209 thoughts on “Object Oriented Ontology & Speculative Realism”
1. David Ruy in his article “Returning to Strange Objects” states that architecture may have unintentionally refused admittance from the actual real object ahead of it, including the architectural object itself. In what way can this be interpreted?
2. In the reading “Towards a Speculative Philosophy,” Levi Bryant explains that one of the key features of the Speculative Turn is precise that the transition toward realism is not necessarily a move to the limitations of common sense, however, very often a move toward the outright grotesque. Is the author saying that in order to move forward realism in architecture, it is not necessarily to try to accomplish what makes sense but instead move forward to what makes architecture be astonishingly bizarre?
3. What is the overall purpose of removing simplicity in architecture and what can be the perfect replacement for it?
In architecture is very important to think about all the constraints and parameters that are guiding us to develop and design a building. this building represented as an object among the environment in which we are placing it needs to collect some of the information of its surroundings. Not only needs to have in some way the essence of the landscape in which this will be built. But also, it needs to have its own essence and apport some qualities to its surroundings. this element and its environment need to play together and complement each other in many different ways. So this object can either be a perfect contrast in its environment or be binding together along with it. simplicity or realism can be an extra element that can be used to give some uniqueness to this object.
1. In the reading make believe parafiction and plausibility they say that “truth status” was achieved. What would you say “truth status” is?
2. In the reading “Towards a speculative philosophy” the point that we cannot think of life and existence beyond our own. Do you think there is architecture that is not of this universe?
3. Based off the same reading do you think there would be architecture that is of our own that is also used as not our own?
In response to the presentation given on Tuesday, one of the presenters spoke upon how the video game character Waluigi does not exist but we perceive him as real because of his connotation and relation to the other Super Mario characters in said universe. But the whole concept of nothing being “real” got me thinking of what else falls victim to only being existence because of relations and connections to a bigger more popular place, location, or the background scenery. I feel as if that there are everyday objects that we don’t realize could be considered not real because of the association to other objects. Another example, the fruit of the loom logo is commonly thought to have a weaved basket in the shape of the horn but in reality that never existed.
1. In Mark Foster Gage’s “Killing Simplicity,” he discusses how LEET requirements limit the design of architecture due to sustainability requirements. Does LEET limit design, or instead inspire “good” design?
2. In “Returning to Strange Objects”, David Ruy says “You are a necessary cog within the clockwork of nature. You can’t break the machine if you’re part of the machine.” Do you believe this to be true? Don’t pieces of machines break every so often, which break the machine temporarily?
3. In Mark Foster Gage’s “Killing Simplicity,” Gage presents a quote based on a famous quote, “form follows function.” He present a new quote, “form ever follows function.” What is the difference between these two quotes?
1. In “Return to Strange Objects” by David Ruy, he how architecture has dramatically changed as “the impending doom of global warming and environmental collapse.” As architecture has revolutionized how can we as architects continue to move forward with current and future concerns in regards to nature while maintaining our creative integrity (form follows function)?
2. One aspect that is brought up in discussion frequently is how often events can or should effect architecture. One approach mentioned by Carrie Lambert – Beatty is implementing horizontal history, by mapping connections and finding links between them. How successful do you view this approach and would you or would you not use this method in a future design?
3. The phrase “killing simplicity” alone reminds me of the lecture last week, discussing the use of boring vs. interesting. Boring can be used to describe a variety of buildings but it seems to have a negative connotation focused on simple or minimalism architecture. Yet architects like Mies van de Rohe design with minimalist ideals and are praised. Beyond individual opinions, why in some cases is minimalism praised and in other circumstances it is condemned?
There is a variety of forces effecting every design decision made in an object. We, as young architects, are told about all of these parameters to follow in order. It is not that these parameters cause any harm to the project but it can lead to a hindrance in our creative thinking. There comes a moment when instead of using everything that has worked for others in the past, we branch out and begin to use our own reasoning and methods, our own past to create the future. It is ultimately up to the individual to decide an objects fate, but that decision is one that needs to be made through our own discoveries of what works for us and what doesn’t. Similarly to human beings, there are many variables that go into any forms. The culture and experience define a person and the work they create; using these components to further a design is how we redefine the parameters that were present to us.
