials that they are trying to use. But this rendering does not give the real effect how each material will interact with the environment and each other. Do you think that the digital age will one day truly represent the material in its full form?
We are living in an age where we can use technology to 3D model out anything we want. We do not necessarily have to think about how this entity, that are just pixels on the screen, would act in the real life. It could be a skyscraper that is made out of ice and the program would no disagree. Is there truly a way we can translate the digital material into the real world? Or should would it be easier to build around the material instead? Should the material be the first step in designing a building?
1–In “Post Rock Material & Medium”, the discussion lands on the use of materials. Rather than viewing materials ephemerally or by their properties, we should be viewing them with an economical eye. How can we use materials in the wisest ways possible; for building purposes, environmental purposes and economical purposes. Can we somehow find a middle to suit all these needs? The discovery of plastiglomerates could be a possible solution. This post rock material is the combination of plastic waste (a human byproduct) and dead remains of marine life. Thus a conglomerate of various materials that can act as a concrete of sorts. This new material would help reduce the plastic waste in the ocean, and create a new solution for material building. Yet the biggest question that comes from this discovery is, would it be more economically to fish this stuff out of the ocean and implement it in architecture or to just keep using the materials we are familiar with and know how to use?
2– Building off the previous question, Miller also describes how in the practice of architecture we usually assign materials to an end design. Instead of stating materials before design, we try to instead “fit” materials and qualities of said materials to the finished product. What if instead we as designers started out by picking materials and designing based on that instead. How would this influence the architecture? Would it kill the design, be more or less economical or would it open up a new style of design? How would this change architecture from an economic standpoint? and to that point if one was to create their design using plastiglomerates how would we design with this material for the future? How will it look in 10,20,100 years?
3–In “Vibrant Matter” Bennett makes the claim that non organic life is still very much living. That things we consider dead are still able to organize themselves and that since they are still living they should be given a voice. This goes back to the article “Powers of the Hoard” where the discussion of giving objects and things agency was brought up. That by considering these things to be living, to have agency not just to be subjects and the idea that they hold their own power gives greater meaning to objects we consider inanimate. That these things are bigger than just objects/ materials and that we should consider them in high respect. How can this logic be applied to the materiality of things? Were can we see their power exhibited? Does it come from the material properties or from someplace else entirely?
In today’s world we need to concern ourselves with not only the nature of materials, but how we are using them as well. Many of the things we use in buildings we use because of the history of the materials, that they have always been used so they shall always be used. For good reason as well, we know that the materials we use are reliable and functional and have served us as architects ad inhabitants well. Yet how would we have learned these things if someone did not decided to use stone, wood, steel etc? We must look into the future with a more ecological and economical standpoint regarding material use. How can we are architects either reuse materials/ recycle old buildings or come up with a new way of building that does not require us to use up our resources? to keep the ecology sound for the future rather than just thinking about the now and what materials would look good slapped onto a finished design? Instead we must consider the materials we wish to use before endeavoring on a design and design economically. What material could be salvaged? What can we spare using on this project so that it may used on a different one? We must also ask ourselves if the material we are using is the best choice economically for he location and type of building. Another take away is the en devour to find NEW materials– like plastiglomerates. These hybrid materials a result of human carelessness and the life cycle of marine animals, creates a new idea about materials. We have this “new rock” that is rock and is not really rock at all, all at the same time. This is just one example of new material that we have scraped out of the ocean, where else could we discover materials if we just bothered to look? This may be a more economical choice, to scope out these new conglomerates of the natural and artificial kind and see what they have to offer. We could be looking at the new brick or concrete that is a byproduct of how we are living anyway. To find a way to use this waste and create something new would be a call to action to rescue the environment while still being able to carry out the duties of being material scientists, material lovers and builders of beautiful things.
1. John Szot suggests in “F*ck Your Tectonics” that, in this age of incredible digital advancement, the field of architecture and those who inhabit its forms are still obsessed with a project’s form as framework. How might we as architectural thinkers and designers counter this claim that our new freedoms are mere illusions to old ideas?
2. Jane Bennett’s “Vibrant Matter” theorizes that we foolishly see matter as dead or “thoroughly instrumentalized.” How might this relate to object oriented ontology and/or the conception of objects having inherent value? Where might we see this disconnect in wasted matter, and how might we change the collective habit?
3. “Uniformity and Variability” hints at the disconnect between designers and builders today through a historical lens of the very involved blacksmiths who at once studied the properties of material and designed their products first-hand. How might the modern architect, almost always with the power of the computer and often without involved construction apprenticeship knowledge, navigate the two and bridge the gap between the inherently connected project stages and professional practices?
Today’s group presentations were heavily focused on materiality, specifically in historical trends and its possible new frontiers. There was heavy emphasis on our environmental footprint, and how we might reconsider current trends and materials to better reflect dire trends in environment. The processes of and advances in 3D printing crossed over several presentations, with often direct ties to rethinking materiality and interdisciplinary action. Micro plastics can be reformed in similar strategy to how 3D-printed objects have been created to impact the world of architecture. The overarching takeaway of the presentation was, for me, to think about the connections between material properties and their construction to the design process and architecture’s wide-reaching implications.
Today’s group presentations were heavily focused on materiality, specifically in historical trends and its possible new frontiers. There was heavy emphasis on our environmental footprint, and how we might reconsider current trends and materials to better reflect dire trends in environment. The processes of and advances in 3D printing crossed over several presentations, with often direct ties to rethinking materiality and interdisciplinary action. Micro plastics can be reformed in similar strategy to how 3D-printed objects have been created to impact the world of architecture. The overarching takeaway of the presentation was, for me, to think about the connections between material properties and their construction to the design process and architecture’s wide-reaching implications. .
1. In “Formlessfinder”, the first line states that “form has always tended to operate as a mechanism of control in architecture.” The first thing that comes to my mind is that without form, there is no architecture. Can there be architecture without form?
2. In terms of materiality, certain materials are always used when constructing buildings and homes, mostly because of costs, familiarity, and access to material. However, there are an endless number of materials in the world, and even some being fabricated. When creating buildings, often architects try to create buildings using crazy, new, an innovative materials, but then during the construction process, construction managers often try and change all materials to lower cost. Will cost always lead to the same materials being used? Do you have to be super reach to venture out into new materials?
3. When creating new, organic, or parametric forms, how are materials considered? Is it easy to create these forms with materials such as wood, steel, and concrete? Or is it more likely that new an innovative materials would begin to be explored for the creation of the project?
I think and interesting discussion to have based on the topic of materiality is whether or not architects this day fully understand materials. I think this also relates to last weeks topic on renderings as well. As architects creating renderings, we assign materials to objects and surfaces on a 3D model, and essentially create a look of what we want something to look like. Especially in architecture school, we just assign materials to a surface but often don’t consider the material properties and assemblages while creating renderings. And then when we create models, we do not actually use the materials we say would be used in real life. Task board painted grey can be represented as metal, but task board is nothing compared to metal. What does this say about what we know about materials, and are students even taught to consider these properties?
1. Meredith Miller and Thom Moran write that “Because we are working with a material process that is not often predictable, it would be pointless to draw a desired design outcome in advance. If one were to use a process with no expectations as to the final product, how would it influence the way in which they interpret and continue with the outcome?
2. Modern science, particularly in chemistry, has become so focused on an element’s atomic structure that it has lost touch with how the material the atoms create interact with the environment around it. How could taking a step back and furthering the study of interactions of materials with their environments help designers create more sustainable architecture in which the materials themselves begin to “live” in their environment?
3. “Form has always tended to operate as a mechanism of control in architecture.” We tend to believe that modern technologies have provided us more control over the forms we create, but has its freedom of design actually given us less control? And since architects have tried to control form from the beginning of time, is the next step in architecture to allow the release of our control?
With the onsets of newer and newer technologies, we are able to look deeper into the composition of materials and have the ability to create new materials. While scientists have dedicated multitudes of time into the development of materials that suit certain needs for our current building processes and codes, they have yet to take a step back and research the materials that have already been naturally given to us. Before the inventions of modern day technologies, people were more in tune with the materials they were using in terms of their many qualities and how those qualities best served their needs. For example, Moroccans were able to harness the qualities of mud brick to both heat and cool their buildings because they understood what the material did, not because of what it was composed of on a molecular level. Taking a step back and looking at the properties of an overall material may just be the next jump in the understanding of architecture.
1. In”Post Rock,” Meredith Miller and Tom Moran suggest that architectural material has lost its whimsy. Because of the desire to recreate digital models, people have stopped playing with materials and aesthetics in this way. The authors suggest that many new materials have potential to be used at architectural scale. How can architects be encouraged to use materials and create new ones for specific uses, even when there is no standard for them.
2. In”F*ck Your Tectonics,” Formlessfinder wants to make people reconsider architecture’s relationship with form. Rather than seeking perfect platonic solids, Formlessfinder looks to create unique organic relationships between buildings and their structure. Why have architects always sought for such control over structure and form and what can architects gain by returning to primitive forms and constructions?
3. In”F*ck Your Tectonics,” Formlessfinder speaks about the rigidity of computer models and how it is actually detrimental to architecture. Materials can’t be responsive in the same way that they are in real life. Computers simply can not analyze the way that materials act autonomously. How close can we come to understanding material response through a digital medium?
While material sciences is a great place for extremely responsive and computed material innovation, there are things that architects utilize in material that material sciences cannot offer. Architects are beginning to challenge the precision of engineering and computation by creating their own materials and finding ways to use computation to challenge material accuracy. Architecturally considered material tends to consider aesthetics and formal quality more than materials science does. This is where architects innovate in a different way. Architects often challenge what a material can do and create alternate processes for construction and fabrication.
Gramazio Kohler uses robotic arms at ETH Zurich to reconsider architectural construction. In one project he launched concrete cylinders into calculated stacks to create a new formal take on the wall. The result was quite imprecise but sculptural. He used robotics to calculate where the material would land, but the material took on a form that could not be designed by hand or a computer, only through natural forces. It’s crucial that architects challenge material in a way that goes beyond their conventional uses.
1. How can we further incorporate the use of different materials in an earlier stage of our studies? How can we encourage people to “create and experiment with materials which involve a heterogenous meshwork of components”? How can we interest more people to explore other materials and their properties to use them to our advantage over the more common types of materials?
2. The Plastic Sunrise not only showed a test were it was capable of blending into the environment, but also used resources in that location. On the shore, the polymer sources were items that would wash ashore. Through this example, how can architects use items considered as waste for their architecture? In that case, we can decrease the amount of waste we have by reusing the product for a better purpose and longer period of time.
3. How can we return back to observe “original physical meaning” and “the variability and complexity of real materials” rather than “the uniform behaviour of a philosophically simplified matter”? In other words, how can we take the uniqueness of the four elementary qualities and use it to our advantage as architects?
People now should be more aware of their actions with more resources. The consideration of material selection for buildings or what we as consumers are using will impact how we are existing on the Earth. It is possible to replicate something with other material, which can also be seen in food. In doing so, there are many benefits: learning more detail information (the unique aspect of the material), figuring out how to mimic the original/standard using (through the similarities), and more. Over time, we may use a specific resource for a long period of time. Eventually, it starts to run low and we are not able to get the same quality and quantity as previously. This can apply to common materials to make buildings, like wood. When people first built wooden houses, the wood was much dense due to the duration of its growth prior to being cut. Rather than relying on using the limited amount of wood construct buildings, why not use plastic, something people overly produce. As we learned from last week, there are large collections of plastic floating together in the ocean. If we can reuse/upcycle the plastic, it would benefit the people (new resource) and the animals (that die from eating the plastic).
1) In “Post Rock: Material and Medium”, Miller discusses how the advancement in technology is changing the model making industry. As we have already seen in today’s architectural design process, do you think hand-model making will become obsolete?
2) De Landa states that steel “facilitates the dilution of skills.” Is this a fair statement that steel is so overused and that we should explore more interesting and challenging materials? Or is steel vital to architecture and we should actually explore the extensive possibilities of steel as a material and challenge its capabilities?
3) “Post Rock: Material and Medium” brings about the discussion of physical and visual representations. In architecture, how vital is material representation especially in physical representation? Often times in our studios we use materials such as task board and MDF to represent our concepts, however, how would using a building’s actual materials help better represent our projects?
In today’s society, we as architects can acknowledge the push towards sustainability and maintaining our resources when designing. Material in building designs plays a huge role in this as it now has much bigger effect environmentally as it does ascetically. The advancements in technology and the creation of new materials has allowed us to push the limits of building materials and the use of natural resources. However, despite this, we still find ourselves limited by what certain materials permit and often find ourselves designing based off of what is already created. With the advancement in technology, we should work towards creating new materials based off of design specific needs; materials that are stronger, yet malleable and allow of certain curvatures. Through this, buildings and designs would no longer be limited by existing materials and their properties.
1. How can materiality and form (or lack thereof) create distinguished boundaries or hierarchies in architectural design? Are aforementioned boundaries and organizational strategies necessary in order to define what is architecture?
2. How much importance should be places on the “Uniformity and Variability”‘s so called dynamics of populations and cultures of different regions impact the understanding of the behaviors and qualities of materials and tools?
3. Where is the line crossed between form and formlessness? How and when does a material create form or outline the lack of a form? Is this even possible? Or is everything here on Earth, made up of molecules of some material?
A new recognition and realization is occurring in the world of design about the use of materials and their purposes and uses. In the past buildings were designed only to create shelter, and overtime that purpose as evolved via material usage and structural design to withstand certain effects, such as earth quakes, fire, and storms. But given the current evolution of technology and understanding of material qualities to a chemical and anatomical level, we as designers are now able to reconsider the purpose and use of individual materials, both in terms of using common materials in creative was, and creating entirely new materials to achieve a more sustainable, sensible, and often unique architectural design. At this point in history we are able to have seemingly complete freedom in our choices of materiality in our designs. If we’re not happy with materials already created and available? Invent a new material, one that is stronger, smoother, more lightweight, more sustainable, whatever we may want it to achieve. Our possibilities are endless, and the new age of architectural design is following the innovation of the 21st century.
1. How is Plastiglomerate incorporated in making new designs and does it have the potential to be used in more ways?
2.In “Post Rock: Material + Medium” by Meredith Miller and Thoran, they argue how the use of Studio materials are increasingly becoming more technologically advanced as tech increasing in productivity Seeing that 3D printing is a great way to create more precise models, will buildings also need to be advance or change to keep up with technological advances? If so, how would that change design?
3. Can material increase or decrease the value of design displayed on a house? Can material influence the way people move around the house?
As technology advances and the desire for efficiency increases, it begs me to question whether if most architectural design will be executed by 4D printing. This new way of printing provides a different perspective on how things can literally build themselves without the extra aid. If we applied the same concept to of self-assembly items to large scale building it would change what can and what cannot be done in a given amount of time. In the self-assemble lab, water, heat, light and simple energy inputs are what activate the assembly. If developed, would we be able to activate such a grand process with different type of energy inputs? If so, this may be the solution to lower income housing.
