209 thoughts on “Object Oriented Ontology & Speculative Realism”
1. In the reading, “Killing simplicity: Object-oriented Philosophy in Architecture,” Gage engages the topic of arrows stating that it is difficult to find a project that is not the product of an arrow. My question is, is architecture from arrows such a bad thing, and if so, what could be done differently without using arrows?
2. In the reading, “Killing simplicity: Object-oriented Philosophy in Architecture,” it is mentioned that if diagrams are simplifications into graphics, then metaphors are similarly reductivist albeit through an alternative mechanism. Are all metaphors are reductivists? And if so, then by what means should we go about describing projects?
3. In the reading, Make-Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility,” it is mentioned that cities have sold the naming rights of sports stadiums to corporate sponsors. Was this a good idea if the most likely outcome is a name that benefits the corporation? Should the name be something more meaningful?
1. I believe that arrows aren’t too bad of a thing and if one was to avoid using arrows in a building, they would be avoiding the involvement of direction of the architecture.
2. For the most part, most metaphors are reductivists, however, sometimes it can help a confusing project become easier to understand. For example, the original pitch for the lion king was, “Bambi in Africa with lions” and no one bought it until someone compared it to Hamlet.
3. I feel that it is a good idea in the case of a dispute between several names for an outside party to decide in the naming of a stadium.
1. With respect to David Ruy’s “Returning to (Strange) Objects,” he tries to argue that Architecture only in recent years has focused on its context and the larger field. In reality, throughout history, architectural precedents have taken into consideration its contextual site and audience to a high degree. Ruy speaks of the field as a negative focus and calls the Architectural object “magic.” What are the downfalls of developing Architecture around the field?
2. In “Killing Simplicity,” Mark Gage makes an interesting point that it isn’t until something goes wrong that we become more aware of them/their value, reminding me of counter-rhythm. He defines the idea of OOO and claims that objects have hidden realities. In what ways does Architecture work to emphasize these qualities to the point in which we understand them in a new light without being object-oriented?
3. In “Towards a Speculative Philosophy,” Levi Bryant discusses that there is a gap within reality. What does this gap account for?
I think on the topic of context, todays presentation show how powerful the concept really is in new ways than before. Context is generally relevant in Architecture to make the design integrated with its surroundings and exist not alone but within a spirit of place and time. Reality becomes more so the feeling that a place creates, and it’s interesting to think of reality has a preconception of what we believe. By reevaluating our understandings of basic objects and organizing them into different contexts, there meanings change. Context is what grounds something and defines our idea of it. I think when we take objects out of their “normal” setting and reorient it, we are neglecting our predeterminations of it and thus see it for itself. This produces something that has been stripped of the narrative that comes along with things that are usually associated with it, much like Modern Architecture.
1. If the documentation of Behar’s life was not translated into two different languages, would the articles have the same impact on people?
2. If we were pretending to be the first philosophers and come up with a question, what are the chances that the question we think of would be similar to one that was already created?
3. If form has always followed function, how have the forms of buildings continued to always look different if the function has not necessarily changed?
1. I think that the documentation would not have the same impact on the people who are looking at them because the difference of language helps more people relate to her words, however there would be words lost in translation which could change the pure meaning of things.
2. The chances are probably pretty likely for that to happen. Even though each person who came up with a question were from different movements, there questions all relate to the same thing without using the same words.
3. The only reason the forms of buildings have changed is probably due to the fact that the designers always have a different way to create a building that holds the same function but actually functions differently. Obviously not every building has the same function or use but regarding some buildings, like grocery stores, their forms are all relatively similar. So, even though form seems to change, maybe it doesn’t change as drastically as we think it does.
1. Bryant suggests that the only way to experience objects “correctly” is to consider that their reality is free of relation to others. It’s to consider all the possibilities of the object rather than a single concept. How does this relate to the diagram, in which it’s a representation of multiple possibilities and recognizing only one would render the diagram useless?
2. Theory requires simplification to allow questions to emerge. However, these simplifications are selections based on perspective and when there is a common perspective, people start to see it as the sole one. The true theory is oversimplified by this singular set. How can a concept maintain itself without falling into the homogeneity of modern media?
3. Ruy states that to be “real”, architecture loses its ability of multiple relations to constrain to a site in which there are finite relations. Is there a way for the site to merge with those infinite relations so that the object can retain its theory?
The idea behind objectification is really based on perception. Object Oriented Ontology states throughout the readings that objects have vast numbers of qualities and relations, but we are only aware of a few of them and only through simplification. However, the question is on how one decides on the simplification. There are many different versions, giving an illusion of multiple possibilities, but the result is still finite. True object theory has infinite relations so each simplification takes away from the object. The presentation today makes an important point about how object exists in its relations, away from human perception, but what we see isn’t the object itself. What we see will always be another finite concept rather than the theory.
1.) In “Returning to Strange Objects,” Slavjog Zizek claims that we need a new ecology without nature and that nature is not a balance and harmonious entity and I totally agree. Is there a where we can balance nature in to create a new ecology?
2.) In “The Ontic Principle Outline of an Object,” It claims that design spaces are fixed and immutable, what is it? what is the performance if it is immutable? is it possible to have to mutable?
3.) In “Killing Simplicity,” it is determined that architecture has the responsibility to emerge from the careful study of – absolutely nothing and that it only justified by its existence and not by reductively isolated key relationships. What level of description can fully describe and justified it’s existence?
From what I have learned and experienced during the lecture and the presentation, it has come to my attention that an object is more than what it is. An Object Oriented Ontology is an object where an object is an object when it is acknowledge that it is an object by the person who is experiencing that it is an object. During the presentation, Walugi was a perfect example because he would be nothing without Mario and Luigi. Just like how objects would be nothing or non-existence without being acknowledge. It is not a task or necessary to make sure that the objects are notice, it is not a living thing but it’ll make the person who is acknowledging the object feel some type of way; an experience that is fulfilled by the object.
1. In the reading make-believe: parafiction and plausibility the influence of commercial sponsors and the influence commercial businesses have on the name of buildings or just on buildings in general is brought up in discussion. The amount of influence corporations has in a sense made the idea of their subtle influences such their name being on buildings normal and almost never thought of or questioned. What does this relationship of architecture and corporate sponsors tell us about our ideologies of a modern building? Do the corporate sponsors have any influence as a client if essentially it is their name on the building? Where does this lead architecture in the future?
2. Bryant expresses the idea of viewing and experiencing objects and reality is only correctly done so without the relationship of other objects. What does this say about works of architecture designed and explored through diagram and site context?
3. Contrary to Bryant’s statements about Ruy argues that real architecture is the architecture which creates infinite connections though having multiple relationships to the site around it. How is it possible that it can be both ways? Is there an inherent right from wrong or better way to view the benefits of which to strategy one should design with?
The idea of objectifying architecture and the reality around us is a radical outlook which the readings and the lecture took. The argument objectifies reality, fantasy, materials, architecture, site, structure in a way which attempts to result in the idea of breaking down their meaning and aesthetic sensibility. The contradiction in strategy and relationships among objects is the thought really in question. Is architecture best understood without any relationships or as a link among the whole site? Although a work of architecture may have a greater effect without any relationship to its surrounding site as it adds further emphasis to its conceptual effects perceived, I would argue that a work of architecture having connections within its surrounding site is the better strategy in time. Not only is a work of architecture that explores connections as well as concepts more intricate and radical when analyzed but it also allows for those connections to create a sort of community identity.
1. In Killing Simplicity: Object Oriented Philosophy In Architecture, Gage explains Harmans attempts at examining objects through the three processes of undermining, overmining, and duomining. With all three attempts, they exist as relational understandings as a means of comparing with other scales of objects. The relation may be with, “smaller things, larger more encompassing ideas, or both.” Is this philosophical analysis successful in its attempt to decipher the ontology of objects? Does this exercise create a better resolution on objects nature or its purpose?
2. In the context of understanding the core nature of objects, architecture, form, etc., these understandings themselves are mere attempts. Bryant mentions that philosophy in general comprises itself of, “simplifications, reductions, and processes of abstraction…” and how during these times of inquiry it can and will likely lead to an abyss of fruitlessness. With this week’s theme, what are the most pressing aspects of architectures ontology? Is it their differences, their relational nature with other objects, or a mix of both?
3. Returning to Strange Objects, suggests that architecture must return its focus to the architectural object. Further stating that architecture has a tendency to become more of a theoretical domain than a real, and constructible one. Is this tendency only further amplified by the new generations urge for sensationalism? Is this just a trend of our time, or is this a persisting occurrence?
As discussed in class, there is an inherent desire to reduce complex problems and ideas into either otherworldly and elastic understandings, or simple rudimentary ones. In the example of the bowl and spoon, two objects that are typically crafted from metal, an artist by the name of Meret Oppenheim attempts to redefine our conventional knowledge of everyday objects. In the context of class, and the built environment, one of the most important lessons is the idea of elasticity. Objects are typically relegated to a singular condition, with the masses universally accepting this as final. But with architecture and design there is a necessity for elastic design, otherwise the built environment will lack inspiration. During the presentation, the topic of politics was brought up, and with today’s current standings it’s easy to understand how this reading is applicable to the world not only from the position of architecture, but also politics, social discourse, etc.
1. In The Ontic Principle:Outline of an Object-Oriented Ontology by Levi R. Bryant, if the principle of irreduction existed to translate the perspective, then do the architects translate their structure(reduce/simplify their design ideas) or do other people who translate from architect’s ideas in their own perspective.
2. In return to strange object, the shift from architecture as a practice of embodiment of the universe etc. to the practice of coordination, is the shift a process of simplification, complexation or just translation ?
3. Levi R. Bryant suggest that everything relates to each other and people can’t read from only one perspective. But if we view things through relation to other perspectives, then won’t there just be one answer to a theory and won’t a theory just be a fact? And if so, won’t we all view architecture the same way?
1. In Mark Foster Gages book, Killing Simplicity, he references Heidegger’s way of thinking about the visibility and invisibility of common objects, saying that they become visible only when the cease to function as they should. Is this Gages way of telling us that we too often take what’s around us for granted? In reference to architectural practice does it mean that we only notice architecture when it fails to be architecture?
2. The idea of Object Oriented Ontology states that an object only exits as they are perceived by human senses. The Ontic Principle states that there is no difference that does not make a difference. Bryant explains this is as the “thereness of difference that provokes wonder and inquiry into beings”. How does this “thereness of difference” relate to the “OOO”?
3. In Returning to Strange Objects, by David Ruy he asks if ‘architectural intelligence’ is really needed to be understood by the ‘real world” beyond just the architects. In a way he’s suggesting that if architecture is understood by the many it loses its unique and awe inspiring stature. Is this similar to the “visibility” that Gage talks about in Killing Simplicity?
An object is defined as a physical, material thing that can be seen and touched. Object Oriented Ontology states that an object is only an object after we become conscious of its existence. However according to Mark Foster Gage we don’t become conscious of an object until it stops functioning. Only after it stops being useful to us do we recognize its value. The relationship between object and person becomes very importance in this context. An object needs human interaction in order to fulfill its purpose, but it does not necessarily need to be acknowledged that it is there. As long as it functions and doesn’t disturb our day to day activities as it should it’s doing its purpose.
Q1: When transitioning from context oriented architecture to object oriented, it is important to consider the following quote from Ruy’s essay: “a return to the architectural object would move interest back to the thing itself.” If this is true, how would this shift of focus impact the architect’s design process?
Q2: If we are to understand architectural movements as a response to the limitations of a movement previous to it, then the speculative turn is not an outlier within the genealogy of architecture. However, the readings point out that this speculation is, in fact, a return to a previous philosophy. Taking this into account, is a “feedback loop” a better term than a “genealogy” to describe the history of the discipline?
Q3: Carrie Lambert-Beatty writes, “you can speculate…or even lie in art because it is understood as a fundamentally frivolous zone.” Does this have any implications in architecture, as the two disciplines are strongly linked?
This week has been centered around the object, what it is and what it means to be an object within architecture. In determining what an object is, you must consider the two facets of its existence. First of all, the object is a discrete item that exists. It has the ability to make differences because of its existence. This leads to the second part of the object. Not only is the object a discrete item, but also an item linked to other items within its surroundings. In fact, it was discussed that the way you determine if an object is real is by examining your relationship to it. In some cases, that object goes beyond the discrete item to become an extension of you, and sometimes that connection falters and the object returns to autonomy. Within architecture, there is this discussion about the building’s relationship to the site as a discrete object, or one embedded in its context.
1. Gage and Ruy both suggest that architecture’s need to be relevant has spread the field out thin, due to an unnatural preoccupation with current events. “This tumble into abject-relational problem-solving has been painful to witness,” (Gage) and “de-emphasizes the architectural object” (Ruy.) Surely the solution to this is not to ignore the architectural responsibility in problem solving and general global improvement. How does one strike a balance in problem solving in architecture, without allowing the vast quantity of problems in the world to cloud design?
2. As explored in Towards a Speculative Philosophy, continental materialism and realism represent an interesting relationship within the global field of architecture, as they highlight some of the many problems architects feel pressured to solve, while simultaneously pressuring them to solve in more creative ways. “The move forward toward realism is not a move toward the stuffy limitations of common sense, but quite often a turn toward the downright bizarre.” Is the new role of architects to see past the first obvious answer to a problem and pioneer the movement for efficient but out of the box thinking? Conversely, is it sometimes better to do the obvious thing? Is the need to search for the difficult answer a reflection of architecture’s obsession with being interesting, whereas accepting that the first answer may be the best is an example of the merits of laziness in architecture? At what point do we become the architects of society, rather than of city?
3. Societal materialism and subsequent sociocentric values relate naturally to cities on a global scale- it can happen quietly, without the responsible architects noticing, or with immense volume, causing everyone to take note. “Nikeplatz” is an example of the latter- a campaign so out of the box that it had nothing to do with the company and everything to do with ontology in urban design. “You want to wear it, why shouldn’t cities want to wear it?” Society inherently wants to put itself center stage. Is this example one of an obvious solution- projecting a successful venture from one aspect of societal reality into architecture- or a bizarre one? Who defines the distinction?
Object oriented ontology creates an even playing field for objects as a whole- viewing the only difference between people and inanimate objects as consciousness. From today’s presentation, “consciousness brings awareness of being, but is not required to be.” The question is whether OOO personifies objects or objectifies people, and the answer is that, while difference is the basis of philosophy, there is no difference here. People as a whole are not the only thing objectified in this week’s readings. The discussion of parafiction opens a conversation about the role of trust between artist and audience in art and subsequently architecture, and about whether artists have a right to objectify and manipulate that trust. It would seem that as long as the artist achieves their honest, truthful intentions, be it truth through untruth, through reaction, or through an “honest representation of what they thought” reality should reflect, we are indifferent to our role in the process. We welcome and celebrate the degradation of our emotions for art.
1) Levi Bryant, in “The Ontic Principle”, implies that as active thinkers and designers, we cannot disregard the history
and foundations of architecture that were laid before our time. Does this apply to knowledge in the present? For example: is there such thing as a ‘bad’ studio review or precedent to reference while developing one’s work?
2) When discussing the idea of searching for a ‘point of beginning’, it begs the question how this principle is used in all aspects of life- especially Architecture. What do you consider to be the start of true architectural design?
3) Philosophy, in my opinion, is largely based in the search of answers for countless numbers of difficult questions. How exactly does the act of questioning influence/ develop our work in the realm of architecture? How does it personally affect your work process?
1. From “Returning to Strange Objects,” David Ruy explains that architecture has shifted from an independent field to a dependent collaboration with other outside sources which has greatly changed the power of architecture. In today’s modern society, what positive external collaborations are important to sustain for the continuous growth in architecture and how has that relationship changed architecture today?
2. According to Mark Gage, he believes that growth in architecture is through understanding it on a natural and philosophical level. If architects had a great understanding of the nature of architecture and its abilities, how can that be applied today without innovating a new style? Could it be the initial process of a new project?
3. In the reading “Make-Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility,” Lambert-Beatty mentions that parafiction is an exploration of deception and delight in modern art. What aspects in architecture could be used as a deception similarly to how parafiction applies in contemporary art?
This week’s lecture had an extensive perspective on parafiction and objectivity in architecture. An interesting point was mentioned that paraficition could be used as a middle ground between deception and truth since validity depends on perspective and everything is opinion based. Thus, parafiction could be applied as strategy to let people create their own perception of what is comprehended as either factual or fictional. Another interesting topic was the argument between objectivity and field of architecture. There is this contradiction between architects wanting to be relevant and sustainable with their surroundings, meaning they have to collaborate with other extensive fields, and other architects who want to be independent from their surroundings. In my opinion, architecture has always been more interesting and exciting when greater relations are formed. It creates an opportunity to exchange ideas and build relationships that prove that architecture is more than simply a work of art.
