209 thoughts on “Object Oriented Ontology & Speculative Realism”
1. Rem Koolhas has said and noticed that architects rarely, if ever, appear on the cover of magazines such as Times magazine. Instead, we see figures such as Kylie Jenner. How can an architect have more authority and influence on the world today?
2. “Architectural practice has not had much concern for nature until recently” (David Ruy). Is this statement accurate? Has architecture not considered nature until now? Or should the statement be reworded? Should the word nature be replaced by ecology and sustainability?
3. What exactly is meant by OOO? Is object-oriented ontology to question whether objects, or non human entities experience their existence in a way that humans can’t understand? Like if objects have meaning or purpose that goes beyond human consciousness. And if so, how does this work when people create objects for a certain purpose or with a certain meaning?
I am still a bit confused with the idea of object oriented ontology. Ontology is concerned with the nature of being and so OOO is an attempt to understand the being of objects without imposing the subjectivity of human perception. Artist who follow OOO work with the idea of allowing the material to lead the artist through the creation of whatever it is they are making. But, even while doing this, isn’t the artist just following what they think that the material is doing, but there’s no way to actually know the consciousness of what a material wants. And another person could follow the material in a different direction because they perceived it differently. So overall, aren’t humans still giving meaning to objects? I am confused.
1. Within Mark Foster Gage’s ‘Killing Simplicity’ is the reference of Graham Harman’s examination of objects through their relationship to each other as overmining, undermining and duomining. In this way, the existence and ideas of the object are held within their relationships rather than their sole existence. How do architect’s undermine and over mine the objects of the discipline within the built?
2. Additionally, does the philosophy of Harman rely only on the physical and tangible form is applied to architecture? Is this idea only applicable to the object itself or rather its orientation on the object is more related to the dialogue between the building and its surrounding context and conditions?
3. David Ruy’s ‘Returning to (Strange) Objects’ brings the previously mentioned Harman into the conversation through the critique of “relationism” and its inability to consider how change comes into the object’s relationships. Does this line of thought introduce the need for withdrawing the relationships of object to object?
Considering the speculative realism discussed within the presentations is a breakdown of language embedded in the discussion of object-oriented ontology. The concept of being and the syntax or confusion of both deconstructivism and post-structuralism arises after looking into the works of both Peter Eisenmen and Daniel Libeskind, especially that of Libeskind’s Chamberworks. This loosening of elements and creation of ambiguity and complexity brings about Martin Heidegger’s ‘Poetry, Language and Thought.’ His use of the term nearness in describing the object aims to get close to the fundamentals or aspects of the thing itself. In this way, the object can even become an extension of the person utilizing it creating a meaning within its relationship to other objects.
1. In Ruy’s Returning to Strange Objects, he mentions that nature and world are not real objects, but what comprises them are (trees, frogs, plants). If this is true for those words, then it also must be true for architecture. Architecture is that false unity, so how can we decompose it into the bare objects that comprise it. And if that is possible, what are the object standards that fall under the architecture unity?
2. In Gages’ Killing simplicity, he talks about object relations and how objects are meant to be seen independently from their surroundings. However, if we start to look at the tectonics between objects and their relationships, is it then possible to create new, strategic moments in architecture?
3. In Bryant’s Towards a Speculative Philosophy, he talks about things relating to artificial intelligence and new realisms and materialisms. If artificiality takes over, and we synthesize those ideas to create political actions, what would be the repercussions? is it smart to design artificially?
In discussing the object what is OOO, there came the issue of what is real and what is presented as reality. The most interesting topic from the discussion was the political aspect of reality. What is the virtual or fake aspect and how much, if any, is actually a reality? politically speaking, things can be altered easily by people and the media leaving a certain population with this altered reality. this can also apply to the world we live in and things that we see. We see a reality that is only visual to us, but what about the non visible? someone else sees it and so lives a different reality. this can then be used to alter our own perception on OOO objects, because we know we exist and know objects exist, but it exists only in relativity to us and to it.
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?
The variation in our reality is different to everyone based on the experiences of individuals. The different perspectives of individual people are the basis of different options and conflicts. The reality is that our opinions are merely opinions and architecture is viewed differently by everyone. This is why architecture advances and the people have new ideas on other peoples work to improve it. This also however creates a lot of repetition I architecture. Even if its unintentional, our brains subconsciously remember things we find interesting.