1. In Vibrant Matter, Jane Bennett states, “all agree that agency refers to the intentional choices made by men and women as they take action to realize their goal.” With the conversations of materiality and the various forms in which they are realized, often times that very agency as was mentioned before was the product of some form of chance, that being the utilization of software to develop such novelties. Is it true that the supposed agency is intentional, or is the agency the desire to produce exceptional architecture, as opposed to the incremental decisions that accumulate over time?
2. Meredith Miller and Thom Moran speak at great lengths of the importance of material experimentation, and how architects have the potential to hijack the process of producing a material but also the cultural and economic implications associated with such. In the “Post Rock Material and Medium,” do materials truly possess this existential and philosophical responsibility, or is it more in line with the geometry articulation as opposed to the finish? Can this material be more integrated in design, how can architects overcome the stigma of materials being superficial?
3. “Some people respond to the proliferation of entanglements between human and nonhuman materials with the desire to reinforce the boundary between culture and nature.” This entanglement is much more pejorative than Bennett analyzes it to be. The material articulation over the centuries of architecture and construction have attempted to remedy the connection between the two. But often times these efforts go to waste as replication is done as opposed to supplementation. How can material be this bridge, is there a way to contextualize this relationship in a process that reduces a more successful link?
One of the hindrances of materials that it often has to fight with is this notion of materials being this superficial layering, and or excessive part of the design. Often times in the context of a design project the material is a conversation held until the end, focusing more on the geometry and spatial conditions. This divorce between materiality and its integration into the project (as a more influential component) is a disaster. With the in class discussions of swords and the way they are crafted, one realizes the immense importance of not only geometry (i.e. the shape of the blade) but also the pieces, the materials, the ores, that go into making that sword. It’s interesting how one must look to other domains in order to realize the potential in another, but as far as architectural materiality is concerned, it has more of a significant role to play not only to complete a project, but to make it sing. There is an obligation to integrate this aspect of the design as a means of not only improving aesthetic excellence, but also revitalizing the core of the design in a new language/technique.
1.In “Uniformity and Variabilty”, Manuel de Landa describes how the historical simplification of matter allowed exact sciences to develop, stating that there is now a “new awareness of studying the behavior of matter in its full complexity.” As this awareness becomes more and more important within architecture, how can we change the traditions of the past to ensure architects are able to understand complex materials and use them to the greatest design advantage? Has the mechanization of material structure design caused us to lose part of the knowledge that is developed from ‘doing’?
2.Similarly to my first question, the topic of uniform simplification can also refer to the philosophy of matter, where a 19th century desire for unity begins to condense and blur the lines of different states of matter themselves. De Landa implies that the resurgence of material interest, whether for environmental or parametric design criteria, has enabled a new position on the origin of form and structure, one that allows the material to have a say in the structures we create. Does the philosophical importance not just compound on the need for a greater material understanding to be taught in schools? Both in terms of technical design and theoretical discourse? With this greater understanding could schools, like RPI, create work that is formally incredible, strong theoretically and structurally realistic, instead of just being known for one aspect?
3.In ‘Post Rock,’ Meredith Miller describes the new importance of material design and research, particularly in relation to each other and in relation to image. In this sense it is both the physical architectural image of the work created, but what that image says to the rest of the world. Do architects have a responsibility to be activists with their work? Is architecture inherently political regardless of its physical appearance? As an inherently interdisciplinary field, the line of architecture or art or geology or whatever else is often blurred, can materiality within architecture define what is or isn’t architecture? Should it?
The lecture discussed materiality in a variety of subtopics, ranging from environmental effects, to aesthetic qualities, to the physics and science behind material properties, to material in education, specifically architecture. With new age processes and discoveries, such as Skylar Tibbets work with gravel and clay structures, there is a resurgence in experimenting, testing and ultimately understanding the materials known to humans already and continuing to explore the possibilities of creating new materials. A greater understanding of materiality will bring to attention the inherent potential of the material and allow even seemingly simple design criteria to be interesting, unique and functional, which could in turn create a new discourse within architecture.
1. In the reading “Formless Finder” the author discusses “green design.” In past weeks we have discussed how things like LEED certification and other sustainable building techniques take away from the design because it sets a standard of what the building will be before the design is necessarily complete. Often times materials are imported from all over the world for their sustainable qualities, however is it more responsible to just use the materials we have easy access to rather than shipping things across the world? How would this affect form?
2. In “Vibrant Matter” Jane Bennett questions several patterns of how humans live in the world, like the ideas of recycling, public health, energy. What happens when we look at things not just as resources or commodity? What affect can the idea of an “actant” have in architecture?
3. In “Uniformity and Variability” Manuel De Landa discusses homogenous systems. Do you think that the “gains”, like easier manufacturing, out way the potential loses?
This week we discussed materiality and the impact of the interactions of different components. Deciding on a material based on structure but also on a desired aesthetic is very important in the world of architecture. It’s similar to baking or making anything in the real world, the recipe matters. Of course in baking it’s not as strict as it should be in architecture, in baking if you mess up a recipe it’s just bad food. But in architecture it’s an unstructured building. It’s also important to look at the pros and cons to importing materials. There is always a strong desire to make a sustainable design, keep it eco-friendly. This point was made in the reading “Formless Finder”, that bamboo is a very sustainable resource. However, does the sustainability of the resource out way the environmental costs to ship it all around the world?
1. When it comes to the materiality of a building, some materials may not be very necessary in the building process; in what ways can we take those materials and replace them by using plastics?
2. Over the years the way that we have come to design architecture has shifted from traditional tools to digital tools, Miller and Moran discuss this throughout their article. In what specific ways has our perception of how we design architecture been manipulated by adding digital tools to our process?
3. In comparison to material artisans, architects lack the extensive knowledge they possess about how a material will react and how it can be used to build. Seeing this, as one of our challenges, in what ways can an architect create a design that would make its viewers more attentive to the materiality of the design rather than its form?
The presentation is class focused mostly on the environment and its relation to the way we decided which materials we use. It seem as though we are in a moment in history where we have to be more careful in the way choose our materials, specially keeping in mind how those materials may affect the environment around us. It all comes down to the way in which we decide to start designing. There has to be process and a way or thinking and organizing certain aspects of a design that cannot go unnoticed. Before we even start our design process, we have to keep in mind our spacing, and the orientation of such building in relation to its environment. If these things are not done, the whole design might be affected by lack of knowledge in its materiality. Once all of these prerequisites are well thought out, an architect can finally start the design, knowing that the building wont loose its materiality regardless of the form.
1. In Meredith Miller’s and Thom Moran’s essay, “Post Rock”, they talk about integrating the materiality into the design while still focusing on the drawings instead of leaving them as kind of an afterthought. How does this focus on materiality change the design and how would this be shown in the design?
2. In Jane Bennet’s, “Vibrant Matter”, she speaks on how even non-organic life is still alive. With this being considered as true how does this change our outlook on architecture and it’s design?
3. In Manual De Landa’s reading he speaks on how as architects we tend to only utilize one material in our design process and production. He explains further that this process of picking multiple materials can be an endless one with so many options and combinations to pick and choose from. However, is there a way to navigate this process more efficiently?
When it comes to the materials of our buildings, they tend to become an afterthought for the end of the project. However, what if the opposite was true and we fit our project to the material combinations we intended on using. It feels backwards to think in this way but by working in this way it can also be extremely freeing with what you can do. Also with materials you don’t even have to use them in the way they are supposed to be used or the way they are usually used. Architecture seems more interesting to some when reality our reality is broken. Sometimes the best way to do this can be through materiality to change a person’s perspective. Taking a person’s preconceived notions and breaking them really creates that “whoa” factor. Nobody expects concrete to be light and airy but if a project used it this way, it really adds an extra layer to the project.
1. In the interview with John Szot, the question, “Is there room for conceptual meaning in formless buildings?”, however, is it even possible to have a meaningless building? Given that “formless” is a response to the more traditional approach of tectonics buildings, does that not inherently give it meaning?
2. In Vibrant Matter, Jane Bennet questions how opinions and perspectives can change depending on the framing of a question and a small change in the assumptions of social or cultural standards can drastically change the possibilities of answers. How can is this approach applied to architecture and do you see this being applied within our education?
3. In Uniformity and Variability, the push for uniformity during the 19th century is credited for the lack of variation in today’s building. Do you think that in the interest of those at the time that this was avoidable? Or do you think that it was a natural progression that as architects we were always meant to break away from at a point when it became achievable?
What I found interesting within this topic were the preconceived ideas that we have about a material and its appropriate use. As we press forward with more and more technology available to us I think it will be interesting to see how we can redefine the use of materials. Another interesting notion was that of “stealing” techniques from various fields and reappropriating them to the field of architecture in terms of how to use the material.
1. In F*ck Your Tectonics, Formlessfinder states that true sustainable and formless architecture is to use materials as they are naturally, not shaped and conformed into what we need in shape and size. In my opinion, this is a valid argument but only practical in theory. With this new way of using materials, it seems as though we can only build large open/public spaces such as pavilions, rather than residential housing or commercial buildings. How then can we make this theory one that is practical in our world today with all our housing needs? Also, one of the main reasons for a building is for protection and shelter. With using materials in their natural state, without any formal adjustments like a concrete foundation or nuts and bolts, will we be able to achieve these things in a building, and if so, how?
2. In Uniformity and Variability, De Landa agrees with James Gordon’s view of how materials that are heterogenous, like steel, are quite dangerous in the design field. Due to its multifunctionality and adaptiveness, there seems to be a lack of skill and intelligence in utilizing these materials as they are perceived to be easy to use and a one-size-fits-all mold. Have we gotten too laid back and not as diligent in learning specific skills, due to the “easy to use” qualities of certain materials?
3. In Post Rock, Miller and Moran discuss how looking at the tools we use in this day and age to design, we mainly have digital ones. But they claim that people should feel and “experiment directly”. I think this indeed is essential to our practice, especially at our time as learning students in school. Why are we not exposed to these things whilst we are learning to be professionals, when they are needed skills and information in the work field? How can school architecture programs start to incorporate tangible, real life tools such as samples of different materials?
There was a lot of discussion on the environmental aspects of materials. The natural resources of the world are quickly depleting, and as one of the presenters mentioned, we must not only look at the way in which we use these materials but also the way in which we obtain them. Do we have it flown halfway across the globe or do we find it locally? If it is the former, the ecological footprint of using this “sustainable” material is much greater than using a lesser sustainable but locally found resource. Additionally, we must not try to confine materials but let them be in their natural state, and instead, build upon that.
1. In “Uniformity and Variability,” Manuel De Landa attempts to explain uniformity and manipulation of material. He talks about how materials have a lot of potential in their ability to be manipulated into different forms. However, In modern day architecture, materials are somewhat overlooked and simply pasted as bitmaps and images over renderings. In what ways can architects use materials more dynamically?
2. In “Vibrant Matter,” Jane Bennett’s explains how inorganic objects are actually “alive”. She states that static objects have the ability to self-organize. How can we incorporate this theory into architecture and turn inorganic materials into something that is “alive” or animated?
3. In “Post Rock,” Meredith Miller talks about how new materials are being made to replace other materials that are harder to obtain. In theory, a replicated “fake” material may even look better or more similar to a rendering that the actual intended material. Why don’t more architects just use replicated materials that are easier to obtain and cheaper? What is the point of putting focus on materiality and staying true to materials?
Digital technology has been taking over architectural production and design in general. With the latest technology, creating 3D models and structures has become much easier. However, this power has also made it easy for architects to overlook materiality in reality. Renderings represent projects in a perfect world with perfect materials, but when it comes to real construction, a project can look completely different or even turn out much worse. This is clearly shown in Danil Nagy’s Hi-Fi, commissioned by MoMA PS1. In the rendering the project looked incredible, however, after it was built it seemed like the bricks were very disorganized and the colors were dirty and messy. On the other hand, in a building like the Heydar Aliyev Center, Zaha Hadid Architects must have had complete understanding of materiality, how to construct using such materials (Glass fiber reinforced plastics and glass fiber reinforced concrete) Understanding materials and what it takes to use and build with certain materials makes or breaks architecture.
1. In the article by Manuel De Landa, he explains the usage of steel and how it has become commercialized. Alongside steel, there are other materials in the construction industry that have received the same treatment. How do we continue to work with these same basic materials but in ways that are beyond the industrial formats?
2. Meredith Mill emphasizes in her article about the parameters we have set that relatively constraints us to a box. We rely on these computer programs, but never go beyond these programs. How do we maintain the artistic methodology of trial and error in an age of modern technology?
3. Based on the last question, technology allows us to design and scrap these designs in an aggressively fast format. What is a limit we should set for ourselves when working in the computer and working by hand? Not exclusive to model making, but hand sketching too.
1. If we allow ourselves to commit to just one source of producing working whether it’s the computer programs or hand-sketching, we find ourselves in a box. We can sketch and trash our sketches all day, but we can do it faster and more eco-friendly on the computer. Yet, physically producing models and spaces can give the designer a sense of the environment. No matter what. You can construct anything, but what you feel will be inflicted in real life.
2. In each project we can make thousands of iterations and have the changes be an angle difference. We can commit to our minds that the angle makes a huge difference. But, this way of designing is easy to get lost in. Therefore, computers could never be designers. Why? The computer can continue to make iterations forever, if it’s programmed to. We are the ones to make it stop, we still have the authority.
3. Set a number for iterations. Design a project. Then enhance that design 1 or 3 times. Then, pick one. Or pick the last one. Developing a sense of trust in one self and a sense of confidence to decide when the last iteration will be is key.
1. In”F*ck Your Tectonics” by Formlessfinder, they talk about how while computers are very helpful in creating faster models, they take away the nature of forming a shape or model. In computers you are unable to truly understand and feel what your are designing and building in their opinion. Do you agree with this idea or do you think computers have advanced so much that we can almost create living things through them?
2. In “Vibrant Matter” by Jane Bennett, she talks about how she believes that we should stop assuming that the dead are truly dead since even when gone they can redone in some way. Its like the process of life and how it is always changing and you are never in your end state. Do you also believe that dead forms can be reformed again or is something like the projects in the Queens forever stuck how it is?
3. Going based off of Jane Bennett’s ideas in “Vibrant Matter” with something never being dead do you believe that then when wood is cut down it now has a new life to when it was once living on a tree?
In my opinion I believe that computers have advanced a lot in begin able to render with qualities that show just like in the real world but they are also don’t have the ability to inspire through touch and the 3d sense that nature does. Computers are also unable to create the uniqueness that nature has in the fact that nothing is truly ever the same. I also believe in the idea that nothing is ever truly dead and that we can easily recreate and change something that has become old or broken. the projects in the Queens with a little help can be reformed into something new and exciting. Going with those ideas I do believe that wood in a tree form and wood as paper ins something completely different. There overall forms and textures are completely different and both are able to inspire and create different things.
1. In an interview by John Szot with the founders of Formlessfinder, the founders explain that their way of thinking about architecture always begins with an idea first and uses digital technology to implement that idea second. Do we, as students, rely too heavily on digital technology, especially in the stage of generating ideas?
2. In “Vibrant Matter” by Jane Bennett, the author argues that we need to “devise new procedures, technologies, and regimes of perception that enable us to consult nonhumans more closely.” Since some of these nonhuman creatures cannot be active participants, it will be up to the human participants to interpret the status of the nonhuman public. Should we be worried about humans interpreting only what they want from these processes in order to benefit what they want? If so, how do we combat this?