1. Mark Foster discusses objects as being considered as “equipment” as their function is apparent but its aesthetic or other qualities go unnoticed recede into the background and this is because it is being used as a tool. Is this equivalent to what he discusses about the frustration of architecture in that it “traded in its ambition to produce unique and ineffable things for a middle-management career in reacting to vastly oversimplified problems.”
2. What is the root of philosophy and what can be interpreted to understand differences if differences “requires no grounding from the mind.”
3. What are the positive and negative outcomes of creating architecture in the parameters of it being a consequence of its context. And what i the shift of architecture being an independent entity that’ expressive of culture and inspiration by nature and more of a reaction to its surroundings and constraints nature gives demonstrative of the Modernist legacy.
In this presentation, it was discovered that Architects want to be engaged with their surroundings and be relevant but it takes way from architecture as an object. It is not a fault that architects want to be necessary to the world around them but design becomes reliant on political and cultural context. The analogy that Architecture is like Waluigi- he does not exist without his surroundings, there is no Waluigi without Mario as there is no architecture anymore without context was very interesting. A new way of thinking which can be applied by architecture was addressed which could move out from a systematic way of building something and it was a concluded that a distinction must be must exist between the object and the concept. The OOO concept was heavily addressed and it was interesting that Objects will exist whether they do or not have a consciousness and consciousness brings awareness of being but it is not necessary for an object to be. Another analogy brought up in this presentation was to beauty and the beast and how it gives consciousness to inanimate objects. Parafiction was also discussed and its concept of deception was compared to the controversial performance art piece of the Yale student. This was thought-provoking as parafictions are powerfully and uniquely troubling as mentioned in the presentation.
2. In the “Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object” written by Levi R. Bryant, the author claims that items have their interconnection. And how does the Ontic Principle impact on simplicity by founding similarity?
3. In the article “Regression Objects”, the author states that architecture is influenced by time and culture rather than objects. Does architecture have the responsibility to reflect a times or cultures?
1. In the origins of continental anti-realism, the new turn towards realism and materialism within continental philosophy comes in the wake of a long period of something resembling ethereal idealism. What does it cause that?
2. In the grounds of the ontic principle, it must be granted that difference has an epistemic priority in the order of knowledge. What does epistemic priority mean?
3. At the level of inter-ontic relations, what are the ‘Principle of Translation’ or ‘Latour’s Principle’ that the Ontic Principle entails?
In many schools and educational systems, architecture and theory are taught in the same streamlined manner. This means that a new generation of architects will emerge with the same mentality. This is why it is important to teach and introduce many of the ideas in architecture. In terms of space and how architects shape space, I am sure that it completely changes the layout and atmosphere of a region. They can design a space so that you only see what they want, instead of hiding the bad things behind it so you never see it there. The idea of an artist working with OOO is to allow materials to guide artists to create whatever they are making. But even if you do this, the artist doesn’t just follow what they think the material is doing, but there is no way to really understand the material’s awareness.
1. In “Towards a Speculative Philosophy” by Levi Bryant, Nick Srnicek and Graham Harman, It is mentioned that in the past the notion of anti-realism has also been altered through trends our society has gone through like deconstruction and post modernism but, has always remained constant. It is stated that we are seeing less anti-realism in today’s society and it restricting philosophy in our society but in what aspects are we seeing this limitation?
2. It is stated in David Ruy’s passage that we as architects must consider the life span of a building. This is an important realization but is it possible that the longevity of the building can outlast the function? Can the building be manipulated to adapt? Does this create a problem for the site?
3. We as architects have always considered the statement “form ever follows function”. giving us designers a kind of philosophy to follow but, how often in our society is this notion reversed or not even followed? are there any examples of modern design that has successfully satisfied a building without following this philosophy?