1. In The Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object-Oriented Ontology, Bryant discusses that our curiosity for determining the pure being and or the pure form is impossible, according to Hegel, as we cannot imagine something existing without the context in which it exist. As architects and designers, we often work within the 3D model space of our computer which is infinite, contextless, and empty in its pre-modeling space. Is it productive to work in this simulated purity of digital isolation as the context is often placed in post-production or is our perception of what defines context (such as ideas, images, culture, etc.) redefined with the advent of the Digital Age?
2. In Mark Foster Gage’s Killing Simplicity, he argues for an object- oriented philosophy that claims that architecture as an object is independent of their relations with other objects, concepts, and entities. This however seems to address a very surface level tactic to addressing objects and architecture, in which the aesthetics and their direct effects on the viewer outweigh that actual purpose of buildings. Can architecture truly exist as an object without a direct function or relation to its context? And if so, does that not undermine the role of architecture to society, reducing architecture to large artistic installations?
3. Autonomy of architecture and its existence as a pure object is forceless, isolated, phenomenological, and in many ways idealized. To imagine architecture in such a way is to view architecture as less of a physical thing and more of a projection. Can the practice of architecture predominantly exist in idea and in a metaphysical state or should the physicality of architecture and the “idea” of architecture be viewed as separate practices?
The autonomy of architecture through the principles of OOO is one that is well founded but lacks the realism and development that is necessary for it to have an actual impact on the architectural field. In an age where buildings are more dependent on external elements (such as the direct context, its environmental impact, and its adhesion to code) it becomes very easy for the architecture to be lost and the conformity to thrive. These elements are important in fact because as architects, like any other citizen, we have a certain responsibility to the world, but architecture needs to have the ability to be architecture for architectures sake and not for societal expectation. However, I do not believe that this can be achieved by envisioning architecture as an object that exist without context or preconceived notions. Experiencing reality in isolation is impossible and for that reason we must hold value to the context while simultaneously adding something new and unique with architecture.
1. David Ruy discusses architecture’s connection to nature in terms of “manipulating the ground, keeping the rain out, or making sure the interior has enough light and air.” If we focused more on building with the landscape rather than on it, how would the environment be positively impacted?
2. How do we distinguish between physical object and abstract object when an object in itself is defined by space and boundaries? Mark Foster Gage believes an object is only “real” when it is observed by a viewer.
3. Towards a Speculative Philosophy asks many questions regarding materialism and realism. If most of our decisions are conscious how does the subconscious play a role in our conceptions about other people and the world?
1. Do objects have qualities that are hidden or overlooked? Harman’s examples of hidden qualities are qualities that are intrinsic to the value of an object, but so commonplace that they are often overlooked. Does this make them hidden?
2. “…to be is to make or produce differences .” But do things that do not exist also produce differences? Ideas, concepts, these do not really exist at all, but yet they create the most profound differences. So do you need to “be” in order to make a difference, or is it something that just happens as the world spirals towards higher entropy?
3. In Towards a Speculative Philosophy, there is the concept of a “realm independent of thought or language”, or more specifically, how we cannot speak on this idea. But is this not how we consider the life of plants to be? Or of animals that have no capacity for sentience? While we cannot, as human beings, share this idea without thought or language, can we not imagine it? If we can conceive of notions such as “heaven” or “nirvana” can we not imagine a realm in which there is no thought?
1. In “Killing Simplicity” by Gage, he cites Harman’s writing which states, “intellect can make reality directly present in a way that the senses cannot.” He implies that rather than just creating a new shape or style, architecture should engage people in thought and inquiry. How can the architect design beyond just the creation of new forms? And how can one ensure that the architecture will prompt viewers to ask questions about the work and continue to ask questions in the future?
2. David Roy emphasizes architecture’s relationship to nature in “Returning to Strange Objects”. Much of what is observed in architecture is derived from nature. Today more than ever there is a movement towards sustainable design, which seeks to maintain the built environment over long periods of time. If nature is known for instability and destruction, how can a building be designed to be stable and last over time? Should designers move away from nature as a source of innovation?
3. In “The Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object-Oriented Ontology”, Bryant describes the principle of act-tuality. Objects are defined by “their capacity to act or be acted upon.” For an object to become its own force, it must be open to having other forces acting on it. Is the way in which a structure is acted upon by other objects in relation to it within the architect’s control? Or is it beyond their authority (such as his example with a rock acted on by gravity)? Can this notion of ‘act-tuality’ relate to Roy’s ideas of architecture becoming a form for engagement in economics, politics, and social issues?
Understanding the limits of consciousness and how they relate to the perception of objects has a major impact on architectural design. The lecture and discussion explored ideas based on object-oriented ontology and its role in architecture. Objects are independent of human perception and are affected by relations with people and other objects. These objects are defined in that they exist and interact and can be characterized through speculation rather than human experience. The object is taken from context or predetermined associations. In this way, objects are only distinguished from people through consciousness. Consciousness understands what the object is. Understanding how this human consciousness operates becomes interesting in regards to artificial intelligence. As discussed during the lecture with the new AI that was designed to become a master in chess, this progress with technology poses new questions. It is interesting to speculate how objects will be perceived through the subjectivity of an artificial perception as well as how this will change over time as AI technology progresses.
1. To what extent are we able to verbally process and analyze reality before the subjective biases of language factor in, even in the case that biases in perception aren’t taken into account?
2. If architecture’s form is derived merely from its function, so much to the point that its form is considered typical to its users, although perhaps not so to architects, how can it still hold merit for serving its purpose despite its inability to capture attention?
3. Lambert-Beatty introduces the idea of analyzing history “horizontally” to connect individual events to the greater whole. In what ways can this become a method of analyzing objects in a structural context in relation to one another, and what would the limitations of such a method be?
In studying the theory of knowledge, there is a working premise that everything that can be perceived is thusly biased by the knower’s own perception of what information was processed. This must mean that the knower can have a personal truth that they believe based on their own perception that may differ from other versions of the truth that exist either outside of what they have perceived, or outside of what their bias may be able to tell them. This is heavily related to Immanuel Kant’s discussion on what one’s own knowledge is in relation to the entire scope of reality, which would be to say that what one knows can either be a subset of reality, or derived from it, but in the end, is still part of reality because it can be known. From here, it can also be speculated that there is nothing that can exist as a part of the human reality that cannot be expressed linguistically, including emotions, as these are able to be post-rationalized by language. In this, the abstract can also be, in a sense, realistic, because it is able to be processed and communicated through use of language.
In “Returning to Strange Object” by David Ruy, he explains that architecture has changed from an independent field to a more codependent one with other external forces acting upon it. What are the down sides to these newer collaborations?
In “Killing Simplicity” the author Mark Foster Gages explains Heidegger’s thoughts on how objects only become “visible” to us when these stop functioning correctly. Is this the authors way of saying that we as critics tend to only notice what is wrong with architecture instead of appreciating what is done right?
In “The Ontic Principle Outline of an Object”, the author proclaims that spaces are fixed and immutable. Is there anyway at which a space can be reversed back to mutable?
One of ideas I found particularly interesting in yesterday’s lecture was the concept of the fur spoon and saucer by Meret Oppenheim. This surrealist object tests our beliefs and notions of what a spoon and saucer can be. Nobody would ever want to drink and use this object, even the thought of the fur clumps inside your mouth will give one the chills. However, when looking at the object even with the odd material choice, we think we know how to properly hold and use the object. With her work she reverses what we think we know about the spoon and saucer and tampers with our very memories of using the objects. In architecture this could also be somewhat linked to a form and function debate that seems to happen often. This surrealists object is a kind of middle ground between the two sides and shows the importance of both.
1. According to Heidegger, a tool is an equipment but when it is no longer functional, it becomes visible to the viewer as an object no longer something in the background. How would the image of architectural buildings or landmarks change in the viewer’s
2. How can we become truly materialist in the eyes of Zizek?
3. How do affects become formed and open to become acted upon by other objects? How does this affect its structure through which it achieves to make the connection?
One of the important aspects of today’s presentation was about an objects individuality and how we reevaluate the meaning and identity of an object once we take away its original context. Context becomes this integral part of an object because of the amount of information that is translated to the reader but once it is taken away the only thing visible is now the object itself. Objects that become objects, according to OOO, only manifest in this way once we are conscious of its existence. Gage adding that this consciousness only appears once the object becomes useless. Once an object loses its functionality then will we recognize its value. But this relationship exists as long as we decide to follow it. For example, an iphone functions as a phone. Even if it still functions as a phone, it does not mean that its value cannot be recognized until it no longer works. If someone else now views it as a coaster, then it exists as such even though its still functional as a phone. I think objects and their meaning really only exist when we give it meaning and/or what it means to us.
1. In Killing Simplicity, Gage discusses undermining and overmining. Undermining would be to believe that objects are just collections of atoms, because that’s the reality of the universe. Overmining would be an object only becomes real when it is perceived by someone, or that it is a small part of a network. In past weeks we discussed the idea of part to whole relationships, what stance would the object-oriented ontology philosophy take in the idea of part to whole relations?
2. Gage makes a point to say that today we easily undermine architecture or buildings before they are built with LEED certification. The sustainable parts take away from the architectural qualities of the building as an object. In your opinion, do things like LEED certification “undermine” the architecture before it even exists? Do you think undermining is necessarily a negative thing?
3. David Ruy discusses his concern with the de-emphasis of the architectural object. How would you explain “architectural intelligence” and how the “magic” has been taken out of architecture?
In past weeks we have discussed part to whole relationships and the future of architecture. This week we discussed the OOO and the ideas of under/ overmining and reality. Undermining would just be assuming that objects exist because it is just the reality of the universe. Overmining is when an object becomes real only when its perceived by someone or is a part of a network. Overming is like saying a part to a whole is only a part if there is a whole. In school we are taught about specific things about architecture. Like form and function or that form follows function. Could this be considered undermining? David Ruy concerns himself with the idea that the “magic” has been taken out of architecture. LEED certification is another example of this. Gage sees LEED certification as undermining architecture because the sustainable parts take away from the architectural qualities of the building. Making it less of an object.
1. In “Returning to Strange Objects”, David Ruy discusses how nature has moved away from being a direct inspiration for design and become more of an inspiration for the process of design. How has the advancement of technology and parametric design influenced this shift away from designs based in nature?
2. Mark Foster Gage describes object-building in terms of object oriented philosophy, stating that “its reality cannot be understood through its external relations – including its relation to context”. How does this differ from the architectural definition, where the context is completely rejected? Does this lack of understanding still allow for the design to have a relationship with the surrounding context, albeit a confusing one?
3.By explaining the example of Vienna’s Karlsplatz, Carrie Lambert raises an important aspect of the object oriented ontology discussion – has branding and materialism led us to this object oriented philosophy? Has the need to keep up with the latest brands (i.e. Nike), forced us to think for the brand rather than for ourselves as individuals, creating a “fake” facade for us to hide behind?
A main focus of this week’s presentations and discussion was the concept of paraficiton. Parafiction describes the ambiguous line between fact and fiction, blurring the observer’s ability to understand the truth to be the truth. I think this idea is critical to today’s day and age due to the heavy influence of media on young adults. Young people believe anything they see on the internet, taking first opinion to be truth. However, the truth is rarely portrayed accurately. Like the drawings architects use to describe a project, people post images that tell the story they want to be told, rather than what may have actually happened. They want to portray a “perfect” life and use social media to get that idea across to all of their followers. They want to provoke conversation with the stories of their lives rather than explain reality. Therefore, I see social media to be an outlet of the art of parafiction in this world.
1. A negative implication is made in the article “Returning to (Strange) Objects” toward architecture being influenced by the time and culture instead of the object. Is it not an aspect of architecture that it be a symbol that stands tall for years to come that identifies a period and majority of the culture? It is not important for the sake of history?
2. Again, in the article “Killing of Simplicity,” architecture being a product of the influence of society is frowned upon, relishing in the use of object or tool. However, it is mentioned that a tool or object is not capable of representing the full reality. Therefore, how is possible for designing with the object in mind be beneficial for the future education of architecture or the history of architecture?
3. If an object depends on the perception of how people see it, what does it matter if one designs with the tool if people will interpret the architecture as they will and based on what the world is going through at that time? It seems the architectural field and the object go hand in hand.
One must find a balance. It is true today’s architects are obsessing more about the ideas of fame and worldly influence instead of the art of architecture. Yet, architecture is meant to show the significance of a time and culture. Therefore, it would perhaps be more effective to design with the object in mind for the subconscious will always reflect the issues of the world occurring at that time. In addition, it was also mentioned that one must use nature as a tool of design for nature is unpredictable and therefore unique. This brings up the fact that architecture would just be imitating the influence of nature. Yes, nature has the objects, shapes, and forms within it. Yet, nature is the influence not the shape. Also, one would probably still be influenced by the world and culture since nature is typically in the eyes of the public whether it is being ignored or manifested.
1. In the Ontic Principle, it states that the explanation of an idea has unending layers. For example, concerning a “conflict of critiques,” the Kantians tell us one thing, then the phenomenologists tell us something about that thing, then the foucauldians tell us something that the phenomenologists mention, and so on and so forth. If we are then asked to try to explain something without referring to ideas of others, is that even possible? Does everything relate to one another, or is there one idea that came first and from then others were developed?
2. In Killing Simplicity, Gage discusses how architects usually think of their forms by their relations, not by their individual qualities, and that architects want to deflect from this habit. What is the benefit of deriving ideas from the objects themselves without their surrounding context?
3. Continuing from the previous question, isn’t architecture more impactful and powerful when related to their surroundings, rather than their individual qualities?
If object oriented ontology refers to the reality of objects that is beyond human consciousness, what percentage of objects do we actually understand? We create objects to serve a purpose, but do we fully understand what we created? In the OOO view, objects are unrelated to humans and exist on their own. However, if we created these objects they must have relation to us, to the ideas that we used to form them. I cannot imagine objects having no relation to anything else other than itself. It is helpful in some aspects to apply OOO, such as when bias comes into play, or when being heavily influenced by an idea forms your next action. Many individuals don’t realize the influence they are living under, and in many cases, it is harmful. Ideas about money and fame can override moral ideas about saving the planet, and people take negative actions because they were blinded by their upbringing. This becomes damaging to our world, especially when politicians live in this mindset. If we place ourselves as objects unrelated to our upbringing, how we live, and what we have lived through, and start with an new, innocent mindset, would our actions we take every day differ?
1. In “The Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object- Oriented Ontology” Bryant discusses the ontology (or properties and nature) of knowledge. Applying the same analysis what is a general ontology of architecture, and its relationship to similar practices?
2. In “Towards a Speculative Philosophy” the different ways that people have gone about rationalizing and dissecting realism is discussed. Is it imperative to combine these many different ways of thinking and speculating in order to understand realism fully or would one or a few be just as effective? Would a combination of speculation and absolutes work to strengthen or weaken the understanding?
3. In “Killing Simplicity” Mark Foster Gage discusses that object oriented ontology is prompting new trajectories in architecture and in a sense is dragging it out of boring and overused design strategies. This seems to be a trend with many new movements in architecture, that they are drawing architecture from the grasps of the unimagined or uninspired. Why does this appear to be the case with most architectural movements?
The presentation this week really clarified my understanding of object oriented ontology. The idea that nothing would exist without consciousness is very straightforward and understandable however, it’s rarely ever thought about. A notable quote that was brought up in the presentation was “the plant doesn’t negate the soil or the seed from whence it comes”. This means that the existence of one thing no matter how dependent upon other things it is doesn’t lessen or take away the existence of another. If this were not true that would mean that nothing ever exists because everything needs something else to produce it and if not it needs consciousness which needs a host such as a person or other being. Everything relies on other things to exist so in essence if one objects existence were to negate the existence of another, nothing would exist. This is a very simple yet intriguing concept to think about and wrap your head around.
1. The trend in architecture in recent years has shifted towards highly contextual architecture. However, in “Returning to Strange Objects,” David Ruy predicts a rebuttal in the field of architecture back towards a focus on the architectural object. Are factors other than timeliness contributing to this countermovement – such as the rise of social media and iconic, Instagrammable architecture? And do you think this countermovement is occurring, will occur in the near future, or will not occur at all?
2. In “Killing Simplicity,” Mark Foster Gage discusses the idea of “invisible” objects – tools and equipment we are largely unaware of unless they do not work. Similarly, many designers in various fields site an axiom: “If __ is designed well, you should never notice it.” While both statements rightfully suggest that most people notice bad design, is it also true that good design (architecture and non-architecture) should always be invisible?
3. Carrie Lambert-Beatty’s essay on “parafiction” discusses several artists, including Michael Blum, Eva and Franco Mattes, and the Yes Men, who create untruthful but believable stories which play with audience’s conception of reality versus fiction. Do you think that a group like the Yes Men could be successful today, a decade after “Parafiction and Plausibility” was published?