3. In “Material and Medium,” the authors discuss a material called Post Rock that is made from melted plastic and rock. They talk about this material as being something that can be used in architecture. Should architects be concerned with the discovery and use of new materials?
As mentioned in the student lecture, Jane Bennet’s “Vibrant Matter” argues that the diet we maintain says something about the way we view other living organisms. Those of us who eat meat and organisms with a consciousness view everything in the world as existing to serve humans. They consume for personal gain and at the price of other organisms. This reflects the way we interact with the environment as well. This dynamic needs to change in order to maintain the health of the environment and all organisms. There are many things we can do to design with the environment in mind. One of the ways this can be achieved is through the exploration of materials. For example, post rock is a new material that was created by taking plastics and melting it down and combining it with rocks. This is a solution to a problem we created, the dumping of plastics into the environment and the ocean. The future of the environment and architecture should be closely linked and could involve a discovery of new materials.
1. NYC’s Formlessfinder believes that architects should be more than imagemakers and as stated in the text they are trying to be just that with providing realistic renders and videos of projects before actually building them. At what point, though, is creativity lost with the intent for realism in drawings and 3d models?
2. Uniformity and Variability by Manuel De Landa discusses building materials and how they have been studied to the point of discovering their strength and new uses for them. Are building professionals playing it safe, though, by using the same materials for every project just because they know they have worked in the past? By reusing the same materials, are each of those different projects basically identical in some ways, taking away any form of individuality?
3. Could Post Rock be the new best thing in construction? As stated in the text, it is capable of reflecting cultural and ecological processes of a place, so could this lead to new design techniques and a shift in the very regular use of common materials?
Form should not be predetermined by precedents with overused materials. Materiality has been tested over and over, discovering the most efficient way to construct, based on strength and affordability. Basic construction materials have become almost a constraint on the design of buildings and architecture; creating an almost overused idea of basic construction. Materials like concrete, steel, and glass have been tested and pushed to their limits, but even though they have been proven to be extremely versatile and capable of morphing into different geometries, it seems as though architects have become stuck in the idea of box construction. A large amount of architectural design today has much to do with structural load and how big It could get, so techniques have been overused to the point of becoming the same basic foundation for most new buildings. Even new ideas such as reconfiguring the basic structure of columns as piles of rubble and such are just reimagining old basic structural plans.
1.) John Szot mentions how “form suppresses material and tends to either idealize architectural materials or dematerialize architecture all together” and thus proposes a shift from material to matter. Szot asks for architecture which does not look for symbolism or an identity through its material, but rather simply exists. What subconscious conceptions do we have about what architecture symbolizes and how are they wrong and/or right?
2.) Materiality is often described as a bad thing, as something that is both selfish and wasteful. So what many people do when they have too many material goods is throw them away, and apparently the problem is solved. In Vibrant Matter, Jane Bennett discusses how “a vital materiality can never really be thrown ‘away,’ for it continues its activities even as a discarded or unwanted commodity”. In a world that is striving for environmental consciousness, how can we redefine the value of matter so that we are more aware of its life cycle?
3.) In Uniformity and Variability, De Landa talks about how researchers often focus too specifically when conducting research, on materials specifically. This limited scope does not allow for the full potential of the material or the exploration of new methods or uses. What is the balance of too specific and too broad?
1. In “Vibrant Matter”, Jane Bennett makes the suggestion that has been a consistent topic in this class throughout the past few weeks: the idea that humans view objects as inanimate/dead, however they are actually alive and have a voice in the world. If we actually start seeing objects through this lens [of object oriented ontology] and respecting them as animate entities, is it possible that this could dramatically change the amount of waste we are producing as we learn to respect objects in a new, more thoughtful way?
2. “F*ck Your Tectonics” discusses the topic of form as being the most crucial factor in architecture. While form is certainly important, what would happen if shifted our focus from form to materiality? Instead of designing form and then composing out of materials, what if materials were the first concern and form was designed around this? Would this produce less strict forms within architecture, and better material performance?
3. In “Uniformity and Variability”, Manuel de Landa acknowledges that new philosophies within architecture are starting to think about the origin of form and structure, and rethinking the hierarchical order of these. Should we also be looking beyond material performance + aesthetics, and studying materials and how they interact with the environment? And if we are to allow material to have a say in the structures we create as he suggests, how will this affect sustainable design in the future?
This week’s presentation focused on trends of materials throughout history, while also shifting its focus to future possibilities of materials within the architectural world. While I am personally not very passionate about materials as a topic in architecture, I am intrigued by the work of Skylar Tibbits that was mentioned in the presentation. Brick vs. concrete vs. wood is something I can acknowledge as an important aspect of architecture, however the work of Skylar Tibbits is quite remarkable and I think that all architects can take notes from his use of studying the nature of materials and their ability to create form on their own. Architecture seems to be at a standstill as far as graphics and materials, and while technology is rapidly growing and increasing and becoming better and better, we can use this to our advantage and really stretch the possibilities of our use of materials in our projects and buildings. Also, not only using existing materials in new ways, but is it possible to create new kinds of materials? How can we use material as an expression of architecture? These are all things we need to start seriously considering in our work, and it is making me realize how little we learn about these kinds of things in architecture school. I would even like to see more vertical studios that really experiment with materiality and form and how to two coincide.
1. Over the years, people have made a large push into the architectural spectrum of materiality. This means that the looks, aesthetics, and ornaments on each structure we build today is our first priority. What do you think will happen to architectural world if we are completely consumed by designing a building just on its exterior presence?
2. From reading Jane Bennett’s, Vibrant Matter, I noticed that she pointed out a shift between keeping our environment and materializing our surroundings. If she is correct, what would happen if we keeping pushing our environment away and filling the void of the empty space that was once abundant with life?
3. F*ck Your Tectonics talks about how one of the main factors of architecture is form. Now, since form is, in my opinion, one of the most important factors that go into designing a structure I believe that nothing else should be set above it. This is so, because when designing and creating new and improved structures and technologies you need that skeleton which inevitably helps in the long run in regards to keeping the “form” correct. Do you think that replacing form and materiality could help or cause misconceptions when designing new forms of architecture?
1. In “Formlessfinder” its mentioned how architecture now “lacks intelligent or innovative approaches to form”, because technology is everywhere the use of complex geometry is too. Is it because we’re relying too heavily on technology to lead us to form or we’re letting our emphasis on form down in order to explore a new process?
2. Has technology made us overlook our techniques of craft? Should there be more of a balance between the old and new values of architecture?
3. Should materiality take more of a precedent in the development of a project? Do you think it mostly comes as an afterthought to form?
There truly is not one use for anything in architecture whether it be form or the material. Everything can be perceived and processed differently, through evolution of people and their way of thinking or the evolution of our technologies. When materiality is brought into the process of design, in the forefront of an idea rather than an afterthought, it has a real impact on the project as a whole. With the integration of material and form and the development of technologies it has created a new way to incorporate and fuse the materiality into the design method and result in a fluidity otherwise lacking. With this, new discoveries and outcomes can further the advancement, purpose, and rationality of their materials.
1. In “Uniformity and Variability”, value can be lost in processes. There was a time when materiality aided in developing new methods of building and modernization, what was lost during the processes of advancing/modernizing materials? Is materiality still important when considering the construction of architecture?
2. During the Industrial Revolution, innovations of materiality were made for sustainability and strength in our future projects. These new materials were mass produced to further develop technology and construct new structures that will benefit the gains of society. How did materiality change over time due to the rapid advancement in technology?
3. Over time, society’s materialism have shifted to more contemporary objects. New generations of architects are following mainstream culture of minimalist design and forget the beauty/value of traditional designs. How does materialism work in modern minimal architecture? How have architects grown materialistic towards technology and how does this affect materiality in the future?
When designing with technology, artists sometime forget that there are limitations. There is a difference between reality and what is not real, an object created in 3D and rendering may appear as realistic, however it does not take materiality into consideration. Render materiality is different from the tangible materiality, architects simply cannot construct the physical bodies of 3D models without understanding it at real world scale. Perceptions of materiality have changed over time, people have shifted their interest towards creativity and fictional concepts. The presentation discussed the separation of humans and objects to develop the relationship with consideration of ecology. Does our perceptions change as we are isolated from objects? I believe that people begin to appreciate the value of materiality because our creations cannot come to existence without it. There is a difference to having an intangible copy of the object from physically being able to touch it. By using specific materials for construction, people are able to understand sustainability and in depth properties of materials to utilize at full advantage.
In the formless interview it is states that “form also pushes architecture towards the image. In an age in which architecture is increasingly image based marketed with renderings consumed as spectacle an increasingly indistinguishable from a host of other media, our formless reassert the primacy of physical and spatial experience.” Although the writer is quite critical about how form can cause architecture to become diluted in aesthetic, there is an underlying question on how can we innovate form while maintaining a rigorous concept?
In “Vibrant Matter – A Political Ecology of Things” Jane Bennet states the following: ”The concept of thing-power offers an alternative to the object as a way of encountering the nonhuman world.” It is quite interesting to think of the object outside the relationship it has with the human. Often we create names for “things” based on its usefulness/ relationship to us. But is there a way to think of the object as just the object, and why should we do this?
In “Uniformity and Variability” Manuel De Landa mentions how the study structure of matter had, at one point, been widely seen as a new potential for the material, but over time the study as been more concentrated on the science itself. This in itself is not a drawback rather a means for discovering new and more complex materials. So based on all that we have leaned what is new potential for materials, and how can we apply this to synthesizing new form?
Materiality is quite an interesting study, not just for the field of architecture, but manufacturing as a whole. Studying new ways to manipulate geometry using different ways of material fabrication allows us to find new ways to create solutions to architectural questions. One study that is quite interesting is Zbigniew’s Biological Habitat. In this project a gelatin is placed in a spherical balloon that is rotated. As the gelatin dries it creates a sphere and the balloon is removed. The most interesting part comes in during the drying process; here the gelatin sphere will create indents that act as a self forming structure. This form of self assembly is the future of how we think about creating structure that follows form. Similar work also consists of work by Skylar Tibbits, Haresh Lalvani. Another interesting way of thinking about self assembly is through the digital space with artificial intelligence. Roland Snooks is currently tackling this challenge and taking it a step further by finding new ways of material fabrication in order to translate the digital space to the physical world.
1| John Szot asks Formlessfinder if there is “any room for conceptual meaning in formless buildings?”; this begs the question: How might one’s perception of meaning need to be altered to accept explorations in “matter” as equally if not more valid than explorations in form?
2| Jane Bennet examines a “vital materiality” which is present in the young mind of a child but disappears as time goes on. The animate nature of materials has immense consequences regarding a possible emotional attachment to those materials. If we can reinsert this animate attachment into the minds of adults, could incomprehensible issues like climate change regain their comprehensibility?
3| Meredith Miller and Thom Moran exhibit discovered Anthropocene materials as valid for burgeoning construction. Although the materials are ingrained with waste, what are the environmental implications of using materials such as “plastiglomerates” or “post-rock” in the long term? Is the re-usability of any one of the pieces of the conglomerate completely obliterated?
Entelechy as introduced by Hans Driesch in this presentation acts as the deterministic character bestower as to what is living and what is not, or in other words what exists as mere matter. Although Aristotle’s explanation of the term neatly fits into a dominantly naturalistic view of the world, examining organic chemical processes manifesting in either organic or non-organic entities; Leibniz determines that entelechy is a process of the mind which encompasses all worldly processes. In either case, this particular characteristic is the driving force of progress, that is material progress; growth, decay, or changes of any kind. If we are to examine this characteristic as a life-force, what are the implications of bringing together forms which fundamentally think, such as humans, and those forms within which processes are predetermined, such as inherent friction coefficients within particular rubber structures? How does this thinking or decision making component affect one’s perception of the importance or value of a thing?
1. In Formlessfinder, John Szot states that our newer architectural spaces are challenging in the sense that they lack clear boundaries and legible hierarchies. Is a lack of hierarchies preferable to the boundaries that have existed in the practice the of architecture, and how can it push us to explore different interactions and engagements between architecture and subject?
2. In Uniformity and Variability, Manuel de Landa asserts that we are beginning to ‘recover’ our respect for the inherent potential of all materials, and that we should begin to consider them not as something imposed from the outside but as something that comes from within a form. How will giving materiality this position in an architectural hierarchy affect the outcome of our buildings, and produce different results in our design process?
3. What are some methods to resolve the contested relationship between technology, environment, culture, and history that exists in today’s architectural field?
I found yesterday’s discussion to be very relevant to the work we are developing as students at Rensselaer, and a helpful reminder as we continue with our design education. Materiality can have a much greater purpose than serving as a building characteristic imposed from the outside onto an inert matter, which is how it is treated far too often. Harnessing materiality correctly can mean using it to guide and attract users to a building, and shape the type and magnitude of engagement occupants have with it. It can add a new layer of form to an architectural project, and appeal to almost every human sense. In order to maximize these potentials, material must be considered to have come from within a building; altering its traditional position in the hierarchy of design is essential.
1) In the reading by Miller, a profound and very specific notion arose. This was essentially the analysis of the integration of material study and/or representation earlier on in a project, maybe even in preliminary design phases. It would seem as though this practice is something that is centralized around how architecture i taught. In what way could material integration and/or consideration earlier on shape architectural education?
2) The current state of the earth forces there to be some greater consideration of sustainability, material innovation, and how buildings effect the overall climate of the earth. Particular emphasis, as a result is placed on the architect. Is this fair? In a sense, the weight of the world is literally in the hands of the architect.
3) It would seem as though in the present day the natural usage of materials rid of man intervention and/or manipulation is a dream, an idea, while beautiful, not necessarily grounded in today’s reality. How could one reverse the way current practitioners think? It is my belief that we have the option to educate current artists, practitioners, and architects, but more importantly we shape the future of building material relations.
“In a sense, the fate of the world is literally in the hands of the architect”. This is a statement I made in conjunction to the questions on this weeks readings which were centered around both material use and selection. Many resources used for both energy as well as building in pre and post modern eras are depleting or have an increasing cost. As an extension of this, more than before, the architect is essentially forced to integrate material factors to the design phase of a project; not only explicitly but implicitly as well. The built environment today essentially encompasses the entire world. There are few places one can go in the present day that lack the impact or the interference of the architect. The shape of the world and the way in which the world strives to be perceived in the future is architecturally driven. At the forefront of it all is material consideration, without this there would be no architect…simply great thinkers.
1. According to Manuel De Landa in his article “Uniformity and Variability”, material and its scientific composition or structure, comes to play an important role in the architectural design process. At what extent we should considerate material as the most important element in the design process?
2. In the article “F*ck your tectonics” it is mention that an architectural skill that must be very important in the design process is having a form preestablished. But in some sense, these statement to me is in some way absurd, because the form is given by going through the process of determining the spaces inside of the project. Since the form is very important, should we just follow the mainstream idea of erected rectangles?
3. According to Jane Bennet material should not be considered as a dead object. Instead, we should listen to what is telling as and follow its advice when designing a building. Do you think that material is telling us when to use it in respect to building location and environment?
