Miller opens their essay by describing how design must be influenced by the limits and potentials of materiality. Is this still true in a design world where images and renderings are paramount? How is digital architecture influenced by the restraints of materiality?
As architecture becomes increasingly image-based, it becomes harder to explore the conceptual side of architecture. Is there a way for architecture to experiment with materials even if the result isn’t useful or photogenic? How will this affect architecture in the future?
Formlessfinder states that “most attempts to celebrate materiality still end up sublimating or idealizing material”. Load test is an example of a project that formlessly recognizes material for itself. However, are there ways to use material without such an extreme return to raw matter, or do architects need to radically reinvent their relation to their materials?
In an age where digital technology can create models without materiality or basis in reality, it becomes increasingly important to recognize the architectural importance of the materials that make up what we build. Although some, like Eisenman, base their work on the unreal nature of digital work, trying to emulate it in the real world, others like Formlessfinder create works based entirely on the properties of real materials. Materials, after all, are able to communicate an infinitely complex quality that pure modeled form cannot.
I thought it was interesting how architects are experimenting with pure materiality; seeing how rocks and cables can create a tower or how a machine can shoot out parametrically modeled clay structures can change how we think about construction. In contemporary architecture, builders strive to create a structure most like the digital image that is shared and represents the building before it exists; however this can cause disappointments when the project is forced into reality, as is the case with most rooftop garden designs. In contrast, the National Art Schools of Cuba use the practical considerations of locally made bricks, and base their designs on the reality of the brick. The tension between reality and ideal is a really interesting way to explore how materials become buildings.
Due to the rise of plastic usage in the modern age, we’ve seen a remarkable change in the variety of materials used in construction. Is plastic able to replace older materials?
As our use of certain materials changes and as technology develops new materials to use in building construction, how do we find ourselves using newer materials in a different manner?
Jane Bennett expresses the belief that inanimate objects can be considered living organisms. If there is a truth to the claim that objects are able to self organize, how can architects accomplish the task of turning objects into “living” buildings?
1. In Fuck Your Tectonics John Szot eludes to the idea that no matter the sophistication/automation of modeling software, the form of a project still “exists as an underlying framework.” He also says that due to today’s faith in technology it has caused architecture to lack intelligence or innovative approaches to form. Is this good reason to revisit the idea of Form vs. Function?
2. In Material and Medium, a new material called plastiglomerate is introduced which is a stone that contains mixtures of sedimentary grains, and other natural debris (e.g. shells, wood) that is held together by hardened molten plastic. But this new material by definition is a conglomerate of various other materials that already existed. In architecture, what values do materiality add or take away from a project whether it be visual or representational? Does materiality have a higher purpose than that of climactic sustainability?
3. Are there any materials or resources on the earth that should stay as far away from architecture as possible? Is there a material that architecture cannot go without?
1) what is the relationship between shifting materiality and the anthropocene? How has one influence the other and vice versa?
2) in the STS Lounge in Sage labs there is a jar marked vibrant matter. In it there’s a bunch of items with googly eyes glued on. From what I can understand of Jane Bennet her premise is that natural matter has the status of materiality and that the purpose of existence is to raise that materiality. My question is what is the living aspect of architecture materials and how do the components themselves sing to one another?
3) has the materiality of architecture gone beyond that of nature? By looking at plastiglomerate, a material contrived of human intervention, it would appear at first glance that we have become Post Rock. In what ways is this accurate or not?
So like I often don’t really know what to say here but I guess I can try to summarize it.
In current times we are looking at methods to change the material properties of different building materials to imagine new uses. I thought the interesting part of the lecture was bringing up the speculative form of assembly like Skylar Tibbits gravel and cable tower and the clay catapult construction. Also sword making
1. 3D printing has been a largely evolving technology throughout the last decade. We have seen 3D printing go from being a mere concept to construction companies being able to 3D print entire parts of buildings. How could 3D printing evolve more, and possibly print with new materials such as plastiglomerate?
2. How can we construct buildings and 3D prints with more ecologically friendly materials? What materials are ecologically friendly and also structurally sound?
3. How can we use advanced digital technology to defy John Szot’s claim that architects and the inhabitants of their designed forms are obsessed with the form just as framework?