Parafiction lies in a middle ground between truth, believability, and credibility and lie, deception, and absurdity. This theme of authenticity and reality which is undercut by deception evokes ideas about espionage, where the authenticity and reality of the government and society at large is underscored by the actions of unknown operatives. In the genre of the spy movie, the “object” of espionage – the gadget – often becomes critical to the plot, while the “field” becomes a more generic web of information. In the case of architecture, the object of deception is what in the cases provided by David Ruy lends credibility to the parafiction. In architecture, it follows then that the “object” of building should be of upmost importance – as Mark Foster Gage would argue – providing credibility and legibility to a design. Below the reading of the object is an underlay of information, technology, etc. which could be described as Stan Allen’s “field.” Perhaps by weaving the longstanding rivals of the object and the field into a cohesive built fabric, architects can reach some compromise in this debate.
1. In the reading, “The Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object”, it is introduced that there are many ways of thinking and each way has its own unique set of guiding principles to guide one’s thought process. Would it be helpful to think of architecture in that same way? What if we had different, yet set, ways of thinking about architecture? Would that help to open the views and minds of people who are set in their ways, and would it help to combat against creating architects who only view the world in one light?
2. In “Towards a Speculative Philosophy” it is stated that systematic thought among groups is increasingly being seen. This means that individual thought is not prevalent and we are falling under the influence of groupthink. What do you think architects can do to fight against this, and do you think a change in the education system would help improve this problem?
3. The reading “Returning to Strange Objects” discusses how architecture should relate to the world and environment that surrounds it. It states that in the desire for architecture to be relevant in current events is has subsequently led to the decline in the importance and innovation of the architectural object. Do you agree with this statement? What are the pros and cons of this taking place and how will it affect where architecture goes in the future?
It is a possibility that the decline in the importance of the architectural object is being caused by the increase in groupthink within the architectural community. Across many schools and educational systems, architecture and theory are being taught in the same streamlined way. This means that the new generation of architects will come out with the same mentality. This is why it is important to teach and introduce, the many viewpoints within architecture. The same building can be analyzed from a numerous amount of lenses, and those particular lenses will determine the light that building is seen in. Starting this change in schools is important because that is where the next generation is being groomed on how they should think and resolve architectural problems. If they taught that there is only one way to go about doing things, then we will continue falling under the influence of an architectural groupthink and will have an even harder time rediscovering the importance of the architectural object.
1. In “Returning to (Strange) Objects,” Ruy notes that architects have been focusing their works and designs on cultural and environmental factors, rather than the architectural object itself. He specifically says, “…architects celebrate contingency more than autonomy today.” How can architect design without taking in the considerations of the environment? Isn’t it important to design based on external factors, especially at this moment in time, in order to predict the possible perpetuality of the object?
2. Gage talks about the source of Harman’s phenomenological ideas which is Heidegger’s tool analysis of “Insofar as a tool is a tool.” He further simplifies Heidegger’s tool analysis by explaining that function is apparent, while object and aesthetics is not, until the object is no longer able to function. Does this concept allude to the idea that architecture is unnoticeable until it fails? If so, what can be considered as architecture failing?
3. In “Make Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility,” Lambert-Beatty explains the ideas of parafiction and its capability of bringing up other issues through a use of examples. One of these examples is about Blum’s project installation dedicated to Safiye Behar called “A Tribute to Safiye Behar.” The existence of Behar is known to be absent, but the bigger idea of the installation was the historical and political issues that were brought up. How can architecture be used as a parafiction to deceive others of its reality for more progressive purposes?
This week’s topic focuses on the object and its field. Heidegger exposes a philosophical theory on the premises of an object, saying “Insofar as a tool is a tool.” We see an object as it is based on how we relate to the product, like we see a garbage can for how it holds our trash. We almost never see a garbage can for its aesthetic and actual physical properties – we never see a garbage can as a cylindrical shell. Although I completely agree with this theory, I also question its ability to apply this on every object out there. As architecture students (especially in RPI), we focus on the aesthetics of our works along with its function – this might be one of the hardest things about being an architect. In the readings, Ruy and Gage bring up the idea that architects have been focusing a lot more on combatting the environmental aspects of their work rather than working on the true aesthetics of their work. I think these areas of the lecture are truly debatable especially as a student going to RPI – we are heavily worked on having our architectural object relate to the function of the object.
1. In “Killing Simplicity: Object-Oriented Philosophy In Architecture”, Gage raised an essential inquiry at the end of the article. He questioned that in the future of the field of architecture, what is the thing we are not able to do, and what is the thing we are able to do. From my perspective, utilizing the method or embodying the element from other disciplines into architecture might be the future of our field. But, how should we collaborate other elements while remaining the core objectivity of architecture?
2. In “The Ontic Principle”, the authors articulated several principles explaining how do we understand the object-oriented ontology. One is that reduction is the selection. So, how do we balance the “selection” and apply them do solve real problems through architecture?
3. In the article “Returning to strange objects”, Ruy mentioned that “the architectural object…would have that ‘dark nucleus’ that cannot be exhausted by a list of its qualities”. In the studio that we have now, how do we interpret the dark nucleus Ruy was arguing about?
When we think something philosophically, we always come to a popular argument of combating with itself. The “ooo”, founded by Mark Foster Gage, provide us a totally new perspective to receive not only in the field of architecture, but to the entire world as well. In this week’s lecture, we are acknowledged of the co-relationship among ontology, human being, and the speculative realism, or the correlationalism. If we examine architecture projects in a view of correlationalism, how would we speculate the role of human? It is intriguing to step out of the obligation of being an architect and reexamine the substance of us, and architectures. So if one component in world is replaced by a new type of constructive element, for example AI, how would the field of architecture be influenced? Does this world still need architects? This is a philosophical argument questioning about the objectivity in the possible future and could permeate in out studies in college.
1. As Harman discusses and further analyzes Heidegger’s tool analysis, he brings up the point of the reality of objects being invisible to us when they are no longer functioning. The example given is a keyboard, and as long as we are using a keyboard and it is functioning properly, the aesthetic of the keyboard is disregarded. How can this tool analysis relate to architecture? Is it only when a building lacks peak functionality that we begin to notice its aesthetic properties (e.g. skip-stop circulation) ?
2. In David Ruy’s “Returning to Strange Objects” he mentions how architectural theory has become regarded as more important than the actual physical being of the project. Do you think this is a problem being ingrained in us particularly in our architectural education?
3. In Mark Foster Gage’s “Killing Simplicity” he says architecture must be a liberated player in the sport that is the fast paced world of trends- fashion, technology, etc. Would it be problematic to shift from trying to be attentive to context (social, cultural, economic, and political) to be more attentive to the object of architecture itself, or is trying to do a broad stroke over contextual factors actually less progressive to the situation than ignoring these factors in the first place?
This weeks readings and discussions on OOO seemed to go in many different directions, with the main premise of it all being the meaninglessness of it all. OOO is indifferent to context and outside factors. We as architects have grown so obsessed with how field should influence or mold an object, that we have seem to forgotten to look at the object as its own entity. We can try to account for every outside factor of the world, or accept that our perception of reality is so limited as humans that it is almost a waste of time to broadly tackle all the world’s problems in one building, yielding no significant outcomes. Parafiction was also discussed as being human dependent, but not relying on reality. For example, BBC’s great spaghetti harvest seemed serious, but in the context of reality is totally out of pocket. OOO and parafiction both challenge in different ways how we perceive reality and how architectural theory can be based on these perceptions.
Killing Simplicity finds Mark Gage probing the subject of common objects and their visibility, stating that only when objects no longer serve their purpose do they suddenly become apparent. As a result of this, is it understood that the general population may not place a great deal of value or purpose on a building that doesn’t conform to the typical ideal of architecture?
A great deal of decisions are made throughout the day in a response to another action, prompting some sort of logical reaction. With this in mind, do you believe that our subconscious plays a stronger role in jumping to conclusions about people and our surroundings rather than our conscious mind?
Objects that tend to preserve hidden qualities often find themselves frequently disregarded. Harman uses examples of qualities that are hidden yet fundamental to the value of the object, however the qualities are so plain that that might be the simple reason why the objects are disregarded. In this case, are these qualities hidden?
1. In “Make-Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility” Carrie Lambert-Beatty describes the “Nikeplatz” installment in Vienna. The artists used parafiction to expose a truth about people’s perspectives about commercialism and their urban context. How powerful of a tool could these parafictional experiments be to architects and urban planners looking to solve contemporary urban issues?
2. When we reduce and simplify to make questions of philosophy possible to answer, what aspects of philosophy are lost? Is it better to reduce as much as possible or to leave questions complex although an answer might not be found?
3. In “Killing Simplicity,” Mark Foster Gage is against simplicity and anti-boring. Is what architecture needs found in form and style or in the attitudes of architects towards architecture?
This week’s presentation focused on the concepts of the readings in a variety of media. Object oriented ontology can be found in architecture as well as in fiction and animation. While in contemporary architecture, OOO is compromised for site and context relationships, it is still used to advance the plot of film or video games. People rarely look at things for their properties as an object and instead focus on their meaning. This may be a harmless day-to-day process, but for architects it could compromise the design of a building. Parafiction was explored outside the context of architecture and art, as half-truths are present in many forms including politics and satire. In the world today, parafiction is becoming more widespread out of art galleries and can be used intentionally for deception. It is important to explore these examples to better understand how these concepts work outside of an architectural context.
1) David Ruy, in ‘Returning to (Strange) Objects’, he compares the historical perspective on the discipline (as object & autonomous) and the contemporary perspective (as field & dependent on context). He goes on to say that while it’s admirable for current architects to be concerned with world affairs and the importance of architecture’s role within these matters, that the discipline is being stretched far too thin in attempting to respond to every external force introduced. Is this world-saving perspective damaging architecture and its ability to be taken seriously as a profession when compared with fields like engineering?
2) In Carrie Lambert’s ‘Make-Believe’, she writes about an artist, Michael Blum. who is setting up an exhibit based on a fictional character, Safiye Behar. The exhibit details her life as an activist Jew from Turkey who had a semi-intimate relationship with a pivotal nationalist figure. Even after the reveal that Behar was fictional, she became somewhat real in the hearts and minds of those who wanted her to be. If the parafictional takes from both reality and fiction, what contextual influence is considered relevant or invented from an architectural perspective?
3) In ‘The Ontonic Principle’ Levi Bryant compares different schools of philosophical thought and how they attempt to critique access to knowledge. Individual’s choices are boiled down to personal preference rather than any rational objective accuracy in obtaining knowledge. Are we as designers subjected to personal preference, or are we capable of breaking down the rational of what forces guide access to knowledge?
Object Oriented Ontology and speculative realism are in a sense anti-human. They take the parameters and context we as designers/architects held so dear and questions the meaning of it. If everything matters, then none of it matters. It challenges our incessant need to please everyone and factor everything that happened around our building’s site in order for our project to be considered relevant. The age in which we live in champions right vs wrong and that there’s usually one correct way to approach a problem. Add that with the fact that everything has basically already been done, and we have architecture as generic as can be. While everything might have already been done, it hasn’t been done by you. The parameters that can then be made, are then based less on others and more on your collective experience of what does vs what doesn’t work. It’s easy to think that personally influenced design intent leans toward the gratuitous but a para-fictional approach allows us to look past this. If you’re able to describe your design intent via objectively relevant information and well-constructed personal design choices, then the architecture wins.
1. In David Ruy’s Returning to strange objects, a paradox occurs. First he mentions that nature is a grand calibrated clock that humans keep throwing out of sync. But then he says “you are a necessary cog within the clockwork of nature. You can’t break the machine if your’re part of the machine.” How can we as humans be throwing nature out of sync while simultaneously not be able to do so?
2. If objects are “any unified entity, whether it has a reality in the world or only in the mind”, how do we study these “objects”?
3. Harman suggests that “buildings have a vast numbers of qualities, properties, and even relations but that their full reality can never be reduced to a single, simplistic observation.” He also goes on to say “the only way to do justice to objects is to consider that their reality is free of all relation, deeper than all reciprocity.” If a building’s full reality can’t be reduced to simple diagrams, why is it that architects always choose to use partis, plans and sections, and elevations to convey the meaning of their building?
Mark Foster had the idea to take a model or kit of something and rearrange the parts to create a completely new object. This new object is theoretically the same as what it is supposed to be except that the pieces are in different positions. The big difference between the two is the meaning behind it. Each object has a meaning, whether it be philosophical or completely out of the understanding of humans. Objects can exist but sometimes they aren’t really existing. They only exist in this world in relationship with another object. The example given in class being Waluigi, being a mirror of a mirror. He exists as a person but only because Mario and Wario also exist. He is basically just a concept that both exists and doesn’t exist at the same time.
1) Do you believe that the reality of interactions within architecture and related design fields allow one a greater opportunity to relate and/or connect with a specific piece or work?
2) This question essentially analyzes the nature of function and form, more particularly the very specific relationship they have with one another. The current stampede of parametric design tools being used in contrast to more holistic design tools seem to have a disconnect. Do you feel as though these factors contribute to the function v. for debate?
3) In the reading entitled “Make Believe Parafiction and Plausibility”, artist Safiye Behar is referenced. In the reading, the speaker states that the artist is described as a “fascinating figure”, but her work is essentially “flat-footed”. Do you believe that in both life and architecture one can distinguish the character of this manner?
1) Do you believe that the reality of interactions within architecture and related design fields allow one a greater opportunity to relate and/or connect with a specific piece or work?
2) This question essentially analyzes the nature of function and form, more particularly the very specific relationship they have with one another. The current stampede of parametric design tools being used in contrast to more holistic design tools seem to have a disconnect. Do you feel as though these factors contribute to the function v. for debate?
3) In the reading entitled “Make Believe Parafiction and Plausibility”, artist Safiye Behar is referenced. In the reading, the speaker states that the artist is described as a “fascinating figure”, but her work is essentially “flat-footed”. Do you believe that in both life and architecture one can distinguish the character of this manner?
• Particularly this week, there was a seemingly significant emphasis on reality and the various realms of reality. It is also highly apparent through the readings and even more through the presentation that in today’s culture, essentially everyone exits within their own realms of what each individual classifies reality as. This can be seen in politics, education, art and it is extremely prevalent in the world of architecture and related practices. It seems as though the contrasting nature of multiple realities of a collection of persons can be compared visually to the contrasting yet complimentary nature of constructivism and deconstructivism in architecture.
1. In the reading by Beatty, she mentions that parafiction is powerful and more in its element when it relates to historical moment, and for that reason it is troubling? I would like to examine why it’s troubling? If we were to live in fabricated realities comfortably, and everything works in our eyes, would that still be dangerous as Beatty puts it?
2. Stemming from the question above, the reading “Towards a Speculative Philosophy” shed some light for that it’s human nature to want to debunk perceived truths, because we’re creatures of questioning and curiosity. So no matter what reality is presented, we will always look for falsities. How much would parafiction connected to history affect our society, if we naturally fact check?
3. In “Killing Simplicity”, there is a pushed narrative that anti-realism is linked or related to architecture being autonomous. In the example it gives on LEED, it characterizes the idea of valuing that certification as undermining architecture, in that it has changed public understanding of architecture. Looking at this from a contrasting side, doesn’t things like LEED give a quality to the urban and environmental fabric; why must architecture highlight its autonomous qualities if it does this?
Now understanding it more, I don’t think Beatty meant to describe parafiction “troubling” as though it was a sort of evil that could desttroy our society into some sort of dystopia. I think that she meant parafiction in terms of history says a lot about our naive society and fairly refreshing in a satirical way. That’s why questioned it, because I feel like parafiction or satire in general is healthy for us to grow. Which goes into the response for my second question: parafiction is closely tied to are ability to change and evolve. In fact, the thought of not having it would have an effect on society.
For the third question, architecture shouldn’t put technical issues on the back-burner, but we should place the same importance on autonomous qualities as we do for the technical ones. There should be a push for something out of the ordinary, so that architecture can continue being interesting and not simple.
1. How can we as architects do more to not allow architecture to become too comfortable and sedentary as it appears Brassier has tried to accomplish by using architecture as a tool to dilute human ego?
2. Are the deceptions listed by Carrie Lambert productive for the general public understanding of what architecture is and can be? Or would you say they distract from the real importance of an architect’s work?
3. With all the topics on the new age architects and architecture straying too far from conditioning and history, for example in “Killing Simplicity,” would you say there could be an important and valuable reason this shift in architectural understanding is occurring, and why that might not be so bad?