I believe the reason we are seeing a declination in the use of anti-realist continental philosophy is due to what is described as the “Speculative Turn”. There is an increasing interest in the focus on the infrastructure of humanity along with the social practices in our generation. The established philosophy of form following function is constantly being reinterpreted to satisfy the needs of new human interests and functions. Something that is new will never follow the exact philosophy of a previous function. This leads me to the interest in the potential of other focuses of design like technology, mathematics, and science
1. As architects, how do we initiate a design of an “object” that ourselves lack the ability to understand it? Do we
2. In thinking about “form follows function”, I wonder if our understanding of our own design comes before the emergence our the object?
3. Is it possible to establish a non-functional relationship between objects without the intervention of human cognition?
Object oriented ontology is an interesting idea since it asks questions about how we understand the reality without being a human. The idea of anti-anthropocentrism brings up discussion of our role in the nature and how other animals behave without referring to human terms. However, It’s interesting to think of how designers create something out of their mind without understanding the materials as human beings. If the reality of existence of something is questionable and uninterpretable, how would designers understand anything in the nature and society before ever initiating a project? To me, the reluctance of acknowledging human consciousness and intervention as part of the nature is problematic and unproductive, which is an inherent issue found in most metaphysical philosophies.
1: Thomas Jefferson once changed the famous saying “I think therefore I am,” to “I feel, therefore I exist.” To be able to use an object, is it enough to understand what it is as a shape, or is it necessary to have an intimate understanding of its more materialistic qualities?
2: Does it really benefit anyone to be complex merely for the purpose of complexity? Is it possible that the assumption that complexity is superior to simplicity detract from the ability to pursue creative and unique design work.
3: Often tools and devices that are used day in and day out become “invisible” to the attention of those using them, and are taken for granted until they no longer work. But is this always a bad thing? Should we assume the stagnation of tools equates to the stagnation of design? Is it better to continually seek out new tools to do new things with, or to accept what we have and instead put effort into discovering new ways of using those tools?
1) In object oriented ontology there is a notion that objects are equal to human existence. Under this assumption, what is the role of the builder to the building? Is the relationship one of mother to child, when the child will far outlive the mother. How does the relationship between consciousness and existence change depending on politics?
2) Zeno’s paradox disproves motion through examining the passage of time as being comprised of an infinite number of still instances. If existence is not fluid but is comprised of immutable moments, then how does human existence at all differ from objects?
3) What makes up our identities if we are shaped and molded by the surrounding objects?
Waluigi is a perfect example of object oriented ontology. He is shaped and dependent on his relationship to Mario. In this respect are we truly distinct from our peers or stuck in a feedback loop with one another? In “We Have Never Been Individuals” the writer opines that we are not truly biologically individual. We are locked in a battle of coevolution with the bacteria in our guts, yet are unable to exist without them. Our bodies are an example of object oriented ontology because no individual cell or organ system is able to exist without being influenced by another. The complexity and interdependence between our objects is responsible for making us exist.
In today’s lecture, parafiction, art in which a fiction is presented as fact, was discussed in terms of its way to skew a view that is not our reality into something that is our reality. There exists no external reality to our perceptions and what does exists beyond our reality is not even perceived as a reality. What exists beyond is merely there for us to question and interpret the beyond for ourselves and use as inspiration for furthering our own reality. In the creation of a structure the deconstructed reality allows viewers to see or not see specific elements. All of this depends on each individual’s interpretation of the structure. While there could be one hundred varying views of a piece of art, there will only be one reality.
This week’s presentation, using some rather over the top visuals and topics. easily depicted the topics it meant to cover, engaging the class more than other presentations did. While not wholly serious, it did show how the topics in question could be pulled into the absurd, something that happens very frequently in the realm of architecture. I thoroughly enjoyed the spaghetti farming, as it demonstrated very effectively how the manner in which something is presented can make something so ridiculous seem plausible. Out of all the presentations thus far, I remember points from this one most vividly, and in no small part due to the humor in all of it.
Contemporary Design Approaches 
1. David Ruy in his article “Returning to Strange Objects” states that architecture may have unintentionally refused admittance from the actual real object ahead of it, including the architectural object itself. In what way can this be interpreted?