The application and interpretation of materiality, especially that of symbolized material based on regions, has been an escape from architectural innovation in the industry. Due to the fact that materiality is always a perceived quality, the spectators do get the perception in some certain commonly used forms, which bonds an inalienable relationship with those materials. With that being said, architects like Peter Zumthor managed to turn the implicit regional common perception of architecture into an explicit material re-interpretation. The “innovative” concept of “self-expressive material” is a rebranding of people’s curiosity on exotic culture and traditions, and those architecture hardly have a good form which both solves the usability problem and matches the regional culture. Therefore it is necessary to ask:
1. Can materiality really be seen without cultural precedency?
2. Can Form exist beyond materiality?
3. Can architecture build on materials without expressive materiality and how will it affect our perception of the space?
It is almost impossible to think of form without certain scale and materiality since that is how we learnt about form in the first place, especially for us architects. But the thing is that, the definition of “form” and our perception of this definition was merely a inductive standardization of all we have observed since the past, in another word, it is meant to be abstract and lacking any physical quality related to substance. Now our paradoxical understanding of form has reached to its bottleneck in term of both its intrinsic and objective value due to the fast duplicating in the field of design. Being formless is not simply obscuring the boundaries of various defined forms; the point is to forget the added physical quality of form and not to get stuck with the mind of avoiding using certain forms because of some qualities. Forms are only not equal when they are given something non-formal.
1. As the future continues to present us with new technologies such as the ability to 3D print large scale structures do you believe this will cause a new era of construction reliant on huge 3D printing devices?
2. In Africa there is a group using a large scale 3D printer to “print” small concrete homes for villages and homeless, is 3D printing the answer for affordable housing and how could we expand on this idea of mass printing structures?
3.Is our preconceived idea about what a material should be take away from our ability to maximize the possibilities for what a material could be?
Time and technology has allowed us to create and develop a large library of building materials since the beginning of civilization. Time is credited to the natural curiosity within humans which has caused us to question and discover the materials we have today. The resources have continued to be the same from the point of earth’s creation, the change has been in our ability to manipulate what we already have. Technology has also opened many new doors for material opportunities, within the presentation we saw the different examples of materials which have been created through the combining of many different elements. With the combination of our knowledge we have accumulated over time as well as the abilities we have created through technology there are so many possible material conditions that can be made, like wood that looks almost rubbery and flexible, as seen in the lecture.
Material characteristics are so much more than what they seem to be at face value. The defining factors for a material can take place at the macro and micro scale. The choice of material as it is applied to form can be an opportunity for the material to express the same concept that the form does. Inversely, material characteristics can be rendered as inert so that all of the viewer’s attention can be directed towards form, just as Eisenman did in his house series. Materials inherently carry properties that to some degree self-define the form, or in other words, a material intelligence. Form finding objects embrace the material intelligence of the medium used to employ It. When problematizing the question of material, it brings the opportunity for a self-informed feedback loop between formal and material characteristics.
In today’s world the technology that we possess is extremely helpful in designing present day structures. Since we have such advanced technology, we have the ability to make our construction as aesthetically pleasing as we want. This happens because majority of people like to judge buildings on looks over functionality. This choice to move more towards materiality is a mental shift that we have, as humans, because our technology has the ability to make tasks easier so we can focus more on being comfortable in work spaces or general areas. The idea of being comfortable has made humans believe that no matter what we do, we need to enjoy the scenery around us. The big issue with putting aesthetics over functionality is misunderstanding what the project was initially meant for. As architecture advances and we put materiality first the building we produce will begin to show lack of attention to the details between the lines. This mindset will often lead to disappointment because of the main focus being on materiality, rather than form.
In this week’s readings and presentation on Materiality Reconsidered, the effects that materials have on our designs along with the effects technology has on the materials we use today were discussed. We need to step away from letting materials control and constrain our designs and rather let them simply be an expansion of our designs. This will help lead to more innovative designs, allowing us to see material as more than a constraint and also something that we can reconfigure in such a way that fits the designs needs. It is also crucial to keep in mind the various ways that we can keep our designs sustainable. Upcycling materials can sequentially help to create new architecture. Everything considered, the materiality of our designs must be durable along with being able to help emphasize our designs.
Has the digital age further steered architects away from the concept of materiality in our designs? Computer generated architecture further has enabled formal explorations never seen before and provides a platform in which the architecture is not influenced by gravity, buildability, or context. The virtual reality that was once projected on a piece of paper has now been transferred to a raster screen, further allows us to switch between the immaterial and material. Image editing and rendering software’s have allowed us to turn on and off layers of material making the materiality of the project more of an aesthetic decision rather than a tectonic decision. This lack of conformity to the properties of materials raises the discussion about whether the practice has been hindered by this arm’s length distance we have developed with materiality or revived by a new sense of virtual exploration and experimentation.