During the student presentations this week, I was struck by a certain, rather softly spoken sentence along the lines of, ‘humans, animals, and objects are equal under the rules of OOO, therefore OOO is anti-human.’ This stayed in my mind throughout the entire length of the presentations, especially when I started relating that statement to modern day feminism and its objectors. But feminism aside, I find the statement to be very hurtful to what OOO is trying to accomplish. Humans are so anthropocentric in our view of the world, that the mere thought of having oneself compared to an animal or an unconscious object makes one feel attacked. OOO is so important to the planet and the human interaction aspect of cohabitation, and we need to be better about accepting ourselves as a piece of the ecosystem, rather than the ones in control of it.
1. Ruy says “architecture has accelerated its move away from the discourse of the architectural object towards the discourse of the architectural field”. Although this mean that we are producing more beneficial architecture, are we losing what we once were striving for when we used to design in terms of an object rather than a field?
2. In what ways can architecture as a practice gain the same level of responsibilities regarding nature that architecture as a discipline seems to achieve?
3. Gage discusses how architects often overmine and undermine our work. Is it possible to see our work in an OOO perspective rather than associating our buildings with many other factors that were considered while designing them?
As discussed in this week’s lecture, Object Oriented Ontology gives us a new perception of everyday things. It is easy for us to compare and relate objects to one another, but thinking of an object in this manner allows us to see objects as their own entity without being affected or influenced by surrounding objects. This way of experiencing objects, whether they be living or nonliving, allows us to understand them without any relation to anything. While we see these objects in an unfamiliar way, we must take into consideration that these objects exist in a completely different world that we cannot fully recognize. Parafiction, which was also discussed in this week’s lecture, allows fiction to be viewed as a fact. This allows artwork to be view in a different reality while also revealing truth within that we are familiar with in our own reality.
1. In Returning to Strange Objects, David Ruy states “These days, it seems perfectly natural to think of architecture as a consequence of its context, however it is defined.” Do you find that to be true?
2. “Objects have hidden qualities and realities, and they withdraw from our understanding.” Do we all experience these hidden qualities differently, or even experience completely different qualities?
3. Architecture can be used as a tool to shape how one experiences a space. Are we ever able to be fully aware of how it’s qualities and realities are influencing our experience?
The object is something that is one thing and many at the same time. It has inherent qualities that, through parafiction, have the ability to tell multiple stories, true and fake. The object exists as a being of nothing in particular, that influences the way in which we experience other objects or situations. What actually makes something truly authentic or realistic? If a Picasso and a fake Picasso produce the same effect or reaction, are they equivalent? Why is the one more important or significant than the other?
1– Is any thought truly original? Has every question been asked before, even if it has not been shared aloud? Surely people have questioned the same things/ have had similar thoughts with slight variation. How does this change the way we think about the originality in architecture? Is there really an “original” architecture that has not been discovered yet– either in reality or in the mind? Is anything really the “first” or has it already been brought into reality by someone else who had the means to do so?
2–Objects are said to exist only as they are perceived through the use of senses. We recognize that there is a reality outside of the mind where forms are created for a purpose. The classic saying goes “form follows function” Yet how has it been then that as time goes on forms have evolved and continue to change when the functions of such forms have not? Is it that the objects considerations have been altered? Is the form following the function of the program? Or the function of the structure? How can we let the form become a fully functioning object and ascend to become a tool rather than just an object of sorts?
3– Architecture has become consequence of its greater context. We often concern our architecture with the cultural values and urban context’s that encapsulate and surround it. But what about the relationship to nature? Nature has always been a creative force in architecture and a deciding factor of many things. It inspire architecture and has been a source for innovations in architecture but there is a disconnect between people in nature. People are considered to be “evil” where nature is everything good. How can– other than implementing laws– architecture become more of an extensive field to meld with nature in a more expansive context? Rather than connecting the two how can they become one in the same? Is it possible?
Reality is classified by what is tangible, the world as it actually exists rather than an idealistic notion. Yet why is there only one version of “reality” that we all are tied to ? Things are only real because we give them value and say they are real. Yet we all see the world differently, does this then discount reality? We can make something up in our heads and write it, draw it or build it but what actually counts it as reality? We can draw spaceships and design them yet they are not reality– they are not built tangible objects. But what says they could not be? Sometimes we can dream up spaces that seem more real than the ones we actually inhabit. Does this speculative realism create an anti reality? Taking the parameters of the real world and using OOO and speculative makes us question what is really there vs what is not or what could be. It makes us question the reasoning and meaning behind the objects in the world. Does everything matter? Would that then mean nothing actually matters? The relationships between objects or architecture and the individual increases in awareness. These “things” must transcend and become more than just artwork or thoughts they must become tangible and have a strong tie to our collective version of reality. When this tie to a greater context is anchored down the “real world” can become more exciting. When we bring these ideas from our non/ anti reality and bring them into existence it enhances the collective reality to into something more.
Ruy’s returning to strange objects brings up oncerns about the nature o an artificially intelligent architect – if we are objects on a level field, is it ethical to contest an AI architect with its own quality beyond its sum any more than we would a human appointed to the job?
The Ontic Principle states that fictional objects are real because they make a difference. What are the ethics of practicing an architecture in which the unreal matters as much as the public?
Gage addresses the perceived fading into the background by developing objets that imply infinite detail and phenomena. I don’t think that addresses the immediacy that allows a project to fade. So what is an architecture that is not so inaccessible as to repel, and not so immediate as to create boredom?
1 In “Returning to Strange Objects,” David makes a discussion that there is a shift changing architecture form independent object to dependent aggregation with outside resources which is over the change of power of architecture. How does this shift and the relationship between it affect the design concept of the architecture nowadays?
2 In the reading “Make-Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility,” Carrie points out that the relationship between parafiction and modern art work is presented within the exploration and pleasure. What extent in architectural design has the similar effect as which deception applied into the contemporary art work?
3 In ‘Killing Simplicity’, Mark referred to Heidegger’s perspective of viewing the visibility of the objects. He claims that only when it cease to function, the object become ‘real’ visible to others. This may be an allusion that architects usually miss the rare characteristic of objects around them. How can we cultivate a sharp sense to observe the inspiration concealed in the objects around us?
This presentation mainly focuses on the topic of context and realism. Context is like the ‘dot point’ of the architecture when we start out designing. Context is like a collaboration which helps the architecture blend in the surrounding and cooperate with human from culture, religion and environment. And the reality is perceived as a start point when we experience in a space. It gets much more crucial when we analyzing it during the process of designing. So the relationship between objects or architecture and human becomes more important than before. For now, the architecture cooperate with the context will be a good strategy in reality. In general, architecture will be more exciting when it has greater connection with the context and the relationship within it prove the architecture is more than an art work.
1. In “Returning to Strange Objects”, David Ruy talks about how nature has moved away from being a direct inspiration for design and become more of an inspiration for the process of design. How has technology influenced this shift away from designs based in nature?
2. One use of an architect is to help change and shape a space depending on what the client wants. Because of this, are we ever truly able to fully experience everything a space has to offer or are we limited to what the architect wants us to see?
3. Brassier has tried to keep architecture interesting by using it as a tool to dilute human ego, how else can we as architects find a way to help keep it interesting?
Before when designing something it was more nature based because that was surrounding us and giving us our inspiration to create. Now since technology is so prominent and easy to use more people are using it as inspiration instead of nature which has shifted the design field of architecture to become more structurally based instead of whimsical. In the regards to space and how an architect shapes it I do believe that it completely changes the layout and vibe of an area. They can design a space to make you only see what they want and instead hide the bad behind it all so you never look there. Because of this I don’t think that people will ever truly be able to see the full experience of a space when it is designed by an architect. Another way I believe architects can help to keep the designs and everything interesting is by maybe bringing in more inspiration from the media and what is going on in pop culture maybe. By bringing in these new inspirations and that seem to be influencing the rest of the world in there everyday ventures, then maybe that can help to make architecture once again interesting to the everyday normal person instead of just architects.
1. David Ruy in Returning to (Strange) Objects examines the contemporary shift in architectural typologies to reactionary architecture instead of traditional architecture. He talks of past architecture as existing in their own right – molding their contexts into cohesive systems through the existence of the unique architecture. Modern architecture, as Ruy suggests, does not exist individually from its context, it is reactionary: its form and function are a by-product of the physical and meta-physical context in which it exists. For Ruy this is a negative shift in architectural typologies and he calls for a movement back to the orthodox and reexamination of architectural form to influence context and site. Is this call applicable in the modern world? Do current technological capabilities change the field of architecture from theological typologies to reactionary “answers” to assigned problems of building sites?
2. In Killing Simplicity: Object-Oriented Philosophy in Architecture, Mark Foster Gage talks of the philosophical implications of considering architecture as a tool. Gage delineates that a tool is invisible to the user until it no longer functions to its fullest ability. He equates this thought to modern architecture, which has shifted more into the realm of systems and connections more so than philosophically-inspired design. He sees “systemology” in architecture as a simplifying trend that has no place in the field, and argues that architecture should not be regarded as a tool as it will become invisible to the beholder up until it fails to provide proper shelter. Does contemporary architecture have to dip into the waters of “uselessness” in order to be considered true architecture? Is a systematic approach to architectural design better left to engineers and non-architects so as to keep the realm of “true” architecture “pure”, or is this a purist argument left to contemporary “philosophers”.
3. Ryant, Srnicek, and Harman in Toward a Speculative Philosophy talk about the trend of contemporary philosophy and how it got to where it is in the context of past philosophical trends. Their examinations lead to the realization that philosophy is reactionary to past theories and the result of their applications throughout the world and various professional fields. This realization further points out the phenomenon of a certain degree of a feedback loop in philosophy: new theories argue similar (if not the same) things as previous theories, they are just worded to fit contemporary contexts. At what point is meta-physical philosophy new and where is it old? Is there even a possibility that philosophy can be “new” again, or are we going to reword the same argument thousands of times in the hope that we find a new answer? Is the application of old and reworded philosophies in architecture just a reason for the stagnation of “true” architecture, is it time to move on from old architypes to prevent anachronism in architecture?
Throughout the lecture about the philosophy of the object, the concept of the perception of reality was brought to light. Philosophers in the contemporary world seek to observe the “intangible” as the surrounding world continues to categorize all that is possibly tangible. Because of this phenomenon the perception of reality can be pushed further into the bounds of a “grey” area. As such, expression of the intangible “reality” in the world of art has many approaches, and the lecture brought to light many of these approaches, however, it also begs the philosophical question of their own perception of reality, what if reality is not fully expressible: what is everything in the universe that can be thought-up is reality, and construction or representation of this concept is its physical manifestation in the universe.
1. David Ruy describes how the role of an architect has become ‘vague and ambiguous’, citing the main reason for this as the loss of an object. If architecture is more about the practice of relating objects than the object itself being an embodiment of ideas, how does the role of the architect change? How is the public’s opinion of architects influenced by this transition? Will architecture begin to hold more value in comparison to other practitioners, such as doctors or engineers?
2. Throughout time, architecture has looked to nature for design cues with an understanding that ultimately everything leads back to nature. As architecture increasingly tries to mimic the efficiency and beauty of natural processes, will architecture become more about ecology and scientific approaches than aesthetic? How does that influence the profession of architecture?
3. In ‘Killing Simplicity’, Mark Foster Gage references a quote by Harman which describes humans in relation to architecture, in that we “live our lives on a layer of invisible equipment.” This enforces the idea that architecture is a groundwork that most people are becoming oblivious to. This, yet again, brings into the question the role of the architect. How do we create architecture that is enough of an object to be noteworthy while still meeting societal requirements like sustainable design? Is there a perfect ground between undermining and over mining the object?
However simple the nature of an object may seem, there are numerous discourses that stem from this ‘thing.’ The relevance of these discourses is of course largely subjective, particularly in how they affect architecture and whether those affects are worthy of exploration. Some philosophical ideas may do more to harm the already troubled relationship between architecture and philosophy, but it is without a doubt that without philosophy, many things, especially architecture, can become meaningless. Just as remarkable objects of architecture could be lost in a modern contextual field where the whole is more important than the parts themselves. It is thus the role of an architect to reach into the world of architectural philosophy and digest pieces that hold meaning and importance to them in an analytical way that enables them to design with that criteria in mind, for without practiced thought and theory, architecture is just an object, when it could be a remarkable object.
1. It’s interesting to think of all the individual objects that exist in the world , that each have their own individual purpose and we can begin to examine the value each object brings to society. How do we value individual objects and justify their form relative to their use in society?
2. In Killing Simplicity by Mark Foster Gage, he explores how our society has become object oriented, and we fail to recognize their value. How does only recognize the failure in society and not value of the object influence design? And do we fail to recognize the value of ordinary things?
3. In understanding the purpose of architecture is to fulfill function, but how does simplification, and lack of design also influence society? and lead to uninteresting architecture in society?
1) Through Mark Gage’s beliefs, how does nature and philosophy influence an architectural design? Can you have one without the other?
2) Harman describes the importance of hidden qualities that are vital and add value to an object. Does this correspond in an architectural design? If these qualities are hidden, how can they add value to a design if they cannot be distinguished?
3) Ruy explains that we as architects have become so dependant on social and environmental influences that we have begun to neglect the architectural object. However, how do we conceptualize and design without taking into account vital external factors such a culture and environment?
What I found very interesting about the presentation was the discussion on the artist who used weird and somewhat abnormal objects to create a new form of art. For instance, the artist would use pig intestines to create objects that would resemble flowers. I found this to relate very well to the reading “Return to Strange Objects,” as the artist is using unique and “strange” objects to create something new. I think we as architects can use this concept as we advance our designs and concepts and influence us to not be afraid to stretch our imaginations. I also thought that the students presenting did a nice job of using real world situations as well as presented some comic relief throughout their presentations.
1. In “returning to strange objects”, the return to a more physical embodiment of architecture, as opposed to a theoretical practice, is suggested. Can the architectural object exist without the theoretical? Is a better balance needed between the two or should one preside over the other?
2. In the reading, “Killing simplicity: Object-oriented Philosophy in Architecture,” Gage discusses the prevalence of arrows as the driving factor within most if not all projects. How does this pervasive presence of arrows influence projects for the better or worse?
3. Lambert Beatty discusses the importance of history to the practice of architecture, how should history be considered when designing and are there shortcomings within the design approaches taken today?
Based on the presentations and class discussion it seems to me that there is an infinite number of possibilities for the future of architecture. This was highlighted by the numerous examples during the presentation. For every interpretation of design or idea, there are endless possibilities of impact on the public via yet more possible interpretations. It raises questions for me as to how architects ought to proceed given our concern for the impact of our architecture on its inhabitants is most important and our assumed solutions could be becoming the problem.
1. In, “Killing simplicity: Object-oriented Philosophy in Architecture,” Gage proposes that object oriented ontology is arising from a frustration in architectural design that is “justified solely by its relations and not its own particular qualities”. Indeed, it is of critical understanding the way in which we approach object in what he discusses as having various realities, understandings and relations. Is this critical philosophical approach simply suitable as a tool for justification or can it be more than this?
2. Ruy, in “Returning to Strange Objects”, states that the urgent contextual concern today is Architecture’s relation to nature and that the translation of object to field: a double-entendre for the representation of a move toward nature. He goes on to discuss the authority of architecture as an active participant but one loosing substance in the desire to be relevant. Could the ever pressing concern to deepen and revolutionize the relation to the natural be more heavily reliant on new forms of dependent collaboration specifically in that of technology rather than, as it is now, sustainable politics? And furthermore that this can restore “architectural intelligence” as Ruy describes?
3. In The Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object-Oriented Ontology, Hegel proposes things in of themselves are incoherent; that intrinsic qualities of form are simply nonexistent: one needs difference of thought, contextual consideration. Can, then, the assumption be made that all form is a product of its context?
Object-oriented ontology provides insight into the nature of an object for its perceived qualities. This having much to do with context, the autonomy of an object, enigmatic qualities and so forth. Eisenman’s work which seeks to achieve a certain pure notation is fascinating in its removal from object reality as we may understand it. It provokes the question of true nature of being, of architecture, and how we can perhaps examine consciousness and perceptive influences in understanding critically not only a design piece but the world as a construct.
Contemporary Design Approaches 
1. In the reading, “Killing simplicity: Object-oriented Philosophy in Architecture,” Gage engages the topic of arrows stating that it is difficult to find a project that is not the product of an arrow. My question is, is architecture from arrows such a bad thing, and if so, what could be done differently without using arrows?
2. In the reading, “Killing simplicity: Object-oriented Philosophy in Architecture,” it is mentioned that if diagrams are simplifications into graphics, then metaphors are similarly reductivist albeit through an alternative mechanism. Are all metaphors are reductivists? And if so, then by what means should we go about describing projects?
3. In the reading, Make-Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility,” it is mentioned that cities have sold the naming rights of sports stadiums to corporate sponsors. Was this a good idea if the most likely outcome is a name that benefits the corporation? Should the name be something more meaningful?