1. In “Returning to Strange Objects” what form of the word nature is being used? David Ruy hint’s at a specific definition, but depending on how the reading is interpreted one could insert a couple different definitions of the word nature?
2. “While architects inflict plenty of damage by undermining the validity of the building as object, it is through overmining that the most intellectually destructive work is done.” When is it okay to over mine/over design or undermine/under design? Sure it’s not a common practice in architecture, but it is usually an idea that is over thought or an idea that was quickly put together that causes a wave (great effect whether for the good or the bad) within the profession.
3. “You can speculate, make up facts, blend different types of facts, or even lie in art because it is understood as a fundamentally frivolous zone.” Is/can architecture be viewed/treated the same way? Sure in architectural theory one must do a little speculation to grow an idea, but is there a line drawn in the sand that shouldn’t be crossed? And if there is a line drawn in the sand where is it in the sand, should somethings just stay as theories to provoke thought or conversation or should the designer go down the rabbit hole to chase their idea?
If object-oriented ontology focuses on the reality of an object that lies beyond the human consciousness, how does that change when reality is individually perceived or manipulated. Can the object be viewed if the human consciousness was altered in a way where it wasn’t functioning normally? Let’s consider someone with dementia or Alzheimer’s, their reality is altered due to a disease that deteriorates the mind. Or considering someone who is under the influence. So if OOO lies beyond a normal human consciousness, does it lie within the range of a consciousness that is altered? Reality is what you make it so you could say everyone’s reality is different in one way or another. They only become intertwined when there is an interaction with others (especially around someone who has a stronger sense of “reality” (their reality)). So the question being asked is can an object be viewed by some and not others?
1. In Ruy’s reading “Returning to (Strange) Objects”, he warns of the “profoundly problematic assumptions in theories of the architectural field from an ontological point of view.” Given this, as well as the fact that Ruy stated earlier that architecture has moved away from the discourse of architectural object to architectural field, are the fears he presents valid? Even more, how are we to know of the fears and problems that exist in the field if we’re moving towards a different style of thinking?
2. In “Towards A Speculative Philosophy”, we see the in Kant’s Copernican revolution the idea that objects conform to the mind, not the mind conforming to objects. This presents itself nicely in relation the idea of ontology, given the concept of objects standing alone in their own right. While a truly remarkable concept, it should be asked: to what extent can the object conform to the mind? Is there by chance an object who’s capability is perhaps beyond human understanding? Or has this philosophy created a “dumbing-down” of all things physical to be on par with human understanding?
3. The concept of ontology, and the idea that as a field, we are moving more and more away from purely focusing on form to the implications of architecture in a broader sense is fascinating. While architecture has long been seen as a uniquely independent object (a building standing on its own), we are now coming to see architecture take on the guise of worrying more and more about context and overall creation of a total environment. Because of this shift, what place will architectural object hold in the future? Will the field evolve into something beyond the grasp of what we understand architecture to be now (i.e.: planners, theorists)? Or will it stay as it is now, a hybrid of built form, and the creation of environments that surround us and our buildings?
Object-oriented ontology creates an interesting narrative in the context of creating reality in architecture. Just because you’ve created a reality doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a real, tangible thing. VR is much like this in that you have created a reality for one to play out, yet it’s not physical at all. While that is one example, the duality of ontology is one that is still almost a mystery to many. Safiye Behar’s apartment is a perfect example of this. Just because someone said something was to exist isn’t always necessarily what it seems to be. However, going forward, we need to be wary. To what point are we going to allow this push-and-pull between reality and the real exist, and how are we going to let it shape our future? These are things we need to take into consideration in the design of our object-oriented futures.
1. If architectural form is dependent on its function, how has form changed over the year when functions haven’t?
2. Does architecture truly ever respond to nature, despite the fact that most architectural form is geometric and nature is organic?
3. In a world that is object oriented, there has been a push to autonomous objects, everyone has the same objects, clothes, technology. How can architecture prevent itself from following the same path?
1. Forms can be dependent upon fads of the time. While specific ornamentation is popular in one era could be completely disregarded in another, causing the major difference.