Form and material play an important role in the design process. However, there are other important things that should be included in this process. For instance, context, a concept that would help to develop the project and guide the design, and functionality. having mine these elements we will be able to incorporate form and material to give some character and an aesthetic appearance. According to some of the readings for these weeks material and form were very important and they should be taken into consideration at the beginning of the design process. In my opinion, I think that form will be giving by understanding and deciding the use of the interior spaces first and also the orientation and environment in which the building will be placed. Even though Form is irrelevant at the beginning of the design process, It can be helpful as a point of departure and then it will change the design as it gets more organized and functional.
1.) In “Post Rock: Material and Medium” by Meredith Miller and Thom Moran, they emphasise the use of different studio materials. With 3D printing technology developing every day, will the craft of hand making a model die?
2.) “F*ck Your Tectonics” explains that form is the most crucial factor in architecture. With 3D printing now more accessible than ever, should form be the main focus, or should we decide to look into the project more and discuss perhaps materiality?
3.) “Uniformity and Variability” by Manuel De Landa talks about the extensive research gone into building materials and how new uses are being found for them. The self-assembly lab at MIT is leading in focusing strictly on materiality. Are designers playing it too safe by using the same materials?
1: In “F*ck Your Tectonics”, by John Szot, he claims that the recession in the 1970’s led to a series of image based-theoretically driven practices. This brings up the question what other types of practices could be influenced by certain world-wide epidemics?
2: In “Vibrant Matter, a Political Ecology of Things”, by Jane Bennet, she starts asking questions meant to influence how we perceive the outside world through our actions. How would we perceive Architecture if we thought of it as a controlled combination of events that end up letting people inhabit and circulate it? Would this way of abstract thinking help?
3: In “Uniformity and Variability”, by Manual De Landa, they say that a crack or facture in a material requires energy to spread. These dislocations trap energy and can come in large quantities. This is the case for the majority of materials, but the fact that a few where these cracks actually strengthens it, brings about an interesting dynamic when it destroys to strengthen. Would this work for architecture?
1. “No matter how sophisticated the modeling software or automated the assembly, a project’s form still exists as an underlying framework, static and rational, entirely circumscribing the processes of design and construction…” how can architects circumvent this downfall of being confined by traditional tectonics and materials? When will these options become economically viable and manufacture-able?
2. Should architects design with materials in mind, or would this process be to restricting? One could argue, without materials in mind one can design anything, yet create nothing? Or are creations physical and immaterial?
3. “Post Rock’s oblique but intentional environmental significance also speaks to the ambitions of our practice to engage contemporary realities…” however true the ambitions may be, is post rock an intentional or ideal creation. Or is it just an unsightly solution to a larger problem?
Architects configure materiality rather than invent a new material. But is it the responsibility of architects to create materials? Or would their time be more well spent focusing entirely on the architecture. Architect Peter Eisenman would argue the latter. He has spent his career creating architectural works that dissolve any materiality a building may have to its architectural structure. This is to ensure that once can index the form of the building, and analyze its tectonics to establish symbolism or iconography. The firm Herzog & de Meuron also have a unique approach to materiality. The Eberswalde Library utilized a facade where Image is material. “The library façade is not a neutral screen onto which the images are projected; rather it becomes a concrete image itself. When looking at the inscribed images, it is impossible to separate the from the support material; and when looking at the material, it is impossible not to perceive the images…they literally soaked the façade with images”-Materiality and Architecture. I am not sure where I stand on the topic of materiality. I see the argument of the architecture, and only the architecture speaking. But introducing materiality, especially new interesting materiality can elevate a project from its physical form to a meta-physical atmosphere.
1) in the formless finder manifesto, it says that “Form suppresses material and tends to either idealize architectural materials or dematerialize architecture altogether”. by that logic, is there no such thing as a non-idealized architecture? considering that all human-created form undergoes some kind of material transformation.
2) The manifesto also says that “form also pushes architecture towards the image”. What is the goal for an image of formlessness?
3) What kind of new design variables open up to the architect when material control is relinquished? what could be the benefits of a radical display of inherent material characteristics?
1. In “The Formlessfinder Manifesto,” John Szot writes proposes a shift from material to matter in response to how material is treated by architecture, whether its idealized or deconstructed. Just how practical is this?
2. In ” Uniformity and Variability,” how did professionals lose the ability to design structures with isotropic materials in the 19th century?
3. In “Post Rock: Material and Medium,” Meredith Miller and Thom Moran write about the fusion of plastic waste and rock and how it can be used as a building material. Is the structural integrity of the material good enough for larger projects?
1. de Landa acknowledges the trend toward efficiency and profit over heterogeneity beginning in the 19th century and the correlated loss of empirical skill and knowledge. Are current technologies positioning us to skip physical skill, being encoded and driven by pute knowledge and executed by autonomous objects? Should we take advantage of the opportunity to work more intimately through direct control of microscale objects?
2. Szot critiques critical regionalism’s use of materials, saying that local materials are reduced to symbols for sustainablility and some kind of green architecture. Given that nature tends to optimize into strong forms through evolution, how can we overcome the recognizable forms these materials take, and wouldn’t that also be shallow and dishonest?
3. The post rock indirectly challenges the notion of industrial products as complete objects by offering an alternative unencumbered by blackbox operations, as well as valuing processes with unknown outcome. Experimentation can result in either the crystallization of new forms, unfunctional objects, or singular solutions. Does post-rock fail if the dominant result is crystallization, or does it fail if crystallization is possible?
Contemporary Design Approaches 
1. In Vibrant Matter, a political ecology of things, Jane Bennett talks about the implications of categorizing matter as being either human or inert. She speaks of how different the world would work toward progress if there was an “absence of the assumption that the only source of vitality in matter is the soul or spirit.” Even further she “defends” innate objects’ ability to influence the world and talks about how contemporary perception of the inhuman world around us shapes the world into an ultimately dystopic view point. How would this philosophy apply to architecture, specifically, does architecture have the ability to help enforce Bennett’s point of view? How would architecture as a profession respond to this discourse and look to adopt a different methodology to the application of materials.
2. Manuel De Landa in Uniformity and Variability speaks about the dilution of the physical and metaphysical world into homogenous classifications. He talks of this phenomenon as a by-product of technological progression and the overall push to classify everything in our environment. As De Landa says, this is not an entirely negative aspect of the contemporary world, “As with the already mentioned homogenizations performed by scientists in their conceptions of matter, there were undoubtedly some gains. The question is, what got lost in the process”. Gains such as ease of manufacturing, ability to break-down the steps into easily trained professions and ease of construction are not lost by De Landa but he does speak of the loss of the “art” of building. In architecture this is readily apparent by the propagation of unitized systems, prefabricated building components and BIM design. Though these are not necessarily negative changes to architecture, what would be the advantage to attempting to steer away from these systems and to go back to artisanal methods of construction? Is the current push toward homogenous systems a result of the current perception of higher education versus education in vocational trade?
3. Meredith Miller and Thom Moran in Post Rock, Material and Medium talk about how the essence of materials is lost by architects and other professionals who rely on digital renderings to examine the interactions of materials. They speak of how the actual process of creation is done in a 3-D model space and there is a reliance on computer algorithms to generate material properties. This phenomenon is seen as negative by Miller and Moran, as technology cannot truly represent the randomness of material and thereby creates a disconnect between those who create something digitally and those who are tasked to take this information to produce a physical object. This can translate to the digital creation of an object made from a material that cannot physically be manipulated in that way. Have architects lost the ability to actually understand materials? Is this a result of the constant evolution of technology or is it due to current education styles? Or is it a result of current construction trends?
LikeLike
This lecture examined how material and form have split from each other in contemporary design. Technology and ever-growing capabilities in the digital sphere are huge factors in shaping this revolution. As a result, this lecture examined schools of thought that see this conceptual divide as both positive and negative results of the technological era. Materiality is not examined to the same degree now as it was in the past, and this leads to, ultimately, a slightly different education about shaping the physical world. Though this does open the door to possibilities of different design approaches and allows for the creation of forms otherwise unheard of, at the end of the day, to be successful in translating from one reality to another is still a well-honed skill that requires a balance in knowledge of the physical world and the “virtual” world. The conclusion of this lecture is that the divide is apparent and in-escapable, but the fundamental disservice to the art and skill of “creation” is to negate one in favor for the other, following the false mentality that “digital technology is the future”.
LikeLike
1. “Load Test is a slab building predicated on the realization that anything can perform structurally. Here, piles of raw matter replace columns. The age-old drama between architecture and gravity is restaged…” As rudimentary as structure can be should we really be using such odd elements to support such structures? Structure is mostly a science, but if Holgers taught me anything it would be that structure can be an art as well in the right hands. So instead of playing around with unpredictable forms with who knows how many unknowns, why not just put a little more thought into structure rather than the basic column and beam aspect.
2. “A crack or fracture needs energy to spread through a piece of material and so any mechanism that takes away energy from the crack will make the material tough. In metals, the mechanism seems to be based on certain defects or imperfections…” First off if we can predict where a material or element will crack or break can we design an imperfection around that area so if or when the material decides to crack the energy will be displaced by the imperfection which will reduce the odds of the material breaking at that specific point?
3. What are the other potentials of Plastiglomerate?
LikeLike
1. Uniformity and Variability, Manuel De Landa, emphasizes how the materiality use became more Relevant after the 19th century, where mineral materials experimentation became routine and hence, unremarkable, to create new innovations and techniques of construction. The new creation of materials such as steel and fiberglass and other composites, as opposed to the simpler and more predictable behaviour of uniform, homogeneous materials such as industrial-quality steel. What kinds of innovations are there in the world that people are researching or developing that’s somehow promote steel use?
2. Post Rock, Meredith Miller, gone over how the post rock doesn’t Invert a new material, but instead, reconfigure, and explore new use of it, for example now with these tendencies of material research that has identified, people use differently the materials. Can be a different way or technique to create a concrete?
3. Going off that last question, such as digital world has exposed to the researching and innovating to form founding like a 3d print concrete or scans of the cast, so can an interdisciplinary architecture firm develop and promote the sustainable concrete design?
LikeLike
As the future continues to present us with new technologies such as the ability to 3D print large scale and Now the materiality integration became more Relevant after the 19th century exploration of steel or other minerals, where mineral materials experimentation became routine and hence, unremarkable, to create new innovations and techniques of construction. It’s interesting how one must look to other domains in order to realize the potential in another, but as far as architectural materiality is concerned, it has more of a significant role to play not only to complete a project, but to make it sing. There is an obligation to integrate this aspect of the design as a means of not only improving aesthetic excellence, but also revitalizing the core of the design in a new language/technique. The new creation of materials such as steel and fiberglass and other composites, as opposed to the simpler and more predictable behaviour of uniform, homogeneous materials such as industrial-quality steel.
LikeLike
1. In “Post Rock: Material and Medium” by Meredith Miller and Thom Moran, they discuss the use of studio materials and how they are becoming more and more technological every year. With technology advancing, there are easier way to make models and more accurate to your 3D digital model. As new, more “green” materials are found and people have more accessibility to them, do you think that model building will drastically change just within a few years? will natural resources start being used more?
2. 3D printing used to be a big foreign concept to people in architecture a decade ago. Now it is accessible to everyone and advancing at a very fast past. Even actual houses are being 3D printed out of special concrete. Do you think they could use plastiglomerate instead of concrete? So that they are technically recycling materials? This would be helping clean the pollutants and trash out of the ocean and also be helping with building homes for people who don’t have them.
3. In “Uniformity and Variability” by Maniel De Landa, it is said that “Steel, especially mild steel, might euphemistically be described as a material that facilitates the dilution of skills…” I feel as though this is not the correct way to look at steel as a material. Yes, it has become a very common building material because it is very easy to get and manufacture. Just because we have explored an building material element and cut it down to a simple science, that does not mean that it is not an important material anymore. There are other ways that we can explore steel and change it’s form and it might have a property that we don’t know about. Are other common building materials, such as wood and glass, considered to also be described as a material that facilitates the dilution of skills just because we have cut it down to a simple science on how to manufacture it?
LikeLike
Materiality of a building used to be very limited centuries ago due to the amount of resources available in that environment and time period. Now there is an unlimited amount of some resources for building and technology is constantly advancing to make resources more accessible and manufacturable for people to get and use. Houses have become 3D printable and this is just the beginning of a technology era. Soon we will find resources that will make it easier for shelters and homes to be built for disaster relief. Steel and other more common building materials shouldn’t be downplayed just because they are common. They should be used to their advantages so that we can combine them and newer technology to make easier and faster to make homes and building that if washed away by natural disasters will not containment the Earth.
LikeLike
Materiality is something that does not effect a building as much anymore. Centuries ago, builders have limited resources by the environment and time of technology that was developed. Now that is not an issue anymore. Resources are more accessible and easier to manufacture. As time goes on and technology continues to advance, it will make it easier to build and manufacture shelters or homes for after disaster relief. Using common building materials like steel and concrete would not make them less important. We have found them to be very stable and durable materials that is why they are used so much. The overall goal clearly would be to find a natural building material to use. Therefore if there is a natural disaster and the buildings are destroyed, the materials will go back into nature and not containment the Earth or water.
LikeLike
1. In Material and Medium, Miller and Thoran introduce a new material called plastiglomerate, which is a hybrid creation made from waste plastics in the ocean ecosystem fused with rock and sand. These plastiglomerates were then enriched and strengthened through the combination of additional materiality to form the material Post Rock. Similarly, architecture is a collaboration between human and geological forces. How can architecture use material like Post Rock to brand itself or give itself a newer identity?
2. Post Rock brings a cultural and ecological territory into a physical and visual medium. Architecture is a physical and visual medium in a cultural and ecological context. What representational values can material choice bring to architecture? Can materiality add or subtract value from a building solely based off of its cultural and social context?
3. John Szot’s Formlessfinder argues that form tends to idealizes materiality or dematerialize architecture altogether. He proposes a shift from materiality to matter, from the symbolic to the actual. An example of architecture’s idealistic branding of materiality is bamboo. Bamboo is a cheap, sustainable material but to be accessible, it must be shipped around the world to reach certain areas. If it has to be shipped around the world to be accessible, which is not a sustainable approach, should it really be marketed as sustainable it is? Should architects focus less on materiality, and just focus on the matter that is right in front of them instead?
LikeLike
This week’s readings discussed the subject of materiality. Material and Medium introduced a new material called plastiglomerate, which is created by human and geological forces. Waste plastics in the ocean fuse with rock and sand to form this new hybrid material. Additional material like polyethene, limestone, and plastics can be added to polyglomerates to form a super-material, called Post Rock. The essay states that Post Rock translates a cultural and ecological territory into a physical and visual medium, making it a “meta-material”. Such material can give architecture a new brand, or identity. Bamboo for example, is branded as a sustainable material, given how cheap it is and how quickly it grows. However, bamboo grows in specific climates and thus would need to be transported, sometimes distances halfway across the world, to make it accessible. This brings into question how sustainability of bamboo’s marketing, because if such energy consumption is needed just to transport it, then is it really better to use it over a more local material choice? This segues into John Szot’s argument of matter over materiality. He states that architects should be focusing on the actual, not the symbolic. In the case of using bamboo as a sustainable material, it might be more environmentally efficient to use a more local material like lumber than to transport bamboo across a vast distance.