LikeLike
1. I believe that arrows aren’t too bad of a thing and if one was to avoid using arrows in a building, they would be avoiding the involvement of direction of the architecture.
2. For the most part, most metaphors are reductivists, however, sometimes it can help a confusing project become easier to understand. For example, the original pitch for the lion king was, “Bambi in Africa with lions” and no one bought it until someone compared it to Hamlet.
3. I feel that it is a good idea in the case of a dispute between several names for an outside party to decide in the naming of a stadium.
LikeLike
1. With respect to David Ruy’s “Returning to (Strange) Objects,” he tries to argue that Architecture only in recent years has focused on its context and the larger field. In reality, throughout history, architectural precedents have taken into consideration its contextual site and audience to a high degree. Ruy speaks of the field as a negative focus and calls the Architectural object “magic.” What are the downfalls of developing Architecture around the field?
2. In “Killing Simplicity,” Mark Gage makes an interesting point that it isn’t until something goes wrong that we become more aware of them/their value, reminding me of counter-rhythm. He defines the idea of OOO and claims that objects have hidden realities. In what ways does Architecture work to emphasize these qualities to the point in which we understand them in a new light without being object-oriented?
3. In “Towards a Speculative Philosophy,” Levi Bryant discusses that there is a gap within reality. What does this gap account for?
LikeLike
I think on the topic of context, todays presentation show how powerful the concept really is in new ways than before. Context is generally relevant in Architecture to make the design integrated with its surroundings and exist not alone but within a spirit of place and time. Reality becomes more so the feeling that a place creates, and it’s interesting to think of reality has a preconception of what we believe. By reevaluating our understandings of basic objects and organizing them into different contexts, there meanings change. Context is what grounds something and defines our idea of it. I think when we take objects out of their “normal” setting and reorient it, we are neglecting our predeterminations of it and thus see it for itself. This produces something that has been stripped of the narrative that comes along with things that are usually associated with it, much like Modern Architecture.
LikeLike
1. If the documentation of Behar’s life was not translated into two different languages, would the articles have the same impact on people?
2. If we were pretending to be the first philosophers and come up with a question, what are the chances that the question we think of would be similar to one that was already created?
3. If form has always followed function, how have the forms of buildings continued to always look different if the function has not necessarily changed?
LikeLike
1. I think that the documentation would not have the same impact on the people who are looking at them because the difference of language helps more people relate to her words, however there would be words lost in translation which could change the pure meaning of things.
2. The chances are probably pretty likely for that to happen. Even though each person who came up with a question were from different movements, there questions all relate to the same thing without using the same words.
3. The only reason the forms of buildings have changed is probably due to the fact that the designers always have a different way to create a building that holds the same function but actually functions differently. Obviously not every building has the same function or use but regarding some buildings, like grocery stores, their forms are all relatively similar. So, even though form seems to change, maybe it doesn’t change as drastically as we think it does.
LikeLike
1. Bryant suggests that the only way to experience objects “correctly” is to consider that their reality is free of relation to others. It’s to consider all the possibilities of the object rather than a single concept. How does this relate to the diagram, in which it’s a representation of multiple possibilities and recognizing only one would render the diagram useless?
2. Theory requires simplification to allow questions to emerge. However, these simplifications are selections based on perspective and when there is a common perspective, people start to see it as the sole one. The true theory is oversimplified by this singular set. How can a concept maintain itself without falling into the homogeneity of modern media?
3. Ruy states that to be “real”, architecture loses its ability of multiple relations to constrain to a site in which there are finite relations. Is there a way for the site to merge with those infinite relations so that the object can retain its theory?
LikeLike
The idea behind objectification is really based on perception. Object Oriented Ontology states throughout the readings that objects have vast numbers of qualities and relations, but we are only aware of a few of them and only through simplification. However, the question is on how one decides on the simplification. There are many different versions, giving an illusion of multiple possibilities, but the result is still finite. True object theory has infinite relations so each simplification takes away from the object. The presentation today makes an important point about how object exists in its relations, away from human perception, but what we see isn’t the object itself. What we see will always be another finite concept rather than the theory.
LikeLike
1.) In “Returning to Strange Objects,” Slavjog Zizek claims that we need a new ecology without nature and that nature is not a balance and harmonious entity and I totally agree. Is there a where we can balance nature in to create a new ecology?
2.) In “The Ontic Principle Outline of an Object,” It claims that design spaces are fixed and immutable, what is it? what is the performance if it is immutable? is it possible to have to mutable?
3.) In “Killing Simplicity,” it is determined that architecture has the responsibility to emerge from the careful study of – absolutely nothing and that it only justified by its existence and not by reductively isolated key relationships. What level of description can fully describe and justified it’s existence?
LikeLike
From what I have learned and experienced during the lecture and the presentation, it has come to my attention that an object is more than what it is. An Object Oriented Ontology is an object where an object is an object when it is acknowledge that it is an object by the person who is experiencing that it is an object. During the presentation, Walugi was a perfect example because he would be nothing without Mario and Luigi. Just like how objects would be nothing or non-existence without being acknowledge. It is not a task or necessary to make sure that the objects are notice, it is not a living thing but it’ll make the person who is acknowledging the object feel some type of way; an experience that is fulfilled by the object.
LikeLike
1. In the reading make-believe: parafiction and plausibility the influence of commercial sponsors and the influence commercial businesses have on the name of buildings or just on buildings in general is brought up in discussion. The amount of influence corporations has in a sense made the idea of their subtle influences such their name being on buildings normal and almost never thought of or questioned. What does this relationship of architecture and corporate sponsors tell us about our ideologies of a modern building? Do the corporate sponsors have any influence as a client if essentially it is their name on the building? Where does this lead architecture in the future?
2. Bryant expresses the idea of viewing and experiencing objects and reality is only correctly done so without the relationship of other objects. What does this say about works of architecture designed and explored through diagram and site context?
3. Contrary to Bryant’s statements about Ruy argues that real architecture is the architecture which creates infinite connections though having multiple relationships to the site around it. How is it possible that it can be both ways? Is there an inherent right from wrong or better way to view the benefits of which to strategy one should design with?
LikeLike
The idea of objectifying architecture and the reality around us is a radical outlook which the readings and the lecture took. The argument objectifies reality, fantasy, materials, architecture, site, structure in a way which attempts to result in the idea of breaking down their meaning and aesthetic sensibility. The contradiction in strategy and relationships among objects is the thought really in question. Is architecture best understood without any relationships or as a link among the whole site? Although a work of architecture may have a greater effect without any relationship to its surrounding site as it adds further emphasis to its conceptual effects perceived, I would argue that a work of architecture having connections within its surrounding site is the better strategy in time. Not only is a work of architecture that explores connections as well as concepts more intricate and radical when analyzed but it also allows for those connections to create a sort of community identity.
LikeLike
1. In Killing Simplicity: Object Oriented Philosophy In Architecture, Gage explains Harmans attempts at examining objects through the three processes of undermining, overmining, and duomining. With all three attempts, they exist as relational understandings as a means of comparing with other scales of objects. The relation may be with, “smaller things, larger more encompassing ideas, or both.” Is this philosophical analysis successful in its attempt to decipher the ontology of objects? Does this exercise create a better resolution on objects nature or its purpose?
2. In the context of understanding the core nature of objects, architecture, form, etc., these understandings themselves are mere attempts. Bryant mentions that philosophy in general comprises itself of, “simplifications, reductions, and processes of abstraction…” and how during these times of inquiry it can and will likely lead to an abyss of fruitlessness. With this week’s theme, what are the most pressing aspects of architectures ontology? Is it their differences, their relational nature with other objects, or a mix of both?
3. Returning to Strange Objects, suggests that architecture must return its focus to the architectural object. Further stating that architecture has a tendency to become more of a theoretical domain than a real, and constructible one. Is this tendency only further amplified by the new generations urge for sensationalism? Is this just a trend of our time, or is this a persisting occurrence?
LikeLike
As discussed in class, there is an inherent desire to reduce complex problems and ideas into either otherworldly and elastic understandings, or simple rudimentary ones. In the example of the bowl and spoon, two objects that are typically crafted from metal, an artist by the name of Meret Oppenheim attempts to redefine our conventional knowledge of everyday objects. In the context of class, and the built environment, one of the most important lessons is the idea of elasticity. Objects are typically relegated to a singular condition, with the masses universally accepting this as final. But with architecture and design there is a necessity for elastic design, otherwise the built environment will lack inspiration. During the presentation, the topic of politics was brought up, and with today’s current standings it’s easy to understand how this reading is applicable to the world not only from the position of architecture, but also politics, social discourse, etc.
LikeLike
1. In The Ontic Principle:Outline of an Object-Oriented Ontology by Levi R. Bryant, if the principle of irreduction existed to translate the perspective, then do the architects translate their structure(reduce/simplify their design ideas) or do other people who translate from architect’s ideas in their own perspective.
2. In return to strange object, the shift from architecture as a practice of embodiment of the universe etc. to the practice of coordination, is the shift a process of simplification, complexation or just translation ?
3. Levi R. Bryant suggest that everything relates to each other and people can’t read from only one perspective. But if we view things through relation to other perspectives, then won’t there just be one answer to a theory and won’t a theory just be a fact? And if so, won’t we all view architecture the same way?
LikeLike
1. In Mark Foster Gages book, Killing Simplicity, he references Heidegger’s way of thinking about the visibility and invisibility of common objects, saying that they become visible only when the cease to function as they should. Is this Gages way of telling us that we too often take what’s around us for granted? In reference to architectural practice does it mean that we only notice architecture when it fails to be architecture?
2. The idea of Object Oriented Ontology states that an object only exits as they are perceived by human senses. The Ontic Principle states that there is no difference that does not make a difference. Bryant explains this is as the “thereness of difference that provokes wonder and inquiry into beings”. How does this “thereness of difference” relate to the “OOO”?
3. In Returning to Strange Objects, by David Ruy he asks if ‘architectural intelligence’ is really needed to be understood by the ‘real world” beyond just the architects. In a way he’s suggesting that if architecture is understood by the many it loses its unique and awe inspiring stature. Is this similar to the “visibility” that Gage talks about in Killing Simplicity?
LikeLike
An object is defined as a physical, material thing that can be seen and touched. Object Oriented Ontology states that an object is only an object after we become conscious of its existence. However according to Mark Foster Gage we don’t become conscious of an object until it stops functioning. Only after it stops being useful to us do we recognize its value. The relationship between object and person becomes very importance in this context. An object needs human interaction in order to fulfill its purpose, but it does not necessarily need to be acknowledged that it is there. As long as it functions and doesn’t disturb our day to day activities as it should it’s doing its purpose.
LikeLike
Q1: When transitioning from context oriented architecture to object oriented, it is important to consider the following quote from Ruy’s essay: “a return to the architectural object would move interest back to the thing itself.” If this is true, how would this shift of focus impact the architect’s design process?
Q2: If we are to understand architectural movements as a response to the limitations of a movement previous to it, then the speculative turn is not an outlier within the genealogy of architecture. However, the readings point out that this speculation is, in fact, a return to a previous philosophy. Taking this into account, is a “feedback loop” a better term than a “genealogy” to describe the history of the discipline?
Q3: Carrie Lambert-Beatty writes, “you can speculate…or even lie in art because it is understood as a fundamentally frivolous zone.” Does this have any implications in architecture, as the two disciplines are strongly linked?
LikeLike
This week has been centered around the object, what it is and what it means to be an object within architecture. In determining what an object is, you must consider the two facets of its existence. First of all, the object is a discrete item that exists. It has the ability to make differences because of its existence. This leads to the second part of the object. Not only is the object a discrete item, but also an item linked to other items within its surroundings. In fact, it was discussed that the way you determine if an object is real is by examining your relationship to it. In some cases, that object goes beyond the discrete item to become an extension of you, and sometimes that connection falters and the object returns to autonomy. Within architecture, there is this discussion about the building’s relationship to the site as a discrete object, or one embedded in its context.
LikeLike
1. Gage and Ruy both suggest that architecture’s need to be relevant has spread the field out thin, due to an unnatural preoccupation with current events. “This tumble into abject-relational problem-solving has been painful to witness,” (Gage) and “de-emphasizes the architectural object” (Ruy.) Surely the solution to this is not to ignore the architectural responsibility in problem solving and general global improvement. How does one strike a balance in problem solving in architecture, without allowing the vast quantity of problems in the world to cloud design?
2. As explored in Towards a Speculative Philosophy, continental materialism and realism represent an interesting relationship within the global field of architecture, as they highlight some of the many problems architects feel pressured to solve, while simultaneously pressuring them to solve in more creative ways. “The move forward toward realism is not a move toward the stuffy limitations of common sense, but quite often a turn toward the downright bizarre.” Is the new role of architects to see past the first obvious answer to a problem and pioneer the movement for efficient but out of the box thinking? Conversely, is it sometimes better to do the obvious thing? Is the need to search for the difficult answer a reflection of architecture’s obsession with being interesting, whereas accepting that the first answer may be the best is an example of the merits of laziness in architecture? At what point do we become the architects of society, rather than of city?
3. Societal materialism and subsequent sociocentric values relate naturally to cities on a global scale- it can happen quietly, without the responsible architects noticing, or with immense volume, causing everyone to take note. “Nikeplatz” is an example of the latter- a campaign so out of the box that it had nothing to do with the company and everything to do with ontology in urban design. “You want to wear it, why shouldn’t cities want to wear it?” Society inherently wants to put itself center stage. Is this example one of an obvious solution- projecting a successful venture from one aspect of societal reality into architecture- or a bizarre one? Who defines the distinction?
LikeLike
Object oriented ontology creates an even playing field for objects as a whole- viewing the only difference between people and inanimate objects as consciousness. From today’s presentation, “consciousness brings awareness of being, but is not required to be.” The question is whether OOO personifies objects or objectifies people, and the answer is that, while difference is the basis of philosophy, there is no difference here. People as a whole are not the only thing objectified in this week’s readings. The discussion of parafiction opens a conversation about the role of trust between artist and audience in art and subsequently architecture, and about whether artists have a right to objectify and manipulate that trust. It would seem that as long as the artist achieves their honest, truthful intentions, be it truth through untruth, through reaction, or through an “honest representation of what they thought” reality should reflect, we are indifferent to our role in the process. We welcome and celebrate the degradation of our emotions for art.
LikeLike
1) Levi Bryant, in “The Ontic Principle”, implies that as active thinkers and designers, we cannot disregard the history
and foundations of architecture that were laid before our time. Does this apply to knowledge in the present? For example: is there such thing as a ‘bad’ studio review or precedent to reference while developing one’s work?
2) When discussing the idea of searching for a ‘point of beginning’, it begs the question how this principle is used in all aspects of life- especially Architecture. What do you consider to be the start of true architectural design?
3) Philosophy, in my opinion, is largely based in the search of answers for countless numbers of difficult questions. How exactly does the act of questioning influence/ develop our work in the realm of architecture? How does it personally affect your work process?
LikeLike
1. From “Returning to Strange Objects,” David Ruy explains that architecture has shifted from an independent field to a dependent collaboration with other outside sources which has greatly changed the power of architecture. In today’s modern society, what positive external collaborations are important to sustain for the continuous growth in architecture and how has that relationship changed architecture today?
2. According to Mark Gage, he believes that growth in architecture is through understanding it on a natural and philosophical level. If architects had a great understanding of the nature of architecture and its abilities, how can that be applied today without innovating a new style? Could it be the initial process of a new project?
3. In the reading “Make-Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility,” Lambert-Beatty mentions that parafiction is an exploration of deception and delight in modern art. What aspects in architecture could be used as a deception similarly to how parafiction applies in contemporary art?
LikeLike
This week’s lecture had an extensive perspective on parafiction and objectivity in architecture. An interesting point was mentioned that paraficition could be used as a middle ground between deception and truth since validity depends on perspective and everything is opinion based. Thus, parafiction could be applied as strategy to let people create their own perception of what is comprehended as either factual or fictional. Another interesting topic was the argument between objectivity and field of architecture. There is this contradiction between architects wanting to be relevant and sustainable with their surroundings, meaning they have to collaborate with other extensive fields, and other architects who want to be independent from their surroundings. In my opinion, architecture has always been more interesting and exciting when greater relations are formed. It creates an opportunity to exchange ideas and build relationships that prove that architecture is more than simply a work of art.
LikeLike
1. In The Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object-Oriented Ontology, Bryant discusses that our curiosity for determining the pure being and or the pure form is impossible, according to Hegel, as we cannot imagine something existing without the context in which it exist. As architects and designers, we often work within the 3D model space of our computer which is infinite, contextless, and empty in its pre-modeling space. Is it productive to work in this simulated purity of digital isolation as the context is often placed in post-production or is our perception of what defines context (such as ideas, images, culture, etc.) redefined with the advent of the Digital Age?