During this week’s presentation, there was clear consideration of the content from the presenting group on the readings, one topic covered very successfully was the significance and possibilities of materiality. In Post Rock: Material and Medium, Miller and Moran recognize the truism that material inventions can always be reinvented to adapt for a new purpose. One of the presenters chose Skylar Tibbits’s work to provide a very instructive and inspirational case of how the same materials humans have been using for centuries in only one or two ways can easily be reimagined and readapted to become solutions in different and many more contexts, the best example perhaps being the ceramic catapult system and process.
1. In contemporary architecture, we know a lot about the behavior and science of materials. Do you understand the material properties and science actually let us better understand how to use them, or just make them less interesting and mysterious?
2. With language and dialect, standardization is forced through the education system and the media. This pursuit of uniformity and efficiency raises a number of issues in reversing the diversification of all systems. This destructive influence can be understood through the obsession with unity in the 19th century. How can we improve efficiency without compromising diversity?
3. In the reading of Manual De Landa, he talked about how we use only one material as an architect in the design process and production process. He further explained that the process of selecting multiple materials may be endless, with many options and combinations to choose from. But is there a way to navigate this process more effectively?
Specifically, in the architecture, importance is the primary consideration after the basic structure of the project is resolved. However, through the lectures, we found that importance is not only essential in aesthetics, but also a thorough understanding of the project from start to finish. Now, the importance is not being examined to the same extent as in the past, which ultimately leads to a slightly different education about shaping the physical world. While this does open the door to the possibilities of different design methods and allows for the creation of other unheard of forms, at the end of the day, the successful transition from one reality to another is still a well-honed skill that requires a balanced physics. Knowledge of the world and the “virtual” world. Today’s large number of architectural designs have a lot to do with the structural loads and the size that can be achieved, so the technology has been overused to become the basic foundation for most new buildings. Even new ideas, such as reconfiguring the basic structure of the pillars into gravel piles, are just reimagining the old basic structure plan.
Contemporary Design Approaches 
Miller opens their essay by describing how design must be influenced by the limits and potentials of materiality. Is this still true in a design world where images and renderings are paramount? How is digital architecture influenced by the restraints of materiality?
As architecture becomes increasingly image-based, it becomes harder to explore the conceptual side of architecture. Is there a way for architecture to experiment with materials even if the result isn’t useful or photogenic? How will this affect architecture in the future?
Formlessfinder states that “most attempts to celebrate materiality still end up sublimating or idealizing material”. Load test is an example of a project that formlessly recognizes material for itself. However, are there ways to use material without such an extreme return to raw matter, or do architects need to radically reinvent their relation to their materials?
LikeLike
In an age where digital technology can create models without materiality or basis in reality, it becomes increasingly important to recognize the architectural importance of the materials that make up what we build. Although some, like Eisenman, base their work on the unreal nature of digital work, trying to emulate it in the real world, others like Formlessfinder create works based entirely on the properties of real materials. Materials, after all, are able to communicate an infinitely complex quality that pure modeled form cannot.
I thought it was interesting how architects are experimenting with pure materiality; seeing how rocks and cables can create a tower or how a machine can shoot out parametrically modeled clay structures can change how we think about construction. In contemporary architecture, builders strive to create a structure most like the digital image that is shared and represents the building before it exists; however this can cause disappointments when the project is forced into reality, as is the case with most rooftop garden designs. In contrast, the National Art Schools of Cuba use the practical considerations of locally made bricks, and base their designs on the reality of the brick. The tension between reality and ideal is a really interesting way to explore how materials become buildings.
LikeLike
Due to the rise of plastic usage in the modern age, we’ve seen a remarkable change in the variety of materials used in construction. Is plastic able to replace older materials?
As our use of certain materials changes and as technology develops new materials to use in building construction, how do we find ourselves using newer materials in a different manner?
Jane Bennett expresses the belief that inanimate objects can be considered living organisms. If there is a truth to the claim that objects are able to self organize, how can architects accomplish the task of turning objects into “living” buildings?
LikeLike
1. In Fuck Your Tectonics John Szot eludes to the idea that no matter the sophistication/automation of modeling software, the form of a project still “exists as an underlying framework.” He also says that due to today’s faith in technology it has caused architecture to lack intelligence or innovative approaches to form. Is this good reason to revisit the idea of Form vs. Function?