LikeLike
1. we see that materiality has seen a large advance over the last few years. How can this contribute to a new type of tectonic in building?
2. What materials are not vital to a building, and how can they be replaced by plastics?
3. When discussing rendering materials, there is a discrepancy is what is the real vs rendered material. How can there be more truth in rendering a true material?
LikeLike
1. In order to escape from form, must we first choose a materiality, if materiality can determine the shape, look, and finish of a building, as is the case with structural system of Load Test by Formless Finder?
2. With the ongoing push towards the disintegration of form, there is a lot of talk about matter and material. We often read that material and matter should be pushed outside its comfort zone to better tackle the pressing matter of formlessness. Does the experimentation of materials, as is described by Manuel De Landa, lead architects to focus most of the thing they seem to be trying to steer clear of most, the topic of form?
3. Plastiglomerates are a good example of a concept we have come back to almost every week since the beginning: can we actually create something new?
LikeLike
Following many theoretical speculations concerning many areas of life, inherent form or lack thereof, seems to flood the minds of humans. Everything, all the way down to the atomic level, has a form of equilibrium. If given the time and space, the form will be discovered with or without intervention. Skylar Tibbits visited RPI and gave a lecture my first of second year at RPI and I remember being so blown away by his discovery of the obvious nature of material and its ability to create form on its own. As is taught in Buddhism, what will be will be, it is up to us to accept it, try our best to understand it, and then come to love it. With this in mind, much of architecture can be treated the same way. There is no need to force a material to do something it is not meant to do. Its simple existence is enough of a miracle to drive us towards the integrated form and design in already holds within its being. New architecture can be created by simple trial and error, attention, and curiosity.
LikeLike
1. “Life is radically different from matter.” In Jane Bennett’s Vibrant Matter life id describes as “organized, active, self-propelled” and free; whereas matter is described as passive or moldable. How can we as humans take our attributes and influence surrounding matter to take on these more active attributes?
2. There is a constant drive to be more considerate to our environment and take an active role on making a sustainable change. However, Jane Bennett writes about the possibility of shifting from environmentalism to materialism. Do you think this shift is a viable strategy? Why or why not? Is it possible for these two stances to come together?
3. Interacting and experimenting with materials has vastly increased our knowledge and our craftsmanship in each material type. Some take the stance that this process has contributed an “immense gain” in knowledge, while others are questioning the overall need to shift these materials from what they once were. Accessing the pros and cons of both stances, which side do you tend to lean more towards.
LikeLike
It’s important to remember how the architecture around us is formed and the materials used to accomplish such. To recognize the research and experiments that have and continue to revolutionize. Materiality is constantly changing which has an effect on architectural design. For example, as many know the Notre Dame of Paris caught on fire this week and now there is a debate as to how to fix the damage and how long it will take (or even if it could be repaired). But one of the key aspects to this repair is the long timber that was used in original construction which is pretty scarce presently. Architects want to maintain the original integrity of the building but there is a possibility of a different material leading the forefront in the repairs.
LikeLike
It’s important to remember how the architecture around us is formed and the materials used to accomplish such. To recognize the research and experiments that have and continue to revolutionize. Materiality is constantly changing which has an effect on architectural design. For example, as many know the Notre Dame in Paris caught on fire this week and now there is a debate as to how to fix the damage and how long it will take (or even if it could be repaired). But one of the key aspects to this repair is the long timber that was used in original construction which is pretty scarce presently. Architects want to maintain the original integrity of the building but there is a possibility of a different material leading the forefront in the repairs.
LikeLike
1. From “F*uck Your Tectonics”, the members of Formlessfinder said in an interview, “We have had arguments with architects who have claimed that program-based architecture is, in a way, already formless, because it isn’t explicitly based on making form, but we usually don’t trust programmatic approaches”. I agree with the perspective of Formlessfinder, just because a building is not designed with form in mind, does not mean that you do not give it a form. Practically all buildings are designed to have program and therefore all buildings have form. Bataille attacked architecture but praised space for being formless. Programming space is how an architect controls and gives form to space. Can a real built project ever be formless? Under what circumstances could architects make a formless building? Would it be a building that doesn’t define its borders or would that still require a formal logic?
2. De Landa often speaks about the contrast between philosophers and metallurgists. Architecture seems to occupy both positions as the maker and the thinker. To what degrees should we value these two ways of approaching design?
3. Is there an impetus for architecture as a profession to shift to material driven design? Most projects are not driven by material, they are driven by the client/society and economy. What would it take to shift the paradigm of architectural practice to a material design process as the foundation of a project?
LikeLike
Michelangelo famously said “Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it”. Materiality was once important to design. Now we seem to have traded it for sterile environments and replaced liveliness with digital renders. This week’s readings and lectures demonstrated material design as a reaction to modern architecture and design. Between the works of Formessfinder, Skylar Tibbits’ and Gramazio Kohler’s “Rock Print”, and the studies into plastiglomerate, materiality is in the position where it has to be forced back into our designer mindset. Design is most successful when it can find a place in our material world. We need to enforce materiality as a primary design motivator if architecture is going to have any lasting effects on the world.
LikeLike
1. In their interview, Formlessfinder suggests constructing with materials that have been brought to the site. how do we deal with the waste products and how can we predict the cost of the building?
2. How can we use our understanding of the dynamic motion of matter
in aggregates to better improve our designs for human aggregates like crowds and public spaces?
3. These essays seem to be hailing back to an era where the control of matter and its thing-power was in the hands of the craftsmen and blacksmiths. Is it possible for the current postdigital era to return to such a state now with the advances in 3D printing and manufacturing that are more accurately reproducing digital models?
LikeLike
Material science and technology are advancing at a never before seen pace in human history. The level of control we have now is exponentially getting closer to being able to be labeled as alchemic transmutation and witchcraft. However, our pursuit of more and more control over these materials in order to replicate the digital models that we construct requires a serious meditation. Sometimes, it may be better to let go of the total control we like to impose onto our designs in the shape of the form and allow the materials to act on their own. They will regardless as is evident in the difficulty in getting materials to conform to shapes that they prefer not to take. As with the craftsman of old, we must reconnect with the materials on a more intimate level and allow them to speak for themselves when they want to be heard instead of suppressing them.
LikeLike
1.) In the Miller + Moran reading on Post Rock, they talk about the idea of the black box. Where the input is economics, taste, and culture and the output is a standardized process and product set. Recycling material and sustainability have become buzz words in our field, but how do you feel the idea of the black box really applies to architecture outside of the frame of reference? Do the architects themselves act as black boxes?
2.) Material in architecture is a constant moving set of ideas and principles. Locally sourced, sustainable, beautiful, are all ways to describe materials and architects are in charge of using these describing words to make architecture. Too much and the building becomes too ornamented and complicated to celebrate every interface between materials, but not enough and you lack the dynamic range for flexibility. How many materials makes up a good building? Do they need to be heterogeneous for a building to be successful?
3.) Material has often been our key in the fight against the forces of architecture. be it weather, gravity, or sun we have to respond in a sensible way to all conditions surrounding. In the formless finder interview they propose and instillation that uses gravity not to oppose, but to work along side. They allow the forms to fall and move where they’d like creating unique and initially formless spaces. How can architecture better take into consideration the range of material performance? Does it always have to seal or oppose?
LikeLike
1. In Uniformity and Variability, it talks about the change within materials. How can the change within materials affect our designs?
2. In F*ck Your Tectonics, it states that form is the main factor of architecture. What would architecture look like if we put material as the main factor of architecture?
3. From “Vibrant Matter” by Jane Bennett, she states that humans see matter as dead but that objects are actually alive and should have a voice. If we viewed matter as alive, how would our relationship with matter change? How would we treat them differently? Would we produce as much waste as we do today?
LikeLike
Do architects fully understand the use of materials? We think of the form of the building first, then apply the material, but what if we chose the material first then based the form off of that? The way how we view objects other than humans affects how we treat them, and maybe trying to change our perspective will create a different relationship with them. How much do we actually know about objects? We treat certain objects better than others, take advantage of some objects, and damage objects through other objects. Maybe viewing objects as actual communicators, such as materials, will help us take care of our planet better.
LikeLike
1. In “Uniformity and Variability, Manuel De Landa expresses that the scientific structures of material is a very important factor when it comes to what elements architects decide to use. Do you agree with De Landa that we have to do that in depth with materiality? Should the architecture curriculum in school include a require science class that will educate students?
2. Do you agree with Jane Bennett when she says we should not see materials as dead? Is there an advantage in seeing material as a conscious item?
3. The digital tool helps the architect envision the project with the materials that they are trying to use. But this rendering does not give the real effect how each material will interact with the environment and each other. Do you think that the digital age will one day truly represent the material in its full form?
LikeLike
We are living in an age where we can use technology to 3D model out anything we want. We do not necessarily have to think about how this entity, that are just pixels on the screen, would act in the real life. It could be a skyscraper that is made out of ice and the program would no disagree. Is there truly a way we can translate the digital material into the real world? Or should would it be easier to build around the material instead? Should the material be the first step in designing a building?
LikeLike
1–In “Post Rock Material & Medium”, the discussion lands on the use of materials. Rather than viewing materials ephemerally or by their properties, we should be viewing them with an economical eye. How can we use materials in the wisest ways possible; for building purposes, environmental purposes and economical purposes. Can we somehow find a middle to suit all these needs? The discovery of plastiglomerates could be a possible solution. This post rock material is the combination of plastic waste (a human byproduct) and dead remains of marine life. Thus a conglomerate of various materials that can act as a concrete of sorts. This new material would help reduce the plastic waste in the ocean, and create a new solution for material building. Yet the biggest question that comes from this discovery is, would it be more economically to fish this stuff out of the ocean and implement it in architecture or to just keep using the materials we are familiar with and know how to use?
2– Building off the previous question, Miller also describes how in the practice of architecture we usually assign materials to an end design. Instead of stating materials before design, we try to instead “fit” materials and qualities of said materials to the finished product. What if instead we as designers started out by picking materials and designing based on that instead. How would this influence the architecture? Would it kill the design, be more or less economical or would it open up a new style of design? How would this change architecture from an economic standpoint? and to that point if one was to create their design using plastiglomerates how would we design with this material for the future? How will it look in 10,20,100 years?
3–In “Vibrant Matter” Bennett makes the claim that non organic life is still very much living. That things we consider dead are still able to organize themselves and that since they are still living they should be given a voice. This goes back to the article “Powers of the Hoard” where the discussion of giving objects and things agency was brought up. That by considering these things to be living, to have agency not just to be subjects and the idea that they hold their own power gives greater meaning to objects we consider inanimate. That these things are bigger than just objects/ materials and that we should consider them in high respect. How can this logic be applied to the materiality of things? Were can we see their power exhibited? Does it come from the material properties or from someplace else entirely?
LikeLike
In today’s world we need to concern ourselves with not only the nature of materials, but how we are using them as well. Many of the things we use in buildings we use because of the history of the materials, that they have always been used so they shall always be used. For good reason as well, we know that the materials we use are reliable and functional and have served us as architects ad inhabitants well. Yet how would we have learned these things if someone did not decided to use stone, wood, steel etc? We must look into the future with a more ecological and economical standpoint regarding material use. How can we are architects either reuse materials/ recycle old buildings or come up with a new way of building that does not require us to use up our resources? to keep the ecology sound for the future rather than just thinking about the now and what materials would look good slapped onto a finished design? Instead we must consider the materials we wish to use before endeavoring on a design and design economically. What material could be salvaged? What can we spare using on this project so that it may used on a different one? We must also ask ourselves if the material we are using is the best choice economically for he location and type of building. Another take away is the en devour to find NEW materials– like plastiglomerates. These hybrid materials a result of human carelessness and the life cycle of marine animals, creates a new idea about materials. We have this “new rock” that is rock and is not really rock at all, all at the same time. This is just one example of new material that we have scraped out of the ocean, where else could we discover materials if we just bothered to look? This may be a more economical choice, to scope out these new conglomerates of the natural and artificial kind and see what they have to offer. We could be looking at the new brick or concrete that is a byproduct of how we are living anyway. To find a way to use this waste and create something new would be a call to action to rescue the environment while still being able to carry out the duties of being material scientists, material lovers and builders of beautiful things.
LikeLike
1. John Szot suggests in “F*ck Your Tectonics” that, in this age of incredible digital advancement, the field of architecture and those who inhabit its forms are still obsessed with a project’s form as framework. How might we as architectural thinkers and designers counter this claim that our new freedoms are mere illusions to old ideas?
2. Jane Bennett’s “Vibrant Matter” theorizes that we foolishly see matter as dead or “thoroughly instrumentalized.” How might this relate to object oriented ontology and/or the conception of objects having inherent value? Where might we see this disconnect in wasted matter, and how might we change the collective habit?
3. “Uniformity and Variability” hints at the disconnect between designers and builders today through a historical lens of the very involved blacksmiths who at once studied the properties of material and designed their products first-hand. How might the modern architect, almost always with the power of the computer and often without involved construction apprenticeship knowledge, navigate the two and bridge the gap between the inherently connected project stages and professional practices?
LikeLike
Today’s group presentations were heavily focused on materiality, specifically in historical trends and its possible new frontiers. There was heavy emphasis on our environmental footprint, and how we might reconsider current trends and materials to better reflect dire trends in environment. The processes of and advances in 3D printing crossed over several presentations, with often direct ties to rethinking materiality and interdisciplinary action. Micro plastics can be reformed in similar strategy to how 3D-printed objects have been created to impact the world of architecture. The overarching takeaway of the presentation was, for me, to think about the connections between material properties and their construction to the design process and architecture’s wide-reaching implications.
LikeLike
Today’s group presentations were heavily focused on materiality, specifically in historical trends and its possible new frontiers. There was heavy emphasis on our environmental footprint, and how we might reconsider current trends and materials to better reflect dire trends in environment. The processes of and advances in 3D printing crossed over several presentations, with often direct ties to rethinking materiality and interdisciplinary action. Micro plastics can be reformed in similar strategy to how 3D-printed objects have been created to impact the world of architecture. The overarching takeaway of the presentation was, for me, to think about the connections between material properties and their construction to the design process and architecture’s wide-reaching implications. .
LikeLike
1. In “Formlessfinder”, the first line states that “form has always tended to operate as a mechanism of control in architecture.” The first thing that comes to my mind is that without form, there is no architecture. Can there be architecture without form?
2. In terms of materiality, certain materials are always used when constructing buildings and homes, mostly because of costs, familiarity, and access to material. However, there are an endless number of materials in the world, and even some being fabricated. When creating buildings, often architects try to create buildings using crazy, new, an innovative materials, but then during the construction process, construction managers often try and change all materials to lower cost. Will cost always lead to the same materials being used? Do you have to be super reach to venture out into new materials?
3. When creating new, organic, or parametric forms, how are materials considered? Is it easy to create these forms with materials such as wood, steel, and concrete? Or is it more likely that new an innovative materials would begin to be explored for the creation of the project?