2. While formally, the architecture is in major contrast, since one can never perfectly replicate nature, materially, and organizationally, architecture can take ideas from and replicate nature.
3. It truly depends on a culture but it has to do with each individual architect and their goal to strive to do their own unique architecture and inspire individuality.
I did not enjoy this week’s presentation. While they were relatively creative, and possibly tried to interact more with the students, I thought they lacked a seriousness in presenting the subject material. Their deficiency of professionalism for the class and the subject matter caused me not to get very much out of the presentation at all. It almost seemed as if many of the presenters were trying to “outdo” the other ones with the crazy things they could put on the screen. I thought their presentation while creative, did not have much correlation to architecture.
Excellent parafictional response Allison! that is the spirit. However, if what you wrote is nonfiction, I suggest you re-read “Make-Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility” and see if you change your mind 🙂
1. In “Returning to Strange Objects,” it is stated that it is important for architecture to take reference to nature before creating their design, due to “global warming and environmental collapse.” It is true that a large portion of energy is used for buildings’ heating, cooling, and other such requirements. Is it possible, or more importantly, ideal, to destroy old, power-hungry buildings and replace them with greener ones, or should we stick to focusing on the buildings being made now?
2. The reading “Killing Simplicity: Object-Oriented Philosophy in Architecture,” the arrow diagram is able to show a main idea to the change of a building. It can be used for the movement of borders, a heightening of a wall, and other such concepts while staying simple enough for the client to understand. How can this idea be used for concepts either too complex to be simplified or can’t be understood with arrows?
3. Within “The Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object-Oriented Ontology,” There is a section that talks about Anti-humanism, which is the idea of humans gaining nothing from the changes and differences found within a building, and not the removal of humans from architecture. With that in mind, would a building still be considered architecture if it did all that it could to isolate itself from humans?
The existence of architecture solely exists by the fact that objects exist. Without reality there would be no objects, and therefore architecture would neither. Even if architecture could exist without object, if objects never existed, neither would architecture. Similarly, architecture is also affected by the nature that surrounds it. At the same time, the “object” affects the very “field” that it is placed upon. As the flora grows around the foot of the wall, the energy used within the architecture. As architects it is important to modify the architecture to damage the surroundings as little as possible. The interactions between architecture and humans, on the other hand, is greatly contrasting to the former pair. While it is thought that the reason architecture exists is for humans to use, there are plenty of other interactions that a building has with objects other than humans, such as animals, weather, and even other buildings. There are many more interactions within the realm of reality, many of which happen outside the perception of humanity. After all, the perception of humans is limited by their own interactions upon reality.
1. Returning to strange objects by David Ruy, the article based in theory, of how the old architects were articulating their ideas to stranger network organization, where now the architects are more preoccupied to design more a conceptual object and more relevant with considerations of architecture as product of social interaction. Why do you think the new architects are returning to strange object than create a social interaction product?
2. Killing Simplicity Object-Oriented Philosophy in Architecture. Now some architects relive ontology to oriented object philosophy, for diverse reasons as terrorism attack or global warning. So, reoriented an object to solve a philosophy term or environment problems and will build a simplify solution by owning particular and autonomous qualities with the object reorientation. Do you by object oriented will develop a vastly over simplified problem?
3. Towards a Speculative philosophy. Levi Bryant go over how Badious insists, is both a political and metaphysical imperative for philosophy. Why Alain Badious relives in the importance of the emerging speculative trends by situating his own work with respect to speculative realism?
We, as young architects will face a variety of forces to explore new design decision in an object by effecting the final result. As new architects, we are told to articulate ambiguities in an object to create a coherent schematic design. But, when discussing about object, two different examples were given in the students’ presentation. For example, Waluigi how two components do not exist the product does not exist. In other words, we can’t have a final object without a starting object because this object will miss a series of articulations or design process. In that case if this thought process was applied to the beginning, there creation of an object would be impossible. Now some architects relive ontology to oriented object philosophy, for diverse reasons as terrorism attack or global warning. So, reoriented an object to solve a philosophy term or environment problems and will build a simplify solution by owning particular and autonomous qualities with the object reorientation
1. In David Ruy’s article, he highlights the architecture must consider the longevity of buildings, similar to other practices, in the sense of nature. Can the life span of building’s materials outlast the functions of the building itself?