2. In Mark Foster Gage’s Killing Simplicity, he argues for an object- oriented philosophy that claims that architecture as an object is independent of their relations with other objects, concepts, and entities. This however seems to address a very surface level tactic to addressing objects and architecture, in which the aesthetics and their direct effects on the viewer outweigh that actual purpose of buildings. Can architecture truly exist as an object without a direct function or relation to its context? And if so, does that not undermine the role of architecture to society, reducing architecture to large artistic installations?
3. Autonomy of architecture and its existence as a pure object is forceless, isolated, phenomenological, and in many ways idealized. To imagine architecture in such a way is to view architecture as less of a physical thing and more of a projection. Can the practice of architecture predominantly exist in idea and in a metaphysical state or should the physicality of architecture and the “idea” of architecture be viewed as separate practices?
LikeLike
The autonomy of architecture through the principles of OOO is one that is well founded but lacks the realism and development that is necessary for it to have an actual impact on the architectural field. In an age where buildings are more dependent on external elements (such as the direct context, its environmental impact, and its adhesion to code) it becomes very easy for the architecture to be lost and the conformity to thrive. These elements are important in fact because as architects, like any other citizen, we have a certain responsibility to the world, but architecture needs to have the ability to be architecture for architectures sake and not for societal expectation. However, I do not believe that this can be achieved by envisioning architecture as an object that exist without context or preconceived notions. Experiencing reality in isolation is impossible and for that reason we must hold value to the context while simultaneously adding something new and unique with architecture.
LikeLike
1. David Ruy discusses architecture’s connection to nature in terms of “manipulating the ground, keeping the rain out, or making sure the interior has enough light and air.” If we focused more on building with the landscape rather than on it, how would the environment be positively impacted?
2. How do we distinguish between physical object and abstract object when an object in itself is defined by space and boundaries? Mark Foster Gage believes an object is only “real” when it is observed by a viewer.
3. Towards a Speculative Philosophy asks many questions regarding materialism and realism. If most of our decisions are conscious how does the subconscious play a role in our conceptions about other people and the world?
LikeLike
1. Do objects have qualities that are hidden or overlooked? Harman’s examples of hidden qualities are qualities that are intrinsic to the value of an object, but so commonplace that they are often overlooked. Does this make them hidden?
2. “…to be is to make or produce differences .” But do things that do not exist also produce differences? Ideas, concepts, these do not really exist at all, but yet they create the most profound differences. So do you need to “be” in order to make a difference, or is it something that just happens as the world spirals towards higher entropy?
3. In Towards a Speculative Philosophy, there is the concept of a “realm independent of thought or language”, or more specifically, how we cannot speak on this idea. But is this not how we consider the life of plants to be? Or of animals that have no capacity for sentience? While we cannot, as human beings, share this idea without thought or language, can we not imagine it? If we can conceive of notions such as “heaven” or “nirvana” can we not imagine a realm in which there is no thought?
LikeLike
1. In “Killing Simplicity” by Gage, he cites Harman’s writing which states, “intellect can make reality directly present in a way that the senses cannot.” He implies that rather than just creating a new shape or style, architecture should engage people in thought and inquiry. How can the architect design beyond just the creation of new forms? And how can one ensure that the architecture will prompt viewers to ask questions about the work and continue to ask questions in the future?
2. David Roy emphasizes architecture’s relationship to nature in “Returning to Strange Objects”. Much of what is observed in architecture is derived from nature. Today more than ever there is a movement towards sustainable design, which seeks to maintain the built environment over long periods of time. If nature is known for instability and destruction, how can a building be designed to be stable and last over time? Should designers move away from nature as a source of innovation?
3. In “The Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object-Oriented Ontology”, Bryant describes the principle of act-tuality. Objects are defined by “their capacity to act or be acted upon.” For an object to become its own force, it must be open to having other forces acting on it. Is the way in which a structure is acted upon by other objects in relation to it within the architect’s control? Or is it beyond their authority (such as his example with a rock acted on by gravity)? Can this notion of ‘act-tuality’ relate to Roy’s ideas of architecture becoming a form for engagement in economics, politics, and social issues?
LikeLike
Understanding the limits of consciousness and how they relate to the perception of objects has a major impact on architectural design. The lecture and discussion explored ideas based on object-oriented ontology and its role in architecture. Objects are independent of human perception and are affected by relations with people and other objects. These objects are defined in that they exist and interact and can be characterized through speculation rather than human experience. The object is taken from context or predetermined associations. In this way, objects are only distinguished from people through consciousness. Consciousness understands what the object is. Understanding how this human consciousness operates becomes interesting in regards to artificial intelligence. As discussed during the lecture with the new AI that was designed to become a master in chess, this progress with technology poses new questions. It is interesting to speculate how objects will be perceived through the subjectivity of an artificial perception as well as how this will change over time as AI technology progresses.
LikeLike
1. To what extent are we able to verbally process and analyze reality before the subjective biases of language factor in, even in the case that biases in perception aren’t taken into account?
2. If architecture’s form is derived merely from its function, so much to the point that its form is considered typical to its users, although perhaps not so to architects, how can it still hold merit for serving its purpose despite its inability to capture attention?
3. Lambert-Beatty introduces the idea of analyzing history “horizontally” to connect individual events to the greater whole. In what ways can this become a method of analyzing objects in a structural context in relation to one another, and what would the limitations of such a method be?
LikeLike
In studying the theory of knowledge, there is a working premise that everything that can be perceived is thusly biased by the knower’s own perception of what information was processed. This must mean that the knower can have a personal truth that they believe based on their own perception that may differ from other versions of the truth that exist either outside of what they have perceived, or outside of what their bias may be able to tell them. This is heavily related to Immanuel Kant’s discussion on what one’s own knowledge is in relation to the entire scope of reality, which would be to say that what one knows can either be a subset of reality, or derived from it, but in the end, is still part of reality because it can be known. From here, it can also be speculated that there is nothing that can exist as a part of the human reality that cannot be expressed linguistically, including emotions, as these are able to be post-rationalized by language. In this, the abstract can also be, in a sense, realistic, because it is able to be processed and communicated through use of language.
LikeLike
In “Returning to Strange Object” by David Ruy, he explains that architecture has changed from an independent field to a more codependent one with other external forces acting upon it. What are the down sides to these newer collaborations?
In “Killing Simplicity” the author Mark Foster Gages explains Heidegger’s thoughts on how objects only become “visible” to us when these stop functioning correctly. Is this the authors way of saying that we as critics tend to only notice what is wrong with architecture instead of appreciating what is done right?
In “The Ontic Principle Outline of an Object”, the author proclaims that spaces are fixed and immutable. Is there anyway at which a space can be reversed back to mutable?
LikeLike
One of ideas I found particularly interesting in yesterday’s lecture was the concept of the fur spoon and saucer by Meret Oppenheim. This surrealist object tests our beliefs and notions of what a spoon and saucer can be. Nobody would ever want to drink and use this object, even the thought of the fur clumps inside your mouth will give one the chills. However, when looking at the object even with the odd material choice, we think we know how to properly hold and use the object. With her work she reverses what we think we know about the spoon and saucer and tampers with our very memories of using the objects. In architecture this could also be somewhat linked to a form and function debate that seems to happen often. This surrealists object is a kind of middle ground between the two sides and shows the importance of both.
LikeLike
1. According to Heidegger, a tool is an equipment but when it is no longer functional, it becomes visible to the viewer as an object no longer something in the background. How would the image of architectural buildings or landmarks change in the viewer’s
2. How can we become truly materialist in the eyes of Zizek?
3. How do affects become formed and open to become acted upon by other objects? How does this affect its structure through which it achieves to make the connection?
LikeLike
One of the important aspects of today’s presentation was about an objects individuality and how we reevaluate the meaning and identity of an object once we take away its original context. Context becomes this integral part of an object because of the amount of information that is translated to the reader but once it is taken away the only thing visible is now the object itself. Objects that become objects, according to OOO, only manifest in this way once we are conscious of its existence. Gage adding that this consciousness only appears once the object becomes useless. Once an object loses its functionality then will we recognize its value. But this relationship exists as long as we decide to follow it. For example, an iphone functions as a phone. Even if it still functions as a phone, it does not mean that its value cannot be recognized until it no longer works. If someone else now views it as a coaster, then it exists as such even though its still functional as a phone. I think objects and their meaning really only exist when we give it meaning and/or what it means to us.
LikeLike
1. In Killing Simplicity, Gage discusses undermining and overmining. Undermining would be to believe that objects are just collections of atoms, because that’s the reality of the universe. Overmining would be an object only becomes real when it is perceived by someone, or that it is a small part of a network. In past weeks we discussed the idea of part to whole relationships, what stance would the object-oriented ontology philosophy take in the idea of part to whole relations?
2. Gage makes a point to say that today we easily undermine architecture or buildings before they are built with LEED certification. The sustainable parts take away from the architectural qualities of the building as an object. In your opinion, do things like LEED certification “undermine” the architecture before it even exists? Do you think undermining is necessarily a negative thing?
3. David Ruy discusses his concern with the de-emphasis of the architectural object. How would you explain “architectural intelligence” and how the “magic” has been taken out of architecture?
LikeLike
In past weeks we have discussed part to whole relationships and the future of architecture. This week we discussed the OOO and the ideas of under/ overmining and reality. Undermining would just be assuming that objects exist because it is just the reality of the universe. Overmining is when an object becomes real only when its perceived by someone or is a part of a network. Overming is like saying a part to a whole is only a part if there is a whole. In school we are taught about specific things about architecture. Like form and function or that form follows function. Could this be considered undermining? David Ruy concerns himself with the idea that the “magic” has been taken out of architecture. LEED certification is another example of this. Gage sees LEED certification as undermining architecture because the sustainable parts take away from the architectural qualities of the building. Making it less of an object.
LikeLike
1. In “Returning to Strange Objects”, David Ruy discusses how nature has moved away from being a direct inspiration for design and become more of an inspiration for the process of design. How has the advancement of technology and parametric design influenced this shift away from designs based in nature?
2. Mark Foster Gage describes object-building in terms of object oriented philosophy, stating that “its reality cannot be understood through its external relations – including its relation to context”. How does this differ from the architectural definition, where the context is completely rejected? Does this lack of understanding still allow for the design to have a relationship with the surrounding context, albeit a confusing one?
3.By explaining the example of Vienna’s Karlsplatz, Carrie Lambert raises an important aspect of the object oriented ontology discussion – has branding and materialism led us to this object oriented philosophy? Has the need to keep up with the latest brands (i.e. Nike), forced us to think for the brand rather than for ourselves as individuals, creating a “fake” facade for us to hide behind?
LikeLike
A main focus of this week’s presentations and discussion was the concept of paraficiton. Parafiction describes the ambiguous line between fact and fiction, blurring the observer’s ability to understand the truth to be the truth. I think this idea is critical to today’s day and age due to the heavy influence of media on young adults. Young people believe anything they see on the internet, taking first opinion to be truth. However, the truth is rarely portrayed accurately. Like the drawings architects use to describe a project, people post images that tell the story they want to be told, rather than what may have actually happened. They want to portray a “perfect” life and use social media to get that idea across to all of their followers. They want to provoke conversation with the stories of their lives rather than explain reality. Therefore, I see social media to be an outlet of the art of parafiction in this world.
LikeLike
1. A negative implication is made in the article “Returning to (Strange) Objects” toward architecture being influenced by the time and culture instead of the object. Is it not an aspect of architecture that it be a symbol that stands tall for years to come that identifies a period and majority of the culture? It is not important for the sake of history?
2. Again, in the article “Killing of Simplicity,” architecture being a product of the influence of society is frowned upon, relishing in the use of object or tool. However, it is mentioned that a tool or object is not capable of representing the full reality. Therefore, how is possible for designing with the object in mind be beneficial for the future education of architecture or the history of architecture?
3. If an object depends on the perception of how people see it, what does it matter if one designs with the tool if people will interpret the architecture as they will and based on what the world is going through at that time? It seems the architectural field and the object go hand in hand.
LikeLike
One must find a balance. It is true today’s architects are obsessing more about the ideas of fame and worldly influence instead of the art of architecture. Yet, architecture is meant to show the significance of a time and culture. Therefore, it would perhaps be more effective to design with the object in mind for the subconscious will always reflect the issues of the world occurring at that time. In addition, it was also mentioned that one must use nature as a tool of design for nature is unpredictable and therefore unique. This brings up the fact that architecture would just be imitating the influence of nature. Yes, nature has the objects, shapes, and forms within it. Yet, nature is the influence not the shape. Also, one would probably still be influenced by the world and culture since nature is typically in the eyes of the public whether it is being ignored or manifested.
LikeLike
1. In the Ontic Principle, it states that the explanation of an idea has unending layers. For example, concerning a “conflict of critiques,” the Kantians tell us one thing, then the phenomenologists tell us something about that thing, then the foucauldians tell us something that the phenomenologists mention, and so on and so forth. If we are then asked to try to explain something without referring to ideas of others, is that even possible? Does everything relate to one another, or is there one idea that came first and from then others were developed?
2. In Killing Simplicity, Gage discusses how architects usually think of their forms by their relations, not by their individual qualities, and that architects want to deflect from this habit. What is the benefit of deriving ideas from the objects themselves without their surrounding context?
3. Continuing from the previous question, isn’t architecture more impactful and powerful when related to their surroundings, rather than their individual qualities?
LikeLike
If object oriented ontology refers to the reality of objects that is beyond human consciousness, what percentage of objects do we actually understand? We create objects to serve a purpose, but do we fully understand what we created? In the OOO view, objects are unrelated to humans and exist on their own. However, if we created these objects they must have relation to us, to the ideas that we used to form them. I cannot imagine objects having no relation to anything else other than itself. It is helpful in some aspects to apply OOO, such as when bias comes into play, or when being heavily influenced by an idea forms your next action. Many individuals don’t realize the influence they are living under, and in many cases, it is harmful. Ideas about money and fame can override moral ideas about saving the planet, and people take negative actions because they were blinded by their upbringing. This becomes damaging to our world, especially when politicians live in this mindset. If we place ourselves as objects unrelated to our upbringing, how we live, and what we have lived through, and start with an new, innocent mindset, would our actions we take every day differ?
LikeLike
1. In “The Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object- Oriented Ontology” Bryant discusses the ontology (or properties and nature) of knowledge. Applying the same analysis what is a general ontology of architecture, and its relationship to similar practices?
2. In “Towards a Speculative Philosophy” the different ways that people have gone about rationalizing and dissecting realism is discussed. Is it imperative to combine these many different ways of thinking and speculating in order to understand realism fully or would one or a few be just as effective? Would a combination of speculation and absolutes work to strengthen or weaken the understanding?
3. In “Killing Simplicity” Mark Foster Gage discusses that object oriented ontology is prompting new trajectories in architecture and in a sense is dragging it out of boring and overused design strategies. This seems to be a trend with many new movements in architecture, that they are drawing architecture from the grasps of the unimagined or uninspired. Why does this appear to be the case with most architectural movements?
LikeLike
The presentation this week really clarified my understanding of object oriented ontology. The idea that nothing would exist without consciousness is very straightforward and understandable however, it’s rarely ever thought about. A notable quote that was brought up in the presentation was “the plant doesn’t negate the soil or the seed from whence it comes”. This means that the existence of one thing no matter how dependent upon other things it is doesn’t lessen or take away the existence of another. If this were not true that would mean that nothing ever exists because everything needs something else to produce it and if not it needs consciousness which needs a host such as a person or other being. Everything relies on other things to exist so in essence if one objects existence were to negate the existence of another, nothing would exist. This is a very simple yet intriguing concept to think about and wrap your head around.
LikeLike
1. The trend in architecture in recent years has shifted towards highly contextual architecture. However, in “Returning to Strange Objects,” David Ruy predicts a rebuttal in the field of architecture back towards a focus on the architectural object. Are factors other than timeliness contributing to this countermovement – such as the rise of social media and iconic, Instagrammable architecture? And do you think this countermovement is occurring, will occur in the near future, or will not occur at all?
2. In “Killing Simplicity,” Mark Foster Gage discusses the idea of “invisible” objects – tools and equipment we are largely unaware of unless they do not work. Similarly, many designers in various fields site an axiom: “If __ is designed well, you should never notice it.” While both statements rightfully suggest that most people notice bad design, is it also true that good design (architecture and non-architecture) should always be invisible?
3. Carrie Lambert-Beatty’s essay on “parafiction” discusses several artists, including Michael Blum, Eva and Franco Mattes, and the Yes Men, who create untruthful but believable stories which play with audience’s conception of reality versus fiction. Do you think that a group like the Yes Men could be successful today, a decade after “Parafiction and Plausibility” was published?