LikeLike
I think and interesting discussion to have based on the topic of materiality is whether or not architects this day fully understand materials. I think this also relates to last weeks topic on renderings as well. As architects creating renderings, we assign materials to objects and surfaces on a 3D model, and essentially create a look of what we want something to look like. Especially in architecture school, we just assign materials to a surface but often don’t consider the material properties and assemblages while creating renderings. And then when we create models, we do not actually use the materials we say would be used in real life. Task board painted grey can be represented as metal, but task board is nothing compared to metal. What does this say about what we know about materials, and are students even taught to consider these properties?
LikeLike
1. Meredith Miller and Thom Moran write that “Because we are working with a material process that is not often predictable, it would be pointless to draw a desired design outcome in advance. If one were to use a process with no expectations as to the final product, how would it influence the way in which they interpret and continue with the outcome?
2. Modern science, particularly in chemistry, has become so focused on an element’s atomic structure that it has lost touch with how the material the atoms create interact with the environment around it. How could taking a step back and furthering the study of interactions of materials with their environments help designers create more sustainable architecture in which the materials themselves begin to “live” in their environment?
3. “Form has always tended to operate as a mechanism of control in architecture.” We tend to believe that modern technologies have provided us more control over the forms we create, but has its freedom of design actually given us less control? And since architects have tried to control form from the beginning of time, is the next step in architecture to allow the release of our control?
LikeLike
With the onsets of newer and newer technologies, we are able to look deeper into the composition of materials and have the ability to create new materials. While scientists have dedicated multitudes of time into the development of materials that suit certain needs for our current building processes and codes, they have yet to take a step back and research the materials that have already been naturally given to us. Before the inventions of modern day technologies, people were more in tune with the materials they were using in terms of their many qualities and how those qualities best served their needs. For example, Moroccans were able to harness the qualities of mud brick to both heat and cool their buildings because they understood what the material did, not because of what it was composed of on a molecular level. Taking a step back and looking at the properties of an overall material may just be the next jump in the understanding of architecture.
LikeLike
1. In”Post Rock,” Meredith Miller and Tom Moran suggest that architectural material has lost its whimsy. Because of the desire to recreate digital models, people have stopped playing with materials and aesthetics in this way. The authors suggest that many new materials have potential to be used at architectural scale. How can architects be encouraged to use materials and create new ones for specific uses, even when there is no standard for them.
2. In”F*ck Your Tectonics,” Formlessfinder wants to make people reconsider architecture’s relationship with form. Rather than seeking perfect platonic solids, Formlessfinder looks to create unique organic relationships between buildings and their structure. Why have architects always sought for such control over structure and form and what can architects gain by returning to primitive forms and constructions?
3. In”F*ck Your Tectonics,” Formlessfinder speaks about the rigidity of computer models and how it is actually detrimental to architecture. Materials can’t be responsive in the same way that they are in real life. Computers simply can not analyze the way that materials act autonomously. How close can we come to understanding material response through a digital medium?
LikeLike
While material sciences is a great place for extremely responsive and computed material innovation, there are things that architects utilize in material that material sciences cannot offer. Architects are beginning to challenge the precision of engineering and computation by creating their own materials and finding ways to use computation to challenge material accuracy. Architecturally considered material tends to consider aesthetics and formal quality more than materials science does. This is where architects innovate in a different way. Architects often challenge what a material can do and create alternate processes for construction and fabrication.
Gramazio Kohler uses robotic arms at ETH Zurich to reconsider architectural construction. In one project he launched concrete cylinders into calculated stacks to create a new formal take on the wall. The result was quite imprecise but sculptural. He used robotics to calculate where the material would land, but the material took on a form that could not be designed by hand or a computer, only through natural forces. It’s crucial that architects challenge material in a way that goes beyond their conventional uses.
LikeLike
1. How can we further incorporate the use of different materials in an earlier stage of our studies? How can we encourage people to “create and experiment with materials which involve a heterogenous meshwork of components”? How can we interest more people to explore other materials and their properties to use them to our advantage over the more common types of materials?
2. The Plastic Sunrise not only showed a test were it was capable of blending into the environment, but also used resources in that location. On the shore, the polymer sources were items that would wash ashore. Through this example, how can architects use items considered as waste for their architecture? In that case, we can decrease the amount of waste we have by reusing the product for a better purpose and longer period of time.
3. How can we return back to observe “original physical meaning” and “the variability and complexity of real materials” rather than “the uniform behaviour of a philosophically simplified matter”? In other words, how can we take the uniqueness of the four elementary qualities and use it to our advantage as architects?
LikeLike
People now should be more aware of their actions with more resources. The consideration of material selection for buildings or what we as consumers are using will impact how we are existing on the Earth. It is possible to replicate something with other material, which can also be seen in food. In doing so, there are many benefits: learning more detail information (the unique aspect of the material), figuring out how to mimic the original/standard using (through the similarities), and more. Over time, we may use a specific resource for a long period of time. Eventually, it starts to run low and we are not able to get the same quality and quantity as previously. This can apply to common materials to make buildings, like wood. When people first built wooden houses, the wood was much dense due to the duration of its growth prior to being cut. Rather than relying on using the limited amount of wood construct buildings, why not use plastic, something people overly produce. As we learned from last week, there are large collections of plastic floating together in the ocean. If we can reuse/upcycle the plastic, it would benefit the people (new resource) and the animals (that die from eating the plastic).
LikeLike
1) In “Post Rock: Material and Medium”, Miller discusses how the advancement in technology is changing the model making industry. As we have already seen in today’s architectural design process, do you think hand-model making will become obsolete?
2) De Landa states that steel “facilitates the dilution of skills.” Is this a fair statement that steel is so overused and that we should explore more interesting and challenging materials? Or is steel vital to architecture and we should actually explore the extensive possibilities of steel as a material and challenge its capabilities?
3) “Post Rock: Material and Medium” brings about the discussion of physical and visual representations. In architecture, how vital is material representation especially in physical representation? Often times in our studios we use materials such as task board and MDF to represent our concepts, however, how would using a building’s actual materials help better represent our projects?
LikeLike
In today’s society, we as architects can acknowledge the push towards sustainability and maintaining our resources when designing. Material in building designs plays a huge role in this as it now has much bigger effect environmentally as it does ascetically. The advancements in technology and the creation of new materials has allowed us to push the limits of building materials and the use of natural resources. However, despite this, we still find ourselves limited by what certain materials permit and often find ourselves designing based off of what is already created. With the advancement in technology, we should work towards creating new materials based off of design specific needs; materials that are stronger, yet malleable and allow of certain curvatures. Through this, buildings and designs would no longer be limited by existing materials and their properties.
LikeLike
1. How can materiality and form (or lack thereof) create distinguished boundaries or hierarchies in architectural design? Are aforementioned boundaries and organizational strategies necessary in order to define what is architecture?
2. How much importance should be places on the “Uniformity and Variability”‘s so called dynamics of populations and cultures of different regions impact the understanding of the behaviors and qualities of materials and tools?
3. Where is the line crossed between form and formlessness? How and when does a material create form or outline the lack of a form? Is this even possible? Or is everything here on Earth, made up of molecules of some material?
LikeLike
A new recognition and realization is occurring in the world of design about the use of materials and their purposes and uses. In the past buildings were designed only to create shelter, and overtime that purpose as evolved via material usage and structural design to withstand certain effects, such as earth quakes, fire, and storms. But given the current evolution of technology and understanding of material qualities to a chemical and anatomical level, we as designers are now able to reconsider the purpose and use of individual materials, both in terms of using common materials in creative was, and creating entirely new materials to achieve a more sustainable, sensible, and often unique architectural design. At this point in history we are able to have seemingly complete freedom in our choices of materiality in our designs. If we’re not happy with materials already created and available? Invent a new material, one that is stronger, smoother, more lightweight, more sustainable, whatever we may want it to achieve. Our possibilities are endless, and the new age of architectural design is following the innovation of the 21st century.
LikeLike
1. How is Plastiglomerate incorporated in making new designs and does it have the potential to be used in more ways?
2.In “Post Rock: Material + Medium” by Meredith Miller and Thoran, they argue how the use of Studio materials are increasingly becoming more technologically advanced as tech increasing in productivity Seeing that 3D printing is a great way to create more precise models, will buildings also need to be advance or change to keep up with technological advances? If so, how would that change design?
3. Can material increase or decrease the value of design displayed on a house? Can material influence the way people move around the house?
LikeLike
As technology advances and the desire for efficiency increases, it begs me to question whether if most architectural design will be executed by 4D printing. This new way of printing provides a different perspective on how things can literally build themselves without the extra aid. If we applied the same concept to of self-assembly items to large scale building it would change what can and what cannot be done in a given amount of time. In the self-assemble lab, water, heat, light and simple energy inputs are what activate the assembly. If developed, would we be able to activate such a grand process with different type of energy inputs? If so, this may be the solution to lower income housing.
LikeLike
1. In Vibrant Matter, Jane Bennett states, “all agree that agency refers to the intentional choices made by men and women as they take action to realize their goal.” With the conversations of materiality and the various forms in which they are realized, often times that very agency as was mentioned before was the product of some form of chance, that being the utilization of software to develop such novelties. Is it true that the supposed agency is intentional, or is the agency the desire to produce exceptional architecture, as opposed to the incremental decisions that accumulate over time?
2. Meredith Miller and Thom Moran speak at great lengths of the importance of material experimentation, and how architects have the potential to hijack the process of producing a material but also the cultural and economic implications associated with such. In the “Post Rock Material and Medium,” do materials truly possess this existential and philosophical responsibility, or is it more in line with the geometry articulation as opposed to the finish? Can this material be more integrated in design, how can architects overcome the stigma of materials being superficial?
3. “Some people respond to the proliferation of entanglements between human and nonhuman materials with the desire to reinforce the boundary between culture and nature.” This entanglement is much more pejorative than Bennett analyzes it to be. The material articulation over the centuries of architecture and construction have attempted to remedy the connection between the two. But often times these efforts go to waste as replication is done as opposed to supplementation. How can material be this bridge, is there a way to contextualize this relationship in a process that reduces a more successful link?
LikeLike
One of the hindrances of materials that it often has to fight with is this notion of materials being this superficial layering, and or excessive part of the design. Often times in the context of a design project the material is a conversation held until the end, focusing more on the geometry and spatial conditions. This divorce between materiality and its integration into the project (as a more influential component) is a disaster. With the in class discussions of swords and the way they are crafted, one realizes the immense importance of not only geometry (i.e. the shape of the blade) but also the pieces, the materials, the ores, that go into making that sword. It’s interesting how one must look to other domains in order to realize the potential in another, but as far as architectural materiality is concerned, it has more of a significant role to play not only to complete a project, but to make it sing. There is an obligation to integrate this aspect of the design as a means of not only improving aesthetic excellence, but also revitalizing the core of the design in a new language/technique.
LikeLike
1.In “Uniformity and Variabilty”, Manuel de Landa describes how the historical simplification of matter allowed exact sciences to develop, stating that there is now a “new awareness of studying the behavior of matter in its full complexity.” As this awareness becomes more and more important within architecture, how can we change the traditions of the past to ensure architects are able to understand complex materials and use them to the greatest design advantage? Has the mechanization of material structure design caused us to lose part of the knowledge that is developed from ‘doing’?
2.Similarly to my first question, the topic of uniform simplification can also refer to the philosophy of matter, where a 19th century desire for unity begins to condense and blur the lines of different states of matter themselves. De Landa implies that the resurgence of material interest, whether for environmental or parametric design criteria, has enabled a new position on the origin of form and structure, one that allows the material to have a say in the structures we create. Does the philosophical importance not just compound on the need for a greater material understanding to be taught in schools? Both in terms of technical design and theoretical discourse? With this greater understanding could schools, like RPI, create work that is formally incredible, strong theoretically and structurally realistic, instead of just being known for one aspect?
3.In ‘Post Rock,’ Meredith Miller describes the new importance of material design and research, particularly in relation to each other and in relation to image. In this sense it is both the physical architectural image of the work created, but what that image says to the rest of the world. Do architects have a responsibility to be activists with their work? Is architecture inherently political regardless of its physical appearance? As an inherently interdisciplinary field, the line of architecture or art or geology or whatever else is often blurred, can materiality within architecture define what is or isn’t architecture? Should it?
LikeLike
The lecture discussed materiality in a variety of subtopics, ranging from environmental effects, to aesthetic qualities, to the physics and science behind material properties, to material in education, specifically architecture. With new age processes and discoveries, such as Skylar Tibbets work with gravel and clay structures, there is a resurgence in experimenting, testing and ultimately understanding the materials known to humans already and continuing to explore the possibilities of creating new materials. A greater understanding of materiality will bring to attention the inherent potential of the material and allow even seemingly simple design criteria to be interesting, unique and functional, which could in turn create a new discourse within architecture.
LikeLike
1. In the reading “Formless Finder” the author discusses “green design.” In past weeks we have discussed how things like LEED certification and other sustainable building techniques take away from the design because it sets a standard of what the building will be before the design is necessarily complete. Often times materials are imported from all over the world for their sustainable qualities, however is it more responsible to just use the materials we have easy access to rather than shipping things across the world? How would this affect form?
2. In “Vibrant Matter” Jane Bennett questions several patterns of how humans live in the world, like the ideas of recycling, public health, energy. What happens when we look at things not just as resources or commodity? What affect can the idea of an “actant” have in architecture?
3. In “Uniformity and Variability” Manuel De Landa discusses homogenous systems. Do you think that the “gains”, like easier manufacturing, out way the potential loses?
LikeLike
This week we discussed materiality and the impact of the interactions of different components. Deciding on a material based on structure but also on a desired aesthetic is very important in the world of architecture. It’s similar to baking or making anything in the real world, the recipe matters. Of course in baking it’s not as strict as it should be in architecture, in baking if you mess up a recipe it’s just bad food. But in architecture it’s an unstructured building. It’s also important to look at the pros and cons to importing materials. There is always a strong desire to make a sustainable design, keep it eco-friendly. This point was made in the reading “Formless Finder”, that bamboo is a very sustainable resource. However, does the sustainability of the resource out way the environmental costs to ship it all around the world?
LikeLike
1. When it comes to the materiality of a building, some materials may not be very necessary in the building process; in what ways can we take those materials and replace them by using plastics?
2. Over the years the way that we have come to design architecture has shifted from traditional tools to digital tools, Miller and Moran discuss this throughout their article. In what specific ways has our perception of how we design architecture been manipulated by adding digital tools to our process?
3. In comparison to material artisans, architects lack the extensive knowledge they possess about how a material will react and how it can be used to build. Seeing this, as one of our challenges, in what ways can an architect create a design that would make its viewers more attentive to the materiality of the design rather than its form?
LikeLike
The presentation is class focused mostly on the environment and its relation to the way we decided which materials we use. It seem as though we are in a moment in history where we have to be more careful in the way choose our materials, specially keeping in mind how those materials may affect the environment around us. It all comes down to the way in which we decide to start designing. There has to be process and a way or thinking and organizing certain aspects of a design that cannot go unnoticed. Before we even start our design process, we have to keep in mind our spacing, and the orientation of such building in relation to its environment. If these things are not done, the whole design might be affected by lack of knowledge in its materiality. Once all of these prerequisites are well thought out, an architect can finally start the design, knowing that the building wont loose its materiality regardless of the form.