2. In Material and Medium, a new material called plastiglomerate is introduced which is a stone that contains mixtures of sedimentary grains, and other natural debris (e.g. shells, wood) that is held together by hardened molten plastic. But this new material by definition is a conglomerate of various other materials that already existed. In architecture, what values do materiality add or take away from a project whether it be visual or representational? Does materiality have a higher purpose than that of climactic sustainability?
3. Are there any materials or resources on the earth that should stay as far away from architecture as possible? Is there a material that architecture cannot go without?
LikeLike
1) what is the relationship between shifting materiality and the anthropocene? How has one influence the other and vice versa?
2) in the STS Lounge in Sage labs there is a jar marked vibrant matter. In it there’s a bunch of items with googly eyes glued on. From what I can understand of Jane Bennet her premise is that natural matter has the status of materiality and that the purpose of existence is to raise that materiality. My question is what is the living aspect of architecture materials and how do the components themselves sing to one another?
3) has the materiality of architecture gone beyond that of nature? By looking at plastiglomerate, a material contrived of human intervention, it would appear at first glance that we have become Post Rock. In what ways is this accurate or not?
LikeLike
So like I often don’t really know what to say here but I guess I can try to summarize it.
In current times we are looking at methods to change the material properties of different building materials to imagine new uses. I thought the interesting part of the lecture was bringing up the speculative form of assembly like Skylar Tibbits gravel and cable tower and the clay catapult construction. Also sword making
LikeLike
1. 3D printing has been a largely evolving technology throughout the last decade. We have seen 3D printing go from being a mere concept to construction companies being able to 3D print entire parts of buildings. How could 3D printing evolve more, and possibly print with new materials such as plastiglomerate?
2. How can we construct buildings and 3D prints with more ecologically friendly materials? What materials are ecologically friendly and also structurally sound?
3. How can we use advanced digital technology to defy John Szot’s claim that architects and the inhabitants of their designed forms are obsessed with the form just as framework?
LikeLike
The application and interpretation of materiality, especially that of symbolized material based on regions, has been an escape from architectural innovation in the industry. Due to the fact that materiality is always a perceived quality, the spectators do get the perception in some certain commonly used forms, which bonds an inalienable relationship with those materials. With that being said, architects like Peter Zumthor managed to turn the implicit regional common perception of architecture into an explicit material re-interpretation. The “innovative” concept of “self-expressive material” is a rebranding of people’s curiosity on exotic culture and traditions, and those architecture hardly have a good form which both solves the usability problem and matches the regional culture. Therefore it is necessary to ask:
1. Can materiality really be seen without cultural precedency?
2. Can Form exist beyond materiality?
3. Can architecture build on materials without expressive materiality and how will it affect our perception of the space?
LikeLike
It is almost impossible to think of form without certain scale and materiality since that is how we learnt about form in the first place, especially for us architects. But the thing is that, the definition of “form” and our perception of this definition was merely a inductive standardization of all we have observed since the past, in another word, it is meant to be abstract and lacking any physical quality related to substance. Now our paradoxical understanding of form has reached to its bottleneck in term of both its intrinsic and objective value due to the fast duplicating in the field of design. Being formless is not simply obscuring the boundaries of various defined forms; the point is to forget the added physical quality of form and not to get stuck with the mind of avoiding using certain forms because of some qualities. Forms are only not equal when they are given something non-formal.
LikeLike
1. As the future continues to present us with new technologies such as the ability to 3D print large scale structures do you believe this will cause a new era of construction reliant on huge 3D printing devices?
2. In Africa there is a group using a large scale 3D printer to “print” small concrete homes for villages and homeless, is 3D printing the answer for affordable housing and how could we expand on this idea of mass printing structures?
3.Is our preconceived idea about what a material should be take away from our ability to maximize the possibilities for what a material could be?
LikeLike
Time and technology has allowed us to create and develop a large library of building materials since the beginning of civilization. Time is credited to the natural curiosity within humans which has caused us to question and discover the materials we have today. The resources have continued to be the same from the point of earth’s creation, the change has been in our ability to manipulate what we already have. Technology has also opened many new doors for material opportunities, within the presentation we saw the different examples of materials which have been created through the combining of many different elements. With the combination of our knowledge we have accumulated over time as well as the abilities we have created through technology there are so many possible material conditions that can be made, like wood that looks almost rubbery and flexible, as seen in the lecture.