LikeLike
Parafiction lies in a middle ground between truth, believability, and credibility and lie, deception, and absurdity. This theme of authenticity and reality which is undercut by deception evokes ideas about espionage, where the authenticity and reality of the government and society at large is underscored by the actions of unknown operatives. In the genre of the spy movie, the “object” of espionage – the gadget – often becomes critical to the plot, while the “field” becomes a more generic web of information. In the case of architecture, the object of deception is what in the cases provided by David Ruy lends credibility to the parafiction. In architecture, it follows then that the “object” of building should be of upmost importance – as Mark Foster Gage would argue – providing credibility and legibility to a design. Below the reading of the object is an underlay of information, technology, etc. which could be described as Stan Allen’s “field.” Perhaps by weaving the longstanding rivals of the object and the field into a cohesive built fabric, architects can reach some compromise in this debate.
LikeLike
1. In the reading, “The Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object”, it is introduced that there are many ways of thinking and each way has its own unique set of guiding principles to guide one’s thought process. Would it be helpful to think of architecture in that same way? What if we had different, yet set, ways of thinking about architecture? Would that help to open the views and minds of people who are set in their ways, and would it help to combat against creating architects who only view the world in one light?
2. In “Towards a Speculative Philosophy” it is stated that systematic thought among groups is increasingly being seen. This means that individual thought is not prevalent and we are falling under the influence of groupthink. What do you think architects can do to fight against this, and do you think a change in the education system would help improve this problem?
3. The reading “Returning to Strange Objects” discusses how architecture should relate to the world and environment that surrounds it. It states that in the desire for architecture to be relevant in current events is has subsequently led to the decline in the importance and innovation of the architectural object. Do you agree with this statement? What are the pros and cons of this taking place and how will it affect where architecture goes in the future?
LikeLike
It is a possibility that the decline in the importance of the architectural object is being caused by the increase in groupthink within the architectural community. Across many schools and educational systems, architecture and theory are being taught in the same streamlined way. This means that the new generation of architects will come out with the same mentality. This is why it is important to teach and introduce, the many viewpoints within architecture. The same building can be analyzed from a numerous amount of lenses, and those particular lenses will determine the light that building is seen in. Starting this change in schools is important because that is where the next generation is being groomed on how they should think and resolve architectural problems. If they taught that there is only one way to go about doing things, then we will continue falling under the influence of an architectural groupthink and will have an even harder time rediscovering the importance of the architectural object.
LikeLike
1. In “Returning to (Strange) Objects,” Ruy notes that architects have been focusing their works and designs on cultural and environmental factors, rather than the architectural object itself. He specifically says, “…architects celebrate contingency more than autonomy today.” How can architect design without taking in the considerations of the environment? Isn’t it important to design based on external factors, especially at this moment in time, in order to predict the possible perpetuality of the object?
2. Gage talks about the source of Harman’s phenomenological ideas which is Heidegger’s tool analysis of “Insofar as a tool is a tool.” He further simplifies Heidegger’s tool analysis by explaining that function is apparent, while object and aesthetics is not, until the object is no longer able to function. Does this concept allude to the idea that architecture is unnoticeable until it fails? If so, what can be considered as architecture failing?
3. In “Make Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility,” Lambert-Beatty explains the ideas of parafiction and its capability of bringing up other issues through a use of examples. One of these examples is about Blum’s project installation dedicated to Safiye Behar called “A Tribute to Safiye Behar.” The existence of Behar is known to be absent, but the bigger idea of the installation was the historical and political issues that were brought up. How can architecture be used as a parafiction to deceive others of its reality for more progressive purposes?
LikeLike
This week’s topic focuses on the object and its field. Heidegger exposes a philosophical theory on the premises of an object, saying “Insofar as a tool is a tool.” We see an object as it is based on how we relate to the product, like we see a garbage can for how it holds our trash. We almost never see a garbage can for its aesthetic and actual physical properties – we never see a garbage can as a cylindrical shell. Although I completely agree with this theory, I also question its ability to apply this on every object out there. As architecture students (especially in RPI), we focus on the aesthetics of our works along with its function – this might be one of the hardest things about being an architect. In the readings, Ruy and Gage bring up the idea that architects have been focusing a lot more on combatting the environmental aspects of their work rather than working on the true aesthetics of their work. I think these areas of the lecture are truly debatable especially as a student going to RPI – we are heavily worked on having our architectural object relate to the function of the object.
LikeLike
1. In “Killing Simplicity: Object-Oriented Philosophy In Architecture”, Gage raised an essential inquiry at the end of the article. He questioned that in the future of the field of architecture, what is the thing we are not able to do, and what is the thing we are able to do. From my perspective, utilizing the method or embodying the element from other disciplines into architecture might be the future of our field. But, how should we collaborate other elements while remaining the core objectivity of architecture?
2. In “The Ontic Principle”, the authors articulated several principles explaining how do we understand the object-oriented ontology. One is that reduction is the selection. So, how do we balance the “selection” and apply them do solve real problems through architecture?
3. In the article “Returning to strange objects”, Ruy mentioned that “the architectural object…would have that ‘dark nucleus’ that cannot be exhausted by a list of its qualities”. In the studio that we have now, how do we interpret the dark nucleus Ruy was arguing about?
LikeLike
When we think something philosophically, we always come to a popular argument of combating with itself. The “ooo”, founded by Mark Foster Gage, provide us a totally new perspective to receive not only in the field of architecture, but to the entire world as well. In this week’s lecture, we are acknowledged of the co-relationship among ontology, human being, and the speculative realism, or the correlationalism. If we examine architecture projects in a view of correlationalism, how would we speculate the role of human? It is intriguing to step out of the obligation of being an architect and reexamine the substance of us, and architectures. So if one component in world is replaced by a new type of constructive element, for example AI, how would the field of architecture be influenced? Does this world still need architects? This is a philosophical argument questioning about the objectivity in the possible future and could permeate in out studies in college.
LikeLike
1. As Harman discusses and further analyzes Heidegger’s tool analysis, he brings up the point of the reality of objects being invisible to us when they are no longer functioning. The example given is a keyboard, and as long as we are using a keyboard and it is functioning properly, the aesthetic of the keyboard is disregarded. How can this tool analysis relate to architecture? Is it only when a building lacks peak functionality that we begin to notice its aesthetic properties (e.g. skip-stop circulation) ?
2. In David Ruy’s “Returning to Strange Objects” he mentions how architectural theory has become regarded as more important than the actual physical being of the project. Do you think this is a problem being ingrained in us particularly in our architectural education?
3. In Mark Foster Gage’s “Killing Simplicity” he says architecture must be a liberated player in the sport that is the fast paced world of trends- fashion, technology, etc. Would it be problematic to shift from trying to be attentive to context (social, cultural, economic, and political) to be more attentive to the object of architecture itself, or is trying to do a broad stroke over contextual factors actually less progressive to the situation than ignoring these factors in the first place?
LikeLike
This weeks readings and discussions on OOO seemed to go in many different directions, with the main premise of it all being the meaninglessness of it all. OOO is indifferent to context and outside factors. We as architects have grown so obsessed with how field should influence or mold an object, that we have seem to forgotten to look at the object as its own entity. We can try to account for every outside factor of the world, or accept that our perception of reality is so limited as humans that it is almost a waste of time to broadly tackle all the world’s problems in one building, yielding no significant outcomes. Parafiction was also discussed as being human dependent, but not relying on reality. For example, BBC’s great spaghetti harvest seemed serious, but in the context of reality is totally out of pocket. OOO and parafiction both challenge in different ways how we perceive reality and how architectural theory can be based on these perceptions.
LikeLike
Killing Simplicity finds Mark Gage probing the subject of common objects and their visibility, stating that only when objects no longer serve their purpose do they suddenly become apparent. As a result of this, is it understood that the general population may not place a great deal of value or purpose on a building that doesn’t conform to the typical ideal of architecture?
A great deal of decisions are made throughout the day in a response to another action, prompting some sort of logical reaction. With this in mind, do you believe that our subconscious plays a stronger role in jumping to conclusions about people and our surroundings rather than our conscious mind?
Objects that tend to preserve hidden qualities often find themselves frequently disregarded. Harman uses examples of qualities that are hidden yet fundamental to the value of the object, however the qualities are so plain that that might be the simple reason why the objects are disregarded. In this case, are these qualities hidden?
LikeLike
1. In “Make-Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility” Carrie Lambert-Beatty describes the “Nikeplatz” installment in Vienna. The artists used parafiction to expose a truth about people’s perspectives about commercialism and their urban context. How powerful of a tool could these parafictional experiments be to architects and urban planners looking to solve contemporary urban issues?
2. When we reduce and simplify to make questions of philosophy possible to answer, what aspects of philosophy are lost? Is it better to reduce as much as possible or to leave questions complex although an answer might not be found?
3. In “Killing Simplicity,” Mark Foster Gage is against simplicity and anti-boring. Is what architecture needs found in form and style or in the attitudes of architects towards architecture?
LikeLike
This week’s presentation focused on the concepts of the readings in a variety of media. Object oriented ontology can be found in architecture as well as in fiction and animation. While in contemporary architecture, OOO is compromised for site and context relationships, it is still used to advance the plot of film or video games. People rarely look at things for their properties as an object and instead focus on their meaning. This may be a harmless day-to-day process, but for architects it could compromise the design of a building. Parafiction was explored outside the context of architecture and art, as half-truths are present in many forms including politics and satire. In the world today, parafiction is becoming more widespread out of art galleries and can be used intentionally for deception. It is important to explore these examples to better understand how these concepts work outside of an architectural context.
LikeLike
1) David Ruy, in ‘Returning to (Strange) Objects’, he compares the historical perspective on the discipline (as object & autonomous) and the contemporary perspective (as field & dependent on context). He goes on to say that while it’s admirable for current architects to be concerned with world affairs and the importance of architecture’s role within these matters, that the discipline is being stretched far too thin in attempting to respond to every external force introduced. Is this world-saving perspective damaging architecture and its ability to be taken seriously as a profession when compared with fields like engineering?
2) In Carrie Lambert’s ‘Make-Believe’, she writes about an artist, Michael Blum. who is setting up an exhibit based on a fictional character, Safiye Behar. The exhibit details her life as an activist Jew from Turkey who had a semi-intimate relationship with a pivotal nationalist figure. Even after the reveal that Behar was fictional, she became somewhat real in the hearts and minds of those who wanted her to be. If the parafictional takes from both reality and fiction, what contextual influence is considered relevant or invented from an architectural perspective?
3) In ‘The Ontonic Principle’ Levi Bryant compares different schools of philosophical thought and how they attempt to critique access to knowledge. Individual’s choices are boiled down to personal preference rather than any rational objective accuracy in obtaining knowledge. Are we as designers subjected to personal preference, or are we capable of breaking down the rational of what forces guide access to knowledge?
LikeLike
Object Oriented Ontology and speculative realism are in a sense anti-human. They take the parameters and context we as designers/architects held so dear and questions the meaning of it. If everything matters, then none of it matters. It challenges our incessant need to please everyone and factor everything that happened around our building’s site in order for our project to be considered relevant. The age in which we live in champions right vs wrong and that there’s usually one correct way to approach a problem. Add that with the fact that everything has basically already been done, and we have architecture as generic as can be. While everything might have already been done, it hasn’t been done by you. The parameters that can then be made, are then based less on others and more on your collective experience of what does vs what doesn’t work. It’s easy to think that personally influenced design intent leans toward the gratuitous but a para-fictional approach allows us to look past this. If you’re able to describe your design intent via objectively relevant information and well-constructed personal design choices, then the architecture wins.
LikeLike
1. In David Ruy’s Returning to strange objects, a paradox occurs. First he mentions that nature is a grand calibrated clock that humans keep throwing out of sync. But then he says “you are a necessary cog within the clockwork of nature. You can’t break the machine if your’re part of the machine.” How can we as humans be throwing nature out of sync while simultaneously not be able to do so?
2. If objects are “any unified entity, whether it has a reality in the world or only in the mind”, how do we study these “objects”?
3. Harman suggests that “buildings have a vast numbers of qualities, properties, and even relations but that their full reality can never be reduced to a single, simplistic observation.” He also goes on to say “the only way to do justice to objects is to consider that their reality is free of all relation, deeper than all reciprocity.” If a building’s full reality can’t be reduced to simple diagrams, why is it that architects always choose to use partis, plans and sections, and elevations to convey the meaning of their building?
LikeLike
Mark Foster had the idea to take a model or kit of something and rearrange the parts to create a completely new object. This new object is theoretically the same as what it is supposed to be except that the pieces are in different positions. The big difference between the two is the meaning behind it. Each object has a meaning, whether it be philosophical or completely out of the understanding of humans. Objects can exist but sometimes they aren’t really existing. They only exist in this world in relationship with another object. The example given in class being Waluigi, being a mirror of a mirror. He exists as a person but only because Mario and Wario also exist. He is basically just a concept that both exists and doesn’t exist at the same time.
LikeLike
1) Do you believe that the reality of interactions within architecture and related design fields allow one a greater opportunity to relate and/or connect with a specific piece or work?
2) This question essentially analyzes the nature of function and form, more particularly the very specific relationship they have with one another. The current stampede of parametric design tools being used in contrast to more holistic design tools seem to have a disconnect. Do you feel as though these factors contribute to the function v. for debate?
3) In the reading entitled “Make Believe Parafiction and Plausibility”, artist Safiye Behar is referenced. In the reading, the speaker states that the artist is described as a “fascinating figure”, but her work is essentially “flat-footed”. Do you believe that in both life and architecture one can distinguish the character of this manner?
-Malika Yansaneh
LikeLike
1) Do you believe that the reality of interactions within architecture and related design fields allow one a greater opportunity to relate and/or connect with a specific piece or work?
2) This question essentially analyzes the nature of function and form, more particularly the very specific relationship they have with one another. The current stampede of parametric design tools being used in contrast to more holistic design tools seem to have a disconnect. Do you feel as though these factors contribute to the function v. for debate?
3) In the reading entitled “Make Believe Parafiction and Plausibility”, artist Safiye Behar is referenced. In the reading, the speaker states that the artist is described as a “fascinating figure”, but her work is essentially “flat-footed”. Do you believe that in both life and architecture one can distinguish the character of this manner?
LikeLike
• Particularly this week, there was a seemingly significant emphasis on reality and the various realms of reality. It is also highly apparent through the readings and even more through the presentation that in today’s culture, essentially everyone exits within their own realms of what each individual classifies reality as. This can be seen in politics, education, art and it is extremely prevalent in the world of architecture and related practices. It seems as though the contrasting nature of multiple realities of a collection of persons can be compared visually to the contrasting yet complimentary nature of constructivism and deconstructivism in architecture.
LikeLike
1. In the reading by Beatty, she mentions that parafiction is powerful and more in its element when it relates to historical moment, and for that reason it is troubling? I would like to examine why it’s troubling? If we were to live in fabricated realities comfortably, and everything works in our eyes, would that still be dangerous as Beatty puts it?
2. Stemming from the question above, the reading “Towards a Speculative Philosophy” shed some light for that it’s human nature to want to debunk perceived truths, because we’re creatures of questioning and curiosity. So no matter what reality is presented, we will always look for falsities. How much would parafiction connected to history affect our society, if we naturally fact check?
3. In “Killing Simplicity”, there is a pushed narrative that anti-realism is linked or related to architecture being autonomous. In the example it gives on LEED, it characterizes the idea of valuing that certification as undermining architecture, in that it has changed public understanding of architecture. Looking at this from a contrasting side, doesn’t things like LEED give a quality to the urban and environmental fabric; why must architecture highlight its autonomous qualities if it does this?
LikeLike
Now understanding it more, I don’t think Beatty meant to describe parafiction “troubling” as though it was a sort of evil that could desttroy our society into some sort of dystopia. I think that she meant parafiction in terms of history says a lot about our naive society and fairly refreshing in a satirical way. That’s why questioned it, because I feel like parafiction or satire in general is healthy for us to grow. Which goes into the response for my second question: parafiction is closely tied to are ability to change and evolve. In fact, the thought of not having it would have an effect on society.
For the third question, architecture shouldn’t put technical issues on the back-burner, but we should place the same importance on autonomous qualities as we do for the technical ones. There should be a push for something out of the ordinary, so that architecture can continue being interesting and not simple.
LikeLike
1. How can we as architects do more to not allow architecture to become too comfortable and sedentary as it appears Brassier has tried to accomplish by using architecture as a tool to dilute human ego?
2. Are the deceptions listed by Carrie Lambert productive for the general public understanding of what architecture is and can be? Or would you say they distract from the real importance of an architect’s work?