2. In the reading “Towards a Speculative Philosophy,” Levi Bryant explains that one of the key features of the Speculative Turn is precise that the transition toward realism is not necessarily a move to the limitations of common sense, however, very often a move toward the outright grotesque. Is the author saying that in order to move forward realism in architecture, it is not necessarily to try to accomplish what makes sense but instead move forward to what makes architecture be astonishingly bizarre?
3. What is the overall purpose of removing simplicity in architecture and what can be the perfect replacement for it?
LikeLike
In architecture is very important to think about all the constraints and parameters that are guiding us to develop and design a building. this building represented as an object among the environment in which we are placing it needs to collect some of the information of its surroundings. Not only needs to have in some way the essence of the landscape in which this will be built. But also, it needs to have its own essence and apport some qualities to its surroundings. this element and its environment need to play together and complement each other in many different ways. So this object can either be a perfect contrast in its environment or be binding together along with it. simplicity or realism can be an extra element that can be used to give some uniqueness to this object.
LikeLike
1. In the reading make believe parafiction and plausibility they say that “truth status” was achieved. What would you say “truth status” is?
2. In the reading “Towards a speculative philosophy” the point that we cannot think of life and existence beyond our own. Do you think there is architecture that is not of this universe?
3. Based off the same reading do you think there would be architecture that is of our own that is also used as not our own?
LikeLike
In response to the presentation given on Tuesday, one of the presenters spoke upon how the video game character Waluigi does not exist but we perceive him as real because of his connotation and relation to the other Super Mario characters in said universe. But the whole concept of nothing being “real” got me thinking of what else falls victim to only being existence because of relations and connections to a bigger more popular place, location, or the background scenery. I feel as if that there are everyday objects that we don’t realize could be considered not real because of the association to other objects. Another example, the fruit of the loom logo is commonly thought to have a weaved basket in the shape of the horn but in reality that never existed.
LikeLike
1. In Mark Foster Gage’s “Killing Simplicity,” he discusses how LEET requirements limit the design of architecture due to sustainability requirements. Does LEET limit design, or instead inspire “good” design?
2. In “Returning to Strange Objects”, David Ruy says “You are a necessary cog within the clockwork of nature. You can’t break the machine if you’re part of the machine.” Do you believe this to be true? Don’t pieces of machines break every so often, which break the machine temporarily?
3. In Mark Foster Gage’s “Killing Simplicity,” Gage presents a quote based on a famous quote, “form follows function.” He present a new quote, “form ever follows function.” What is the difference between these two quotes?
LikeLike
1. In “Return to Strange Objects” by David Ruy, he how architecture has dramatically changed as “the impending doom of global warming and environmental collapse.” As architecture has revolutionized how can we as architects continue to move forward with current and future concerns in regards to nature while maintaining our creative integrity (form follows function)?
2. One aspect that is brought up in discussion frequently is how often events can or should effect architecture. One approach mentioned by Carrie Lambert – Beatty is implementing horizontal history, by mapping connections and finding links between them. How successful do you view this approach and would you or would you not use this method in a future design?
3. The phrase “killing simplicity” alone reminds me of the lecture last week, discussing the use of boring vs. interesting. Boring can be used to describe a variety of buildings but it seems to have a negative connotation focused on simple or minimalism architecture. Yet architects like Mies van de Rohe design with minimalist ideals and are praised. Beyond individual opinions, why in some cases is minimalism praised and in other circumstances it is condemned?
LikeLike
There is a variety of forces effecting every design decision made in an object. We, as young architects, are told about all of these parameters to follow in order. It is not that these parameters cause any harm to the project but it can lead to a hindrance in our creative thinking. There comes a moment when instead of using everything that has worked for others in the past, we branch out and begin to use our own reasoning and methods, our own past to create the future. It is ultimately up to the individual to decide an objects fate, but that decision is one that needs to be made through our own discoveries of what works for us and what doesn’t. Similarly to human beings, there are many variables that go into any forms. The culture and experience define a person and the work they create; using these components to further a design is how we redefine the parameters that were present to us.