LikeLike
Material characteristics are so much more than what they seem to be at face value. The defining factors for a material can take place at the macro and micro scale. The choice of material as it is applied to form can be an opportunity for the material to express the same concept that the form does. Inversely, material characteristics can be rendered as inert so that all of the viewer’s attention can be directed towards form, just as Eisenman did in his house series. Materials inherently carry properties that to some degree self-define the form, or in other words, a material intelligence. Form finding objects embrace the material intelligence of the medium used to employ It. When problematizing the question of material, it brings the opportunity for a self-informed feedback loop between formal and material characteristics.
LikeLike
In today’s world the technology that we possess is extremely helpful in designing present day structures. Since we have such advanced technology, we have the ability to make our construction as aesthetically pleasing as we want. This happens because majority of people like to judge buildings on looks over functionality. This choice to move more towards materiality is a mental shift that we have, as humans, because our technology has the ability to make tasks easier so we can focus more on being comfortable in work spaces or general areas. The idea of being comfortable has made humans believe that no matter what we do, we need to enjoy the scenery around us. The big issue with putting aesthetics over functionality is misunderstanding what the project was initially meant for. As architecture advances and we put materiality first the building we produce will begin to show lack of attention to the details between the lines. This mindset will often lead to disappointment because of the main focus being on materiality, rather than form.
LikeLike
In this week’s readings and presentation on Materiality Reconsidered, the effects that materials have on our designs along with the effects technology has on the materials we use today were discussed. We need to step away from letting materials control and constrain our designs and rather let them simply be an expansion of our designs. This will help lead to more innovative designs, allowing us to see material as more than a constraint and also something that we can reconfigure in such a way that fits the designs needs. It is also crucial to keep in mind the various ways that we can keep our designs sustainable. Upcycling materials can sequentially help to create new architecture. Everything considered, the materiality of our designs must be durable along with being able to help emphasize our designs.
LikeLike
Has the digital age further steered architects away from the concept of materiality in our designs? Computer generated architecture further has enabled formal explorations never seen before and provides a platform in which the architecture is not influenced by gravity, buildability, or context. The virtual reality that was once projected on a piece of paper has now been transferred to a raster screen, further allows us to switch between the immaterial and material. Image editing and rendering software’s have allowed us to turn on and off layers of material making the materiality of the project more of an aesthetic decision rather than a tectonic decision. This lack of conformity to the properties of materials raises the discussion about whether the practice has been hindered by this arm’s length distance we have developed with materiality or revived by a new sense of virtual exploration and experimentation.
LikeLike
During this week’s presentation, there was clear consideration of the content from the presenting group on the readings, one topic covered very successfully was the significance and possibilities of materiality. In Post Rock: Material and Medium, Miller and Moran recognize the truism that material inventions can always be reinvented to adapt for a new purpose. One of the presenters chose Skylar Tibbits’s work to provide a very instructive and inspirational case of how the same materials humans have been using for centuries in only one or two ways can easily be reimagined and readapted to become solutions in different and many more contexts, the best example perhaps being the ceramic catapult system and process.
LikeLike
1. In contemporary architecture, we know a lot about the behavior and science of materials. Do you understand the material properties and science actually let us better understand how to use them, or just make them less interesting and mysterious?
2. With language and dialect, standardization is forced through the education system and the media. This pursuit of uniformity and efficiency raises a number of issues in reversing the diversification of all systems. This destructive influence can be understood through the obsession with unity in the 19th century. How can we improve efficiency without compromising diversity?
3. In the reading of Manual De Landa, he talked about how we use only one material as an architect in the design process and production process. He further explained that the process of selecting multiple materials may be endless, with many options and combinations to choose from. But is there a way to navigate this process more effectively?
LikeLike
Specifically, in the architecture, importance is the primary consideration after the basic structure of the project is resolved. However, through the lectures, we found that importance is not only essential in aesthetics, but also a thorough understanding of the project from start to finish. Now, the importance is not being examined to the same extent as in the past, which ultimately leads to a slightly different education about shaping the physical world. While this does open the door to the possibilities of different design methods and allows for the creation of other unheard of forms, at the end of the day, the successful transition from one reality to another is still a well-honed skill that requires a balanced physics. Knowledge of the world and the “virtual” world. Today’s large number of architectural designs have a lot to do with the structural loads and the size that can be achieved, so the technology has been overused to become the basic foundation for most new buildings. Even new ideas, such as reconfiguring the basic structure of the pillars into gravel piles, are just reimagining the old basic structure plan.
LikeLike