3. With all the topics on the new age architects and architecture straying too far from conditioning and history, for example in “Killing Simplicity,” would you say there could be an important and valuable reason this shift in architectural understanding is occurring, and why that might not be so bad?
LikeLike
By Katie Hoffstatter, not RPI. My bad.
LikeLike
During the student presentations this week, I was struck by a certain, rather softly spoken sentence along the lines of, ‘humans, animals, and objects are equal under the rules of OOO, therefore OOO is anti-human.’ This stayed in my mind throughout the entire length of the presentations, especially when I started relating that statement to modern day feminism and its objectors. But feminism aside, I find the statement to be very hurtful to what OOO is trying to accomplish. Humans are so anthropocentric in our view of the world, that the mere thought of having oneself compared to an animal or an unconscious object makes one feel attacked. OOO is so important to the planet and the human interaction aspect of cohabitation, and we need to be better about accepting ourselves as a piece of the ecosystem, rather than the ones in control of it.
LikeLike
1. Ruy says “architecture has accelerated its move away from the discourse of the architectural object towards the discourse of the architectural field”. Although this mean that we are producing more beneficial architecture, are we losing what we once were striving for when we used to design in terms of an object rather than a field?
2. In what ways can architecture as a practice gain the same level of responsibilities regarding nature that architecture as a discipline seems to achieve?
3. Gage discusses how architects often overmine and undermine our work. Is it possible to see our work in an OOO perspective rather than associating our buildings with many other factors that were considered while designing them?
LikeLike
As discussed in this week’s lecture, Object Oriented Ontology gives us a new perception of everyday things. It is easy for us to compare and relate objects to one another, but thinking of an object in this manner allows us to see objects as their own entity without being affected or influenced by surrounding objects. This way of experiencing objects, whether they be living or nonliving, allows us to understand them without any relation to anything. While we see these objects in an unfamiliar way, we must take into consideration that these objects exist in a completely different world that we cannot fully recognize. Parafiction, which was also discussed in this week’s lecture, allows fiction to be viewed as a fact. This allows artwork to be view in a different reality while also revealing truth within that we are familiar with in our own reality.
LikeLike
1. In Returning to Strange Objects, David Ruy states “These days, it seems perfectly natural to think of architecture as a consequence of its context, however it is defined.” Do you find that to be true?
2. “Objects have hidden qualities and realities, and they withdraw from our understanding.” Do we all experience these hidden qualities differently, or even experience completely different qualities?
3. Architecture can be used as a tool to shape how one experiences a space. Are we ever able to be fully aware of how it’s qualities and realities are influencing our experience?
LikeLike
The object is something that is one thing and many at the same time. It has inherent qualities that, through parafiction, have the ability to tell multiple stories, true and fake. The object exists as a being of nothing in particular, that influences the way in which we experience other objects or situations. What actually makes something truly authentic or realistic? If a Picasso and a fake Picasso produce the same effect or reaction, are they equivalent? Why is the one more important or significant than the other?
LikeLike
1– Is any thought truly original? Has every question been asked before, even if it has not been shared aloud? Surely people have questioned the same things/ have had similar thoughts with slight variation. How does this change the way we think about the originality in architecture? Is there really an “original” architecture that has not been discovered yet– either in reality or in the mind? Is anything really the “first” or has it already been brought into reality by someone else who had the means to do so?
2–Objects are said to exist only as they are perceived through the use of senses. We recognize that there is a reality outside of the mind where forms are created for a purpose. The classic saying goes “form follows function” Yet how has it been then that as time goes on forms have evolved and continue to change when the functions of such forms have not? Is it that the objects considerations have been altered? Is the form following the function of the program? Or the function of the structure? How can we let the form become a fully functioning object and ascend to become a tool rather than just an object of sorts?
3– Architecture has become consequence of its greater context. We often concern our architecture with the cultural values and urban context’s that encapsulate and surround it. But what about the relationship to nature? Nature has always been a creative force in architecture and a deciding factor of many things. It inspire architecture and has been a source for innovations in architecture but there is a disconnect between people in nature. People are considered to be “evil” where nature is everything good. How can– other than implementing laws– architecture become more of an extensive field to meld with nature in a more expansive context? Rather than connecting the two how can they become one in the same? Is it possible?
LikeLike
Reality is classified by what is tangible, the world as it actually exists rather than an idealistic notion. Yet why is there only one version of “reality” that we all are tied to ? Things are only real because we give them value and say they are real. Yet we all see the world differently, does this then discount reality? We can make something up in our heads and write it, draw it or build it but what actually counts it as reality? We can draw spaceships and design them yet they are not reality– they are not built tangible objects. But what says they could not be? Sometimes we can dream up spaces that seem more real than the ones we actually inhabit. Does this speculative realism create an anti reality? Taking the parameters of the real world and using OOO and speculative makes us question what is really there vs what is not or what could be. It makes us question the reasoning and meaning behind the objects in the world. Does everything matter? Would that then mean nothing actually matters? The relationships between objects or architecture and the individual increases in awareness. These “things” must transcend and become more than just artwork or thoughts they must become tangible and have a strong tie to our collective version of reality. When this tie to a greater context is anchored down the “real world” can become more exciting. When we bring these ideas from our non/ anti reality and bring them into existence it enhances the collective reality to into something more.
LikeLike
Ruy’s returning to strange objects brings up oncerns about the nature o an artificially intelligent architect – if we are objects on a level field, is it ethical to contest an AI architect with its own quality beyond its sum any more than we would a human appointed to the job?
The Ontic Principle states that fictional objects are real because they make a difference. What are the ethics of practicing an architecture in which the unreal matters as much as the public?
Gage addresses the perceived fading into the background by developing objets that imply infinite detail and phenomena. I don’t think that addresses the immediacy that allows a project to fade. So what is an architecture that is not so inaccessible as to repel, and not so immediate as to create boredom?
LikeLike
1 In “Returning to Strange Objects,” David makes a discussion that there is a shift changing architecture form independent object to dependent aggregation with outside resources which is over the change of power of architecture. How does this shift and the relationship between it affect the design concept of the architecture nowadays?
2 In the reading “Make-Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility,” Carrie points out that the relationship between parafiction and modern art work is presented within the exploration and pleasure. What extent in architectural design has the similar effect as which deception applied into the contemporary art work?
3 In ‘Killing Simplicity’, Mark referred to Heidegger’s perspective of viewing the visibility of the objects. He claims that only when it cease to function, the object become ‘real’ visible to others. This may be an allusion that architects usually miss the rare characteristic of objects around them. How can we cultivate a sharp sense to observe the inspiration concealed in the objects around us?
LikeLike
This presentation mainly focuses on the topic of context and realism. Context is like the ‘dot point’ of the architecture when we start out designing. Context is like a collaboration which helps the architecture blend in the surrounding and cooperate with human from culture, religion and environment. And the reality is perceived as a start point when we experience in a space. It gets much more crucial when we analyzing it during the process of designing. So the relationship between objects or architecture and human becomes more important than before. For now, the architecture cooperate with the context will be a good strategy in reality. In general, architecture will be more exciting when it has greater connection with the context and the relationship within it prove the architecture is more than an art work.
LikeLike
1. In “Returning to Strange Objects”, David Ruy talks about how nature has moved away from being a direct inspiration for design and become more of an inspiration for the process of design. How has technology influenced this shift away from designs based in nature?
2. One use of an architect is to help change and shape a space depending on what the client wants. Because of this, are we ever truly able to fully experience everything a space has to offer or are we limited to what the architect wants us to see?
3. Brassier has tried to keep architecture interesting by using it as a tool to dilute human ego, how else can we as architects find a way to help keep it interesting?
LikeLike
Before when designing something it was more nature based because that was surrounding us and giving us our inspiration to create. Now since technology is so prominent and easy to use more people are using it as inspiration instead of nature which has shifted the design field of architecture to become more structurally based instead of whimsical. In the regards to space and how an architect shapes it I do believe that it completely changes the layout and vibe of an area. They can design a space to make you only see what they want and instead hide the bad behind it all so you never look there. Because of this I don’t think that people will ever truly be able to see the full experience of a space when it is designed by an architect. Another way I believe architects can help to keep the designs and everything interesting is by maybe bringing in more inspiration from the media and what is going on in pop culture maybe. By bringing in these new inspirations and that seem to be influencing the rest of the world in there everyday ventures, then maybe that can help to make architecture once again interesting to the everyday normal person instead of just architects.
LikeLike
1. David Ruy in Returning to (Strange) Objects examines the contemporary shift in architectural typologies to reactionary architecture instead of traditional architecture. He talks of past architecture as existing in their own right – molding their contexts into cohesive systems through the existence of the unique architecture. Modern architecture, as Ruy suggests, does not exist individually from its context, it is reactionary: its form and function are a by-product of the physical and meta-physical context in which it exists. For Ruy this is a negative shift in architectural typologies and he calls for a movement back to the orthodox and reexamination of architectural form to influence context and site. Is this call applicable in the modern world? Do current technological capabilities change the field of architecture from theological typologies to reactionary “answers” to assigned problems of building sites?
2. In Killing Simplicity: Object-Oriented Philosophy in Architecture, Mark Foster Gage talks of the philosophical implications of considering architecture as a tool. Gage delineates that a tool is invisible to the user until it no longer functions to its fullest ability. He equates this thought to modern architecture, which has shifted more into the realm of systems and connections more so than philosophically-inspired design. He sees “systemology” in architecture as a simplifying trend that has no place in the field, and argues that architecture should not be regarded as a tool as it will become invisible to the beholder up until it fails to provide proper shelter. Does contemporary architecture have to dip into the waters of “uselessness” in order to be considered true architecture? Is a systematic approach to architectural design better left to engineers and non-architects so as to keep the realm of “true” architecture “pure”, or is this a purist argument left to contemporary “philosophers”.
3. Ryant, Srnicek, and Harman in Toward a Speculative Philosophy talk about the trend of contemporary philosophy and how it got to where it is in the context of past philosophical trends. Their examinations lead to the realization that philosophy is reactionary to past theories and the result of their applications throughout the world and various professional fields. This realization further points out the phenomenon of a certain degree of a feedback loop in philosophy: new theories argue similar (if not the same) things as previous theories, they are just worded to fit contemporary contexts. At what point is meta-physical philosophy new and where is it old? Is there even a possibility that philosophy can be “new” again, or are we going to reword the same argument thousands of times in the hope that we find a new answer? Is the application of old and reworded philosophies in architecture just a reason for the stagnation of “true” architecture, is it time to move on from old architypes to prevent anachronism in architecture?
LikeLike
Throughout the lecture about the philosophy of the object, the concept of the perception of reality was brought to light. Philosophers in the contemporary world seek to observe the “intangible” as the surrounding world continues to categorize all that is possibly tangible. Because of this phenomenon the perception of reality can be pushed further into the bounds of a “grey” area. As such, expression of the intangible “reality” in the world of art has many approaches, and the lecture brought to light many of these approaches, however, it also begs the philosophical question of their own perception of reality, what if reality is not fully expressible: what is everything in the universe that can be thought-up is reality, and construction or representation of this concept is its physical manifestation in the universe.
LikeLike
1. David Ruy describes how the role of an architect has become ‘vague and ambiguous’, citing the main reason for this as the loss of an object. If architecture is more about the practice of relating objects than the object itself being an embodiment of ideas, how does the role of the architect change? How is the public’s opinion of architects influenced by this transition? Will architecture begin to hold more value in comparison to other practitioners, such as doctors or engineers?
2. Throughout time, architecture has looked to nature for design cues with an understanding that ultimately everything leads back to nature. As architecture increasingly tries to mimic the efficiency and beauty of natural processes, will architecture become more about ecology and scientific approaches than aesthetic? How does that influence the profession of architecture?
3. In ‘Killing Simplicity’, Mark Foster Gage references a quote by Harman which describes humans in relation to architecture, in that we “live our lives on a layer of invisible equipment.” This enforces the idea that architecture is a groundwork that most people are becoming oblivious to. This, yet again, brings into the question the role of the architect. How do we create architecture that is enough of an object to be noteworthy while still meeting societal requirements like sustainable design? Is there a perfect ground between undermining and over mining the object?
LikeLike
However simple the nature of an object may seem, there are numerous discourses that stem from this ‘thing.’ The relevance of these discourses is of course largely subjective, particularly in how they affect architecture and whether those affects are worthy of exploration. Some philosophical ideas may do more to harm the already troubled relationship between architecture and philosophy, but it is without a doubt that without philosophy, many things, especially architecture, can become meaningless. Just as remarkable objects of architecture could be lost in a modern contextual field where the whole is more important than the parts themselves. It is thus the role of an architect to reach into the world of architectural philosophy and digest pieces that hold meaning and importance to them in an analytical way that enables them to design with that criteria in mind, for without practiced thought and theory, architecture is just an object, when it could be a remarkable object.
LikeLike
1. It’s interesting to think of all the individual objects that exist in the world , that each have their own individual purpose and we can begin to examine the value each object brings to society. How do we value individual objects and justify their form relative to their use in society?
2. In Killing Simplicity by Mark Foster Gage, he explores how our society has become object oriented, and we fail to recognize their value. How does only recognize the failure in society and not value of the object influence design? And do we fail to recognize the value of ordinary things?
3. In understanding the purpose of architecture is to fulfill function, but how does simplification, and lack of design also influence society? and lead to uninteresting architecture in society?
LikeLike
1) Through Mark Gage’s beliefs, how does nature and philosophy influence an architectural design? Can you have one without the other?
2) Harman describes the importance of hidden qualities that are vital and add value to an object. Does this correspond in an architectural design? If these qualities are hidden, how can they add value to a design if they cannot be distinguished?
3) Ruy explains that we as architects have become so dependant on social and environmental influences that we have begun to neglect the architectural object. However, how do we conceptualize and design without taking into account vital external factors such a culture and environment?
LikeLike
What I found very interesting about the presentation was the discussion on the artist who used weird and somewhat abnormal objects to create a new form of art. For instance, the artist would use pig intestines to create objects that would resemble flowers. I found this to relate very well to the reading “Return to Strange Objects,” as the artist is using unique and “strange” objects to create something new. I think we as architects can use this concept as we advance our designs and concepts and influence us to not be afraid to stretch our imaginations. I also thought that the students presenting did a nice job of using real world situations as well as presented some comic relief throughout their presentations.
LikeLike
1. In “returning to strange objects”, the return to a more physical embodiment of architecture, as opposed to a theoretical practice, is suggested. Can the architectural object exist without the theoretical? Is a better balance needed between the two or should one preside over the other?
2. In the reading, “Killing simplicity: Object-oriented Philosophy in Architecture,” Gage discusses the prevalence of arrows as the driving factor within most if not all projects. How does this pervasive presence of arrows influence projects for the better or worse?
3. Lambert Beatty discusses the importance of history to the practice of architecture, how should history be considered when designing and are there shortcomings within the design approaches taken today?
LikeLike
Based on the presentations and class discussion it seems to me that there is an infinite number of possibilities for the future of architecture. This was highlighted by the numerous examples during the presentation. For every interpretation of design or idea, there are endless possibilities of impact on the public via yet more possible interpretations. It raises questions for me as to how architects ought to proceed given our concern for the impact of our architecture on its inhabitants is most important and our assumed solutions could be becoming the problem.
LikeLike
1. In, “Killing simplicity: Object-oriented Philosophy in Architecture,” Gage proposes that object oriented ontology is arising from a frustration in architectural design that is “justified solely by its relations and not its own particular qualities”. Indeed, it is of critical understanding the way in which we approach object in what he discusses as having various realities, understandings and relations. Is this critical philosophical approach simply suitable as a tool for justification or can it be more than this?
2. Ruy, in “Returning to Strange Objects”, states that the urgent contextual concern today is Architecture’s relation to nature and that the translation of object to field: a double-entendre for the representation of a move toward nature. He goes on to discuss the authority of architecture as an active participant but one loosing substance in the desire to be relevant. Could the ever pressing concern to deepen and revolutionize the relation to the natural be more heavily reliant on new forms of dependent collaboration specifically in that of technology rather than, as it is now, sustainable politics? And furthermore that this can restore “architectural intelligence” as Ruy describes?
3. In The Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object-Oriented Ontology, Hegel proposes things in of themselves are incoherent; that intrinsic qualities of form are simply nonexistent: one needs difference of thought, contextual consideration. Can, then, the assumption be made that all form is a product of its context?
LikeLike
Object-oriented ontology provides insight into the nature of an object for its perceived qualities. This having much to do with context, the autonomy of an object, enigmatic qualities and so forth. Eisenman’s work which seeks to achieve a certain pure notation is fascinating in its removal from object reality as we may understand it. It provokes the question of true nature of being, of architecture, and how we can perhaps examine consciousness and perceptive influences in understanding critically not only a design piece but the world as a construct.
LikeLike