LikeLike
1. Mark Foster discusses objects as being considered as “equipment” as their function is apparent but its aesthetic or other qualities go unnoticed recede into the background and this is because it is being used as a tool. Is this equivalent to what he discusses about the frustration of architecture in that it “traded in its ambition to produce unique and ineffable things for a middle-management career in reacting to vastly oversimplified problems.”
2. What is the root of philosophy and what can be interpreted to understand differences if differences “requires no grounding from the mind.”
3. What are the positive and negative outcomes of creating architecture in the parameters of it being a consequence of its context. And what i the shift of architecture being an independent entity that’ expressive of culture and inspiration by nature and more of a reaction to its surroundings and constraints nature gives demonstrative of the Modernist legacy.
LikeLike
In this presentation, it was discovered that Architects want to be engaged with their surroundings and be relevant but it takes way from architecture as an object. It is not a fault that architects want to be necessary to the world around them but design becomes reliant on political and cultural context. The analogy that Architecture is like Waluigi- he does not exist without his surroundings, there is no Waluigi without Mario as there is no architecture anymore without context was very interesting. A new way of thinking which can be applied by architecture was addressed which could move out from a systematic way of building something and it was a concluded that a distinction must be must exist between the object and the concept. The OOO concept was heavily addressed and it was interesting that Objects will exist whether they do or not have a consciousness and consciousness brings awareness of being but it is not necessary for an object to be. Another analogy brought up in this presentation was to beauty and the beast and how it gives consciousness to inanimate objects. Parafiction was also discussed and its concept of deception was compared to the controversial performance art piece of the Yale student. This was thought-provoking as parafictions are powerfully and uniquely troubling as mentioned in the presentation.
LikeLike
1. What is the necessity of simplicity?
2. In the “Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object” written by Levi R. Bryant, the author claims that items have their interconnection. And how does the Ontic Principle impact on simplicity by founding similarity?
3. In the article “Regression Objects”, the author states that architecture is influenced by time and culture rather than objects. Does architecture have the responsibility to reflect a times or cultures?
LikeLike
1. In the origins of continental anti-realism, the new turn towards realism and materialism within continental philosophy comes in the wake of a long period of something resembling ethereal idealism. What does it cause that?
2. In the grounds of the ontic principle, it must be granted that difference has an epistemic priority in the order of knowledge. What does epistemic priority mean?
3. At the level of inter-ontic relations, what are the ‘Principle of Translation’ or ‘Latour’s Principle’ that the Ontic Principle entails?
LikeLike
In many schools and educational systems, architecture and theory are taught in the same streamlined manner. This means that a new generation of architects will emerge with the same mentality. This is why it is important to teach and introduce many of the ideas in architecture. In terms of space and how architects shape space, I am sure that it completely changes the layout and atmosphere of a region. They can design a space so that you only see what they want, instead of hiding the bad things behind it so you never see it there. The idea of an artist working with OOO is to allow materials to guide artists to create whatever they are making. But even if you do this, the artist doesn’t just follow what they think the material is doing, but there is no way to really understand the material’s awareness.
LikeLike
1. In “Towards a Speculative Philosophy” by Levi Bryant, Nick Srnicek and Graham Harman, It is mentioned that in the past the notion of anti-realism has also been altered through trends our society has gone through like deconstruction and post modernism but, has always remained constant. It is stated that we are seeing less anti-realism in today’s society and it restricting philosophy in our society but in what aspects are we seeing this limitation?
2. It is stated in David Ruy’s passage that we as architects must consider the life span of a building. This is an important realization but is it possible that the longevity of the building can outlast the function? Can the building be manipulated to adapt? Does this create a problem for the site?
3. We as architects have always considered the statement “form ever follows function”. giving us designers a kind of philosophy to follow but, how often in our society is this notion reversed or not even followed? are there any examples of modern design that has successfully satisfied a building without following this philosophy?