LikeLike
1. In Meredith Miller’s and Thom Moran’s essay, “Post Rock”, they talk about integrating the materiality into the design while still focusing on the drawings instead of leaving them as kind of an afterthought. How does this focus on materiality change the design and how would this be shown in the design?
2. In Jane Bennet’s, “Vibrant Matter”, she speaks on how even non-organic life is still alive. With this being considered as true how does this change our outlook on architecture and it’s design?
3. In Manual De Landa’s reading he speaks on how as architects we tend to only utilize one material in our design process and production. He explains further that this process of picking multiple materials can be an endless one with so many options and combinations to pick and choose from. However, is there a way to navigate this process more efficiently?
LikeLike
When it comes to the materials of our buildings, they tend to become an afterthought for the end of the project. However, what if the opposite was true and we fit our project to the material combinations we intended on using. It feels backwards to think in this way but by working in this way it can also be extremely freeing with what you can do. Also with materials you don’t even have to use them in the way they are supposed to be used or the way they are usually used. Architecture seems more interesting to some when reality our reality is broken. Sometimes the best way to do this can be through materiality to change a person’s perspective. Taking a person’s preconceived notions and breaking them really creates that “whoa” factor. Nobody expects concrete to be light and airy but if a project used it this way, it really adds an extra layer to the project.
LikeLike
1. In the interview with John Szot, the question, “Is there room for conceptual meaning in formless buildings?”, however, is it even possible to have a meaningless building? Given that “formless” is a response to the more traditional approach of tectonics buildings, does that not inherently give it meaning?
2. In Vibrant Matter, Jane Bennet questions how opinions and perspectives can change depending on the framing of a question and a small change in the assumptions of social or cultural standards can drastically change the possibilities of answers. How can is this approach applied to architecture and do you see this being applied within our education?
3. In Uniformity and Variability, the push for uniformity during the 19th century is credited for the lack of variation in today’s building. Do you think that in the interest of those at the time that this was avoidable? Or do you think that it was a natural progression that as architects we were always meant to break away from at a point when it became achievable?
LikeLike
What I found interesting within this topic were the preconceived ideas that we have about a material and its appropriate use. As we press forward with more and more technology available to us I think it will be interesting to see how we can redefine the use of materials. Another interesting notion was that of “stealing” techniques from various fields and reappropriating them to the field of architecture in terms of how to use the material.
LikeLike
1. In F*ck Your Tectonics, Formlessfinder states that true sustainable and formless architecture is to use materials as they are naturally, not shaped and conformed into what we need in shape and size. In my opinion, this is a valid argument but only practical in theory. With this new way of using materials, it seems as though we can only build large open/public spaces such as pavilions, rather than residential housing or commercial buildings. How then can we make this theory one that is practical in our world today with all our housing needs? Also, one of the main reasons for a building is for protection and shelter. With using materials in their natural state, without any formal adjustments like a concrete foundation or nuts and bolts, will we be able to achieve these things in a building, and if so, how?
2. In Uniformity and Variability, De Landa agrees with James Gordon’s view of how materials that are heterogenous, like steel, are quite dangerous in the design field. Due to its multifunctionality and adaptiveness, there seems to be a lack of skill and intelligence in utilizing these materials as they are perceived to be easy to use and a one-size-fits-all mold. Have we gotten too laid back and not as diligent in learning specific skills, due to the “easy to use” qualities of certain materials?
3. In Post Rock, Miller and Moran discuss how looking at the tools we use in this day and age to design, we mainly have digital ones. But they claim that people should feel and “experiment directly”. I think this indeed is essential to our practice, especially at our time as learning students in school. Why are we not exposed to these things whilst we are learning to be professionals, when they are needed skills and information in the work field? How can school architecture programs start to incorporate tangible, real life tools such as samples of different materials?
LikeLike
There was a lot of discussion on the environmental aspects of materials. The natural resources of the world are quickly depleting, and as one of the presenters mentioned, we must not only look at the way in which we use these materials but also the way in which we obtain them. Do we have it flown halfway across the globe or do we find it locally? If it is the former, the ecological footprint of using this “sustainable” material is much greater than using a lesser sustainable but locally found resource. Additionally, we must not try to confine materials but let them be in their natural state, and instead, build upon that.
LikeLike
1. In “Uniformity and Variability,” Manuel De Landa attempts to explain uniformity and manipulation of material. He talks about how materials have a lot of potential in their ability to be manipulated into different forms. However, In modern day architecture, materials are somewhat overlooked and simply pasted as bitmaps and images over renderings. In what ways can architects use materials more dynamically?
2. In “Vibrant Matter,” Jane Bennett’s explains how inorganic objects are actually “alive”. She states that static objects have the ability to self-organize. How can we incorporate this theory into architecture and turn inorganic materials into something that is “alive” or animated?
3. In “Post Rock,” Meredith Miller talks about how new materials are being made to replace other materials that are harder to obtain. In theory, a replicated “fake” material may even look better or more similar to a rendering that the actual intended material. Why don’t more architects just use replicated materials that are easier to obtain and cheaper? What is the point of putting focus on materiality and staying true to materials?
LikeLike
Digital technology has been taking over architectural production and design in general. With the latest technology, creating 3D models and structures has become much easier. However, this power has also made it easy for architects to overlook materiality in reality. Renderings represent projects in a perfect world with perfect materials, but when it comes to real construction, a project can look completely different or even turn out much worse. This is clearly shown in Danil Nagy’s Hi-Fi, commissioned by MoMA PS1. In the rendering the project looked incredible, however, after it was built it seemed like the bricks were very disorganized and the colors were dirty and messy. On the other hand, in a building like the Heydar Aliyev Center, Zaha Hadid Architects must have had complete understanding of materiality, how to construct using such materials (Glass fiber reinforced plastics and glass fiber reinforced concrete) Understanding materials and what it takes to use and build with certain materials makes or breaks architecture.
LikeLike
1. In the article by Manuel De Landa, he explains the usage of steel and how it has become commercialized. Alongside steel, there are other materials in the construction industry that have received the same treatment. How do we continue to work with these same basic materials but in ways that are beyond the industrial formats?
2. Meredith Mill emphasizes in her article about the parameters we have set that relatively constraints us to a box. We rely on these computer programs, but never go beyond these programs. How do we maintain the artistic methodology of trial and error in an age of modern technology?
3. Based on the last question, technology allows us to design and scrap these designs in an aggressively fast format. What is a limit we should set for ourselves when working in the computer and working by hand? Not exclusive to model making, but hand sketching too.
LikeLike
1. If we allow ourselves to commit to just one source of producing working whether it’s the computer programs or hand-sketching, we find ourselves in a box. We can sketch and trash our sketches all day, but we can do it faster and more eco-friendly on the computer. Yet, physically producing models and spaces can give the designer a sense of the environment. No matter what. You can construct anything, but what you feel will be inflicted in real life.
2. In each project we can make thousands of iterations and have the changes be an angle difference. We can commit to our minds that the angle makes a huge difference. But, this way of designing is easy to get lost in. Therefore, computers could never be designers. Why? The computer can continue to make iterations forever, if it’s programmed to. We are the ones to make it stop, we still have the authority.
3. Set a number for iterations. Design a project. Then enhance that design 1 or 3 times. Then, pick one. Or pick the last one. Developing a sense of trust in one self and a sense of confidence to decide when the last iteration will be is key.
LikeLike
1. In”F*ck Your Tectonics” by Formlessfinder, they talk about how while computers are very helpful in creating faster models, they take away the nature of forming a shape or model. In computers you are unable to truly understand and feel what your are designing and building in their opinion. Do you agree with this idea or do you think computers have advanced so much that we can almost create living things through them?
2. In “Vibrant Matter” by Jane Bennett, she talks about how she believes that we should stop assuming that the dead are truly dead since even when gone they can redone in some way. Its like the process of life and how it is always changing and you are never in your end state. Do you also believe that dead forms can be reformed again or is something like the projects in the Queens forever stuck how it is?
3. Going based off of Jane Bennett’s ideas in “Vibrant Matter” with something never being dead do you believe that then when wood is cut down it now has a new life to when it was once living on a tree?
LikeLike
In my opinion I believe that computers have advanced a lot in begin able to render with qualities that show just like in the real world but they are also don’t have the ability to inspire through touch and the 3d sense that nature does. Computers are also unable to create the uniqueness that nature has in the fact that nothing is truly ever the same. I also believe in the idea that nothing is ever truly dead and that we can easily recreate and change something that has become old or broken. the projects in the Queens with a little help can be reformed into something new and exciting. Going with those ideas I do believe that wood in a tree form and wood as paper ins something completely different. There overall forms and textures are completely different and both are able to inspire and create different things.
LikeLike
1. In an interview by John Szot with the founders of Formlessfinder, the founders explain that their way of thinking about architecture always begins with an idea first and uses digital technology to implement that idea second. Do we, as students, rely too heavily on digital technology, especially in the stage of generating ideas?
2. In “Vibrant Matter” by Jane Bennett, the author argues that we need to “devise new procedures, technologies, and regimes of perception that enable us to consult nonhumans more closely.” Since some of these nonhuman creatures cannot be active participants, it will be up to the human participants to interpret the status of the nonhuman public. Should we be worried about humans interpreting only what they want from these processes in order to benefit what they want? If so, how do we combat this?
3. In “Material and Medium,” the authors discuss a material called Post Rock that is made from melted plastic and rock. They talk about this material as being something that can be used in architecture. Should architects be concerned with the discovery and use of new materials?
LikeLike
As mentioned in the student lecture, Jane Bennet’s “Vibrant Matter” argues that the diet we maintain says something about the way we view other living organisms. Those of us who eat meat and organisms with a consciousness view everything in the world as existing to serve humans. They consume for personal gain and at the price of other organisms. This reflects the way we interact with the environment as well. This dynamic needs to change in order to maintain the health of the environment and all organisms. There are many things we can do to design with the environment in mind. One of the ways this can be achieved is through the exploration of materials. For example, post rock is a new material that was created by taking plastics and melting it down and combining it with rocks. This is a solution to a problem we created, the dumping of plastics into the environment and the ocean. The future of the environment and architecture should be closely linked and could involve a discovery of new materials.
LikeLike
1. NYC’s Formlessfinder believes that architects should be more than imagemakers and as stated in the text they are trying to be just that with providing realistic renders and videos of projects before actually building them. At what point, though, is creativity lost with the intent for realism in drawings and 3d models?
2. Uniformity and Variability by Manuel De Landa discusses building materials and how they have been studied to the point of discovering their strength and new uses for them. Are building professionals playing it safe, though, by using the same materials for every project just because they know they have worked in the past? By reusing the same materials, are each of those different projects basically identical in some ways, taking away any form of individuality?
3. Could Post Rock be the new best thing in construction? As stated in the text, it is capable of reflecting cultural and ecological processes of a place, so could this lead to new design techniques and a shift in the very regular use of common materials?
LikeLike
Form should not be predetermined by precedents with overused materials. Materiality has been tested over and over, discovering the most efficient way to construct, based on strength and affordability. Basic construction materials have become almost a constraint on the design of buildings and architecture; creating an almost overused idea of basic construction. Materials like concrete, steel, and glass have been tested and pushed to their limits, but even though they have been proven to be extremely versatile and capable of morphing into different geometries, it seems as though architects have become stuck in the idea of box construction. A large amount of architectural design today has much to do with structural load and how big It could get, so techniques have been overused to the point of becoming the same basic foundation for most new buildings. Even new ideas such as reconfiguring the basic structure of columns as piles of rubble and such are just reimagining old basic structural plans.
LikeLike
1.) John Szot mentions how “form suppresses material and tends to either idealize architectural materials or dematerialize architecture all together” and thus proposes a shift from material to matter. Szot asks for architecture which does not look for symbolism or an identity through its material, but rather simply exists. What subconscious conceptions do we have about what architecture symbolizes and how are they wrong and/or right?
2.) Materiality is often described as a bad thing, as something that is both selfish and wasteful. So what many people do when they have too many material goods is throw them away, and apparently the problem is solved. In Vibrant Matter, Jane Bennett discusses how “a vital materiality can never really be thrown ‘away,’ for it continues its activities even as a discarded or unwanted commodity”. In a world that is striving for environmental consciousness, how can we redefine the value of matter so that we are more aware of its life cycle?
3.) In Uniformity and Variability, De Landa talks about how researchers often focus too specifically when conducting research, on materials specifically. This limited scope does not allow for the full potential of the material or the exploration of new methods or uses. What is the balance of too specific and too broad?
LikeLike
1. In “Vibrant Matter”, Jane Bennett makes the suggestion that has been a consistent topic in this class throughout the past few weeks: the idea that humans view objects as inanimate/dead, however they are actually alive and have a voice in the world. If we actually start seeing objects through this lens [of object oriented ontology] and respecting them as animate entities, is it possible that this could dramatically change the amount of waste we are producing as we learn to respect objects in a new, more thoughtful way?
2. “F*ck Your Tectonics” discusses the topic of form as being the most crucial factor in architecture. While form is certainly important, what would happen if shifted our focus from form to materiality? Instead of designing form and then composing out of materials, what if materials were the first concern and form was designed around this? Would this produce less strict forms within architecture, and better material performance?
3. In “Uniformity and Variability”, Manuel de Landa acknowledges that new philosophies within architecture are starting to think about the origin of form and structure, and rethinking the hierarchical order of these. Should we also be looking beyond material performance + aesthetics, and studying materials and how they interact with the environment? And if we are to allow material to have a say in the structures we create as he suggests, how will this affect sustainable design in the future?
LikeLike
This week’s presentation focused on trends of materials throughout history, while also shifting its focus to future possibilities of materials within the architectural world. While I am personally not very passionate about materials as a topic in architecture, I am intrigued by the work of Skylar Tibbits that was mentioned in the presentation. Brick vs. concrete vs. wood is something I can acknowledge as an important aspect of architecture, however the work of Skylar Tibbits is quite remarkable and I think that all architects can take notes from his use of studying the nature of materials and their ability to create form on their own. Architecture seems to be at a standstill as far as graphics and materials, and while technology is rapidly growing and increasing and becoming better and better, we can use this to our advantage and really stretch the possibilities of our use of materials in our projects and buildings. Also, not only using existing materials in new ways, but is it possible to create new kinds of materials? How can we use material as an expression of architecture? These are all things we need to start seriously considering in our work, and it is making me realize how little we learn about these kinds of things in architecture school. I would even like to see more vertical studios that really experiment with materiality and form and how to two coincide.
LikeLike
1. Over the years, people have made a large push into the architectural spectrum of materiality. This means that the looks, aesthetics, and ornaments on each structure we build today is our first priority. What do you think will happen to architectural world if we are completely consumed by designing a building just on its exterior presence?
2. From reading Jane Bennett’s, Vibrant Matter, I noticed that she pointed out a shift between keeping our environment and materializing our surroundings. If she is correct, what would happen if we keeping pushing our environment away and filling the void of the empty space that was once abundant with life?