2. “-Undermining the validity of the building as an object,” in this article the author reviews how a building is valued. Is a building an object in a community when the building’s philosophy does not coincide with that of the community’s?
3. Milton Braga’s lecture at EMPAC on Monday night reflected on the importance of how we relate our buildings to our environments and emphasized the way humans live in a building is apart of the building’s architecture. In a way, I believe the ideas highlighted by all of the articles relatively reflect Braga’s key ideas in his own design. Will we go beyond considering just the materials and implications of the buildings surrounding environment? We are set on the idea that good architecture is when the building is culturally aware. Will we arrive to a new era of architecture once we break this barrier and enhance our ideas beyond being connected with the culture, people, and materials when designing a building?
1. In David Ruy’s Returning to (Strange) Objects, he states that “besides basic pragmatic concerns for manipulating the ground, … or making sure the interior has enough light and air, the practice of architecture has been more concerned with the endless logistics of the building itself.” Do you agree with the fact that we are shifting into ecological theory rather than learning about nature to help build?
2. Do you believe that architects are drawn to the philosophy of object oriented ontology due to the fact that architecture is no longer defined by its own autonomous qualities but is characterized by “form follows function”?
3. Do you agree with Gage’s philosophical findings that a building is more than just a single entity but it is about the objects that create the building?
Object oriented ontology focuses on the reality of objects outside of the human consciousness. Objects in the universe are all equally the same. We have to think about how each object is related to each other and to nature as well not just to ourselves. I found Mark Foster Gage’s architecture to be revolutionary because of all the ornaments and embellishments that cannot be found in most architecture. The building that he created is not just a single item, but it is multiple entities that give the architecture different qualities and relations to each object that makes up the building. His building has characteristic that go beyond the reality that we know.
1. In “Killing Simplicity” by Mark Foster Gage, Gage brings up one of the most known architecture quotes in his section on invisible form, “form ever follows function”. Do you believe that it is better to follow the original “form follows function” meaning (the form follows the function of the structure) or to follow the new meaning of “form follows function” (the form follows the function of the program)? Do you think the meaning of this phrase could evolve and change again in a couple of 100 years?
2. In “Returning to (Strange) Objects” by David Ruy, it is states that “It is only in the longer view of architectural history that this shift from object to field sees odd because architecture has predominantly been presented throughout its history as a thing in the world.” If were going off of of proper nouns categories (person, place or thing), why would a building be considered a thing and not a place?
3. If you look up OOO online it is said to be a “21st century Heidegger-influenced school of thought that rejects the privileging of human existence over the existence of nonhuman objects”. is this an accurate definition of OOO based off of you interpretation of the reading “The Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object-Oriented Ontology”?
There is no difference that does not make a difference. This goes for the interpretation of the saying “form follows function”. It makes a huge difference on how this quote is interpreted by the architect. Designing for the program and then design for the structure can result in two very different forms. This phrase is so important because of the fact that there has to be a reason for a form. A building can’t just be a square object with no reason. There has to be a purpose behind the form/shape like the function and/or structure. I believe that people should combined both interpretations of the saying and design for function and structure.
1. Based on “Returning to (Strange) Objects” Do you think the architectural object is actually de-emphasized by the want to apply architectural intelligence when it cannot really be defined? Do you think they are linked?
2. Based on “Killing Simplicity” Do you think the broad view on architecture is taking away from its fundamentals? Is too much focus being turned towards the more abstract relations in architecture?
3. If the purpose of architecture is to act for simple human function does the over simplification of the purpose become too caught up in the concept?
Reality can only be individually perceived and defined which makes it easier for people to begin to influence and deceive others. When viewing an object one thing could appear very differently to one person than to another. Even the purpose of an object can change how someone views it. Reality can then be altered. If you are able to convince one person of something you will more successfully be able to change the opinion of many others. This can be applied to many things in life including architecture. When a form is created, if it loses its purpose will it still be that object in our eyes?
1.) In “Returning to Strange Objects,” it is stated that architectural design must first consult nature, due to the ever-growing environmental, global issues such as global warming. What other options do we have as a species and what part of us distracts us from all designs being “green.”