LikeLike
I believe the reason we are seeing a declination in the use of anti-realist continental philosophy is due to what is described as the “Speculative Turn”. There is an increasing interest in the focus on the infrastructure of humanity along with the social practices in our generation. The established philosophy of form following function is constantly being reinterpreted to satisfy the needs of new human interests and functions. Something that is new will never follow the exact philosophy of a previous function. This leads me to the interest in the potential of other focuses of design like technology, mathematics, and science
LikeLike
1. As architects, how do we initiate a design of an “object” that ourselves lack the ability to understand it? Do we
2. In thinking about “form follows function”, I wonder if our understanding of our own design comes before the emergence our the object?
3. Is it possible to establish a non-functional relationship between objects without the intervention of human cognition?
LikeLike
Object oriented ontology is an interesting idea since it asks questions about how we understand the reality without being a human. The idea of anti-anthropocentrism brings up discussion of our role in the nature and how other animals behave without referring to human terms. However, It’s interesting to think of how designers create something out of their mind without understanding the materials as human beings. If the reality of existence of something is questionable and uninterpretable, how would designers understand anything in the nature and society before ever initiating a project? To me, the reluctance of acknowledging human consciousness and intervention as part of the nature is problematic and unproductive, which is an inherent issue found in most metaphysical philosophies.
LikeLike
1: Thomas Jefferson once changed the famous saying “I think therefore I am,” to “I feel, therefore I exist.” To be able to use an object, is it enough to understand what it is as a shape, or is it necessary to have an intimate understanding of its more materialistic qualities?
2: Does it really benefit anyone to be complex merely for the purpose of complexity? Is it possible that the assumption that complexity is superior to simplicity detract from the ability to pursue creative and unique design work.
3: Often tools and devices that are used day in and day out become “invisible” to the attention of those using them, and are taken for granted until they no longer work. But is this always a bad thing? Should we assume the stagnation of tools equates to the stagnation of design? Is it better to continually seek out new tools to do new things with, or to accept what we have and instead put effort into discovering new ways of using those tools?
LikeLiked by 1 person
1) In object oriented ontology there is a notion that objects are equal to human existence. Under this assumption, what is the role of the builder to the building? Is the relationship one of mother to child, when the child will far outlive the mother. How does the relationship between consciousness and existence change depending on politics?
2) Zeno’s paradox disproves motion through examining the passage of time as being comprised of an infinite number of still instances. If existence is not fluid but is comprised of immutable moments, then how does human existence at all differ from objects?
3) What makes up our identities if we are shaped and molded by the surrounding objects?
LikeLike
Waluigi is a perfect example of object oriented ontology. He is shaped and dependent on his relationship to Mario. In this respect are we truly distinct from our peers or stuck in a feedback loop with one another? In “We Have Never Been Individuals” the writer opines that we are not truly biologically individual. We are locked in a battle of coevolution with the bacteria in our guts, yet are unable to exist without them. Our bodies are an example of object oriented ontology because no individual cell or organ system is able to exist without being influenced by another. The complexity and interdependence between our objects is responsible for making us exist.
LikeLike
In today’s lecture, parafiction, art in which a fiction is presented as fact, was discussed in terms of its way to skew a view that is not our reality into something that is our reality. There exists no external reality to our perceptions and what does exists beyond our reality is not even perceived as a reality. What exists beyond is merely there for us to question and interpret the beyond for ourselves and use as inspiration for furthering our own reality. In the creation of a structure the deconstructed reality allows viewers to see or not see specific elements. All of this depends on each individual’s interpretation of the structure. While there could be one hundred varying views of a piece of art, there will only be one reality.
LikeLike
This week’s presentation, using some rather over the top visuals and topics. easily depicted the topics it meant to cover, engaging the class more than other presentations did. While not wholly serious, it did show how the topics in question could be pulled into the absurd, something that happens very frequently in the realm of architecture. I thoroughly enjoyed the spaghetti farming, as it demonstrated very effectively how the manner in which something is presented can make something so ridiculous seem plausible. Out of all the presentations thus far, I remember points from this one most vividly, and in no small part due to the humor in all of it.
LikeLike