3. F*ck Your Tectonics talks about how one of the main factors of architecture is form. Now, since form is, in my opinion, one of the most important factors that go into designing a structure I believe that nothing else should be set above it. This is so, because when designing and creating new and improved structures and technologies you need that skeleton which inevitably helps in the long run in regards to keeping the “form” correct. Do you think that replacing form and materiality could help or cause misconceptions when designing new forms of architecture?
LikeLike
1. In “Formlessfinder” its mentioned how architecture now “lacks intelligent or innovative approaches to form”, because technology is everywhere the use of complex geometry is too. Is it because we’re relying too heavily on technology to lead us to form or we’re letting our emphasis on form down in order to explore a new process?
2. Has technology made us overlook our techniques of craft? Should there be more of a balance between the old and new values of architecture?
3. Should materiality take more of a precedent in the development of a project? Do you think it mostly comes as an afterthought to form?
LikeLike
There truly is not one use for anything in architecture whether it be form or the material. Everything can be perceived and processed differently, through evolution of people and their way of thinking or the evolution of our technologies. When materiality is brought into the process of design, in the forefront of an idea rather than an afterthought, it has a real impact on the project as a whole. With the integration of material and form and the development of technologies it has created a new way to incorporate and fuse the materiality into the design method and result in a fluidity otherwise lacking. With this, new discoveries and outcomes can further the advancement, purpose, and rationality of their materials.
LikeLike
1. In “Uniformity and Variability”, value can be lost in processes. There was a time when materiality aided in developing new methods of building and modernization, what was lost during the processes of advancing/modernizing materials? Is materiality still important when considering the construction of architecture?
2. During the Industrial Revolution, innovations of materiality were made for sustainability and strength in our future projects. These new materials were mass produced to further develop technology and construct new structures that will benefit the gains of society. How did materiality change over time due to the rapid advancement in technology?
3. Over time, society’s materialism have shifted to more contemporary objects. New generations of architects are following mainstream culture of minimalist design and forget the beauty/value of traditional designs. How does materialism work in modern minimal architecture? How have architects grown materialistic towards technology and how does this affect materiality in the future?
LikeLike
When designing with technology, artists sometime forget that there are limitations. There is a difference between reality and what is not real, an object created in 3D and rendering may appear as realistic, however it does not take materiality into consideration. Render materiality is different from the tangible materiality, architects simply cannot construct the physical bodies of 3D models without understanding it at real world scale. Perceptions of materiality have changed over time, people have shifted their interest towards creativity and fictional concepts. The presentation discussed the separation of humans and objects to develop the relationship with consideration of ecology. Does our perceptions change as we are isolated from objects? I believe that people begin to appreciate the value of materiality because our creations cannot come to existence without it. There is a difference to having an intangible copy of the object from physically being able to touch it. By using specific materials for construction, people are able to understand sustainability and in depth properties of materials to utilize at full advantage.
LikeLike
In the formless interview it is states that “form also pushes architecture towards the image. In an age in which architecture is increasingly image based marketed with renderings consumed as spectacle an increasingly indistinguishable from a host of other media, our formless reassert the primacy of physical and spatial experience.” Although the writer is quite critical about how form can cause architecture to become diluted in aesthetic, there is an underlying question on how can we innovate form while maintaining a rigorous concept?
In “Vibrant Matter – A Political Ecology of Things” Jane Bennet states the following: ”The concept of thing-power offers an alternative to the object as a way of encountering the nonhuman world.” It is quite interesting to think of the object outside the relationship it has with the human. Often we create names for “things” based on its usefulness/ relationship to us. But is there a way to think of the object as just the object, and why should we do this?
In “Uniformity and Variability” Manuel De Landa mentions how the study structure of matter had, at one point, been widely seen as a new potential for the material, but over time the study as been more concentrated on the science itself. This in itself is not a drawback rather a means for discovering new and more complex materials. So based on all that we have leaned what is new potential for materials, and how can we apply this to synthesizing new form?
LikeLike
Materiality is quite an interesting study, not just for the field of architecture, but manufacturing as a whole. Studying new ways to manipulate geometry using different ways of material fabrication allows us to find new ways to create solutions to architectural questions. One study that is quite interesting is Zbigniew’s Biological Habitat. In this project a gelatin is placed in a spherical balloon that is rotated. As the gelatin dries it creates a sphere and the balloon is removed. The most interesting part comes in during the drying process; here the gelatin sphere will create indents that act as a self forming structure. This form of self assembly is the future of how we think about creating structure that follows form. Similar work also consists of work by Skylar Tibbits, Haresh Lalvani. Another interesting way of thinking about self assembly is through the digital space with artificial intelligence. Roland Snooks is currently tackling this challenge and taking it a step further by finding new ways of material fabrication in order to translate the digital space to the physical world.
LikeLike
1| John Szot asks Formlessfinder if there is “any room for conceptual meaning in formless buildings?”; this begs the question: How might one’s perception of meaning need to be altered to accept explorations in “matter” as equally if not more valid than explorations in form?
2| Jane Bennet examines a “vital materiality” which is present in the young mind of a child but disappears as time goes on. The animate nature of materials has immense consequences regarding a possible emotional attachment to those materials. If we can reinsert this animate attachment into the minds of adults, could incomprehensible issues like climate change regain their comprehensibility?
3| Meredith Miller and Thom Moran exhibit discovered Anthropocene materials as valid for burgeoning construction. Although the materials are ingrained with waste, what are the environmental implications of using materials such as “plastiglomerates” or “post-rock” in the long term? Is the re-usability of any one of the pieces of the conglomerate completely obliterated?
LikeLike
Entelechy as introduced by Hans Driesch in this presentation acts as the deterministic character bestower as to what is living and what is not, or in other words what exists as mere matter. Although Aristotle’s explanation of the term neatly fits into a dominantly naturalistic view of the world, examining organic chemical processes manifesting in either organic or non-organic entities; Leibniz determines that entelechy is a process of the mind which encompasses all worldly processes. In either case, this particular characteristic is the driving force of progress, that is material progress; growth, decay, or changes of any kind. If we are to examine this characteristic as a life-force, what are the implications of bringing together forms which fundamentally think, such as humans, and those forms within which processes are predetermined, such as inherent friction coefficients within particular rubber structures? How does this thinking or decision making component affect one’s perception of the importance or value of a thing?
LikeLike
1. In Formlessfinder, John Szot states that our newer architectural spaces are challenging in the sense that they lack clear boundaries and legible hierarchies. Is a lack of hierarchies preferable to the boundaries that have existed in the practice the of architecture, and how can it push us to explore different interactions and engagements between architecture and subject?
2. In Uniformity and Variability, Manuel de Landa asserts that we are beginning to ‘recover’ our respect for the inherent potential of all materials, and that we should begin to consider them not as something imposed from the outside but as something that comes from within a form. How will giving materiality this position in an architectural hierarchy affect the outcome of our buildings, and produce different results in our design process?
3. What are some methods to resolve the contested relationship between technology, environment, culture, and history that exists in today’s architectural field?
LikeLike
I found yesterday’s discussion to be very relevant to the work we are developing as students at Rensselaer, and a helpful reminder as we continue with our design education. Materiality can have a much greater purpose than serving as a building characteristic imposed from the outside onto an inert matter, which is how it is treated far too often. Harnessing materiality correctly can mean using it to guide and attract users to a building, and shape the type and magnitude of engagement occupants have with it. It can add a new layer of form to an architectural project, and appeal to almost every human sense. In order to maximize these potentials, material must be considered to have come from within a building; altering its traditional position in the hierarchy of design is essential.
LikeLike
1) In the reading by Miller, a profound and very specific notion arose. This was essentially the analysis of the integration of material study and/or representation earlier on in a project, maybe even in preliminary design phases. It would seem as though this practice is something that is centralized around how architecture i taught. In what way could material integration and/or consideration earlier on shape architectural education?
2) The current state of the earth forces there to be some greater consideration of sustainability, material innovation, and how buildings effect the overall climate of the earth. Particular emphasis, as a result is placed on the architect. Is this fair? In a sense, the weight of the world is literally in the hands of the architect.
3) It would seem as though in the present day the natural usage of materials rid of man intervention and/or manipulation is a dream, an idea, while beautiful, not necessarily grounded in today’s reality. How could one reverse the way current practitioners think? It is my belief that we have the option to educate current artists, practitioners, and architects, but more importantly we shape the future of building material relations.
LikeLike
“In a sense, the fate of the world is literally in the hands of the architect”. This is a statement I made in conjunction to the questions on this weeks readings which were centered around both material use and selection. Many resources used for both energy as well as building in pre and post modern eras are depleting or have an increasing cost. As an extension of this, more than before, the architect is essentially forced to integrate material factors to the design phase of a project; not only explicitly but implicitly as well. The built environment today essentially encompasses the entire world. There are few places one can go in the present day that lack the impact or the interference of the architect. The shape of the world and the way in which the world strives to be perceived in the future is architecturally driven. At the forefront of it all is material consideration, without this there would be no architect…simply great thinkers.
LikeLike
1. According to Manuel De Landa in his article “Uniformity and Variability”, material and its scientific composition or structure, comes to play an important role in the architectural design process. At what extent we should considerate material as the most important element in the design process?
2. In the article “F*ck your tectonics” it is mention that an architectural skill that must be very important in the design process is having a form preestablished. But in some sense, these statement to me is in some way absurd, because the form is given by going through the process of determining the spaces inside of the project. Since the form is very important, should we just follow the mainstream idea of erected rectangles?
3. According to Jane Bennet material should not be considered as a dead object. Instead, we should listen to what is telling as and follow its advice when designing a building. Do you think that material is telling us when to use it in respect to building location and environment?
LikeLike
Form and material play an important role in the design process. However, there are other important things that should be included in this process. For instance, context, a concept that would help to develop the project and guide the design, and functionality. having mine these elements we will be able to incorporate form and material to give some character and an aesthetic appearance. According to some of the readings for these weeks material and form were very important and they should be taken into consideration at the beginning of the design process. In my opinion, I think that form will be giving by understanding and deciding the use of the interior spaces first and also the orientation and environment in which the building will be placed. Even though Form is irrelevant at the beginning of the design process, It can be helpful as a point of departure and then it will change the design as it gets more organized and functional.
LikeLike
1.) In “Post Rock: Material and Medium” by Meredith Miller and Thom Moran, they emphasise the use of different studio materials. With 3D printing technology developing every day, will the craft of hand making a model die?
2.) “F*ck Your Tectonics” explains that form is the most crucial factor in architecture. With 3D printing now more accessible than ever, should form be the main focus, or should we decide to look into the project more and discuss perhaps materiality?
3.) “Uniformity and Variability” by Manuel De Landa talks about the extensive research gone into building materials and how new uses are being found for them. The self-assembly lab at MIT is leading in focusing strictly on materiality. Are designers playing it too safe by using the same materials?
LikeLike
1: In “F*ck Your Tectonics”, by John Szot, he claims that the recession in the 1970’s led to a series of image based-theoretically driven practices. This brings up the question what other types of practices could be influenced by certain world-wide epidemics?
2: In “Vibrant Matter, a Political Ecology of Things”, by Jane Bennet, she starts asking questions meant to influence how we perceive the outside world through our actions. How would we perceive Architecture if we thought of it as a controlled combination of events that end up letting people inhabit and circulate it? Would this way of abstract thinking help?
3: In “Uniformity and Variability”, by Manual De Landa, they say that a crack or facture in a material requires energy to spread. These dislocations trap energy and can come in large quantities. This is the case for the majority of materials, but the fact that a few where these cracks actually strengthens it, brings about an interesting dynamic when it destroys to strengthen. Would this work for architecture?
LikeLike
1. “No matter how sophisticated the modeling software or automated the assembly, a project’s form still exists as an underlying framework, static and rational, entirely circumscribing the processes of design and construction…” how can architects circumvent this downfall of being confined by traditional tectonics and materials? When will these options become economically viable and manufacture-able?
2. Should architects design with materials in mind, or would this process be to restricting? One could argue, without materials in mind one can design anything, yet create nothing? Or are creations physical and immaterial?
3. “Post Rock’s oblique but intentional environmental significance also speaks to the ambitions of our practice to engage contemporary realities…” however true the ambitions may be, is post rock an intentional or ideal creation. Or is it just an unsightly solution to a larger problem?
LikeLike
Architects configure materiality rather than invent a new material. But is it the responsibility of architects to create materials? Or would their time be more well spent focusing entirely on the architecture. Architect Peter Eisenman would argue the latter. He has spent his career creating architectural works that dissolve any materiality a building may have to its architectural structure. This is to ensure that once can index the form of the building, and analyze its tectonics to establish symbolism or iconography. The firm Herzog & de Meuron also have a unique approach to materiality. The Eberswalde Library utilized a facade where Image is material. “The library façade is not a neutral screen onto which the images are projected; rather it becomes a concrete image itself. When looking at the inscribed images, it is impossible to separate the from the support material; and when looking at the material, it is impossible not to perceive the images…they literally soaked the façade with images”-Materiality and Architecture. I am not sure where I stand on the topic of materiality. I see the argument of the architecture, and only the architecture speaking. But introducing materiality, especially new interesting materiality can elevate a project from its physical form to a meta-physical atmosphere.
LikeLike
1) in the formless finder manifesto, it says that “Form suppresses material and tends to either idealize architectural materials or dematerialize architecture altogether”. by that logic, is there no such thing as a non-idealized architecture? considering that all human-created form undergoes some kind of material transformation.
2) The manifesto also says that “form also pushes architecture towards the image”. What is the goal for an image of formlessness?
3) What kind of new design variables open up to the architect when material control is relinquished? what could be the benefits of a radical display of inherent material characteristics?
LikeLike
1. In “The Formlessfinder Manifesto,” John Szot writes proposes a shift from material to matter in response to how material is treated by architecture, whether its idealized or deconstructed. Just how practical is this?
2. In ” Uniformity and Variability,” how did professionals lose the ability to design structures with isotropic materials in the 19th century?
3. In “Post Rock: Material and Medium,” Meredith Miller and Thom Moran write about the fusion of plastic waste and rock and how it can be used as a building material. Is the structural integrity of the material good enough for larger projects?
LikeLike
1. de Landa acknowledges the trend toward efficiency and profit over heterogeneity beginning in the 19th century and the correlated loss of empirical skill and knowledge. Are current technologies positioning us to skip physical skill, being encoded and driven by pute knowledge and executed by autonomous objects? Should we take advantage of the opportunity to work more intimately through direct control of microscale objects?
2. Szot critiques critical regionalism’s use of materials, saying that local materials are reduced to symbols for sustainablility and some kind of green architecture. Given that nature tends to optimize into strong forms through evolution, how can we overcome the recognizable forms these materials take, and wouldn’t that also be shallow and dishonest?
3. The post rock indirectly challenges the notion of industrial products as complete objects by offering an alternative unencumbered by blackbox operations, as well as valuing processes with unknown outcome. Experimentation can result in either the crystallization of new forms, unfunctional objects, or singular solutions. Does post-rock fail if the dominant result is crystallization, or does it fail if crystallization is possible?
LikeLike