2.) In “Towards A Speculative Philosophy”, Kant goes into depth about objects, the mind, and ontology. It is thought that the only thing we know is that we think therefore we are. However, with all of this ambiguity how can one then dive into the world of architecture and feel comfortable supporting one’s ideas?
3.) Lambert Beatty once again brings up the importance of studying precedents of architecture before learning to design. When trying to form new solutions to new problems it is important to look to the past for reference, but why would we want to continue using these principals if they only hinder new, sustainable designs?
1. How does the simplification of architecture change the way we experience our every day lives? Does it cause a burden?
2. Why do people chose to take away from the meaning of architecture when designing just to make themselves look more intellectual?
3. Is the broadening of architectural concepts causing us to stray from the usual form follows function which has been used for ages? Are we focusing on the unimportant in order to make it more “modern”?
Form follows function will always be engraved in my mind until the day I die. But why is this saying so important? Why have so many architects taught this to their students? There is no real rule that says we need to design as if the object always holds a use. We should be viewing the final object as a whole entity. We shouldn’t look at things and identify them based on what purpose they serve. If we looked at a fork and didn’t know what it did and how it helped us, would we still be able to identify it as a fork? I think todays readings helped to emphasize this whole idea that without function we should still have an object. How would this challenge our reality? Is the fork still real to us?
1. In Returning to (Strange) Objects, David Ruy makes the argument for architecture to shift its focus on the field to the object. Although there may be studies showing that the earth has never been truly stable, we humans are increasing the rate at which it is getting destroyed. Architecture is long lasting and an essential part of our daily lives, and I think we should be more focused now than ever on the field, in terms of the environment and ecology. Having said that, why is it that we cannot focus on both the field and the object? Does one dictate the other? There are hundreds of projects that are both aesthetically pleasing in design while also being environmentally friendly. Why must we choose one over the other?
2. In architecture school, especially in RPI, students are pushed to think critically, conceptually, and theoretically. Almost in all my studio classes, professors have told me to let my concept/thesis drive the aesthetics or the design of the building rather than the other way. However, Ruy believes that by focusing on the object, the theory will follow as a reaction. How can his belief be played out in the real world (such as school or work) where the driver is typically the theory rather than the object itself?
3. In Killing Simplicity by Mark Gage, there was a quote from Graham Harman that brought up the invisible qualities of tools/objects, explaining that “we generally notice equipment only when it fails”. This is an interesting way to incorporate into architecture. How can we use this invisible/silent quality to enhance the architectural/spatial experience of the inhabitants?
I found the presentation on viewing objects in terms of its design and beauty rather than in terms of its function was very intriguing. The presenter spoke about how people do not see objects as objects until they stop functioning or their “purpose/use” is absent. For most things, we see them simply as tools. For example, we don’t necessarily see the beauty of the design of a trash can, but rely on it daily as an object that contains dirty things. It is a completely different way of viewing objects, but certainly a necessary step as we are designers and creators of visually pleasing things. I think this also challenges the classic saying “form follows function”. We can start to design in ways that the function of an object would have no relation to its form, therefore being viewed as the object in its purest form.
1. In Gage’s Killing Simplicity: Object Oriented Philosophy in Architecture, he state that architecture has become justified by its relations but not by its autonomous qualities. Why has architecture become this way?
2. In Ruy’s Returning to Strange Objects, he states a shift in architectural discourse from object to field. What caused this shift? What is its effect on our approach to design?
3. Ruy introduces the idea of a synthetic ecology, rather than one developed from observing nature. Do you agree with him that we should move away from what he described as a romanticized ideal of a nature-oriented ecology, and instead towards something more man-made and synthesized? What are some ways this shift in approach could alter design?
This week’s readings discussed the topic of reality. What we might perceive as real may actually be false, but presented as real to us. It can be very easy to manipulate people’s perceptions and to persuade them into believing what is false. Fake news has swarmed social media. However, there are many people who stand by this fake news, insisting that it is real and that other people and news outlets are in fact the ones propagating fake news. It can be difficult to decipher what is real and what is false. With objects and tangible items, though they are the same, there are different ways people can view it. In fact, the object’s purpose or functionality can even change depending on how the viewer reads it. How a piece of architecture looks or what it represents could vary greatly depending on perception.
1. Mark Foster Gage reasons that today’s architects are frustrated with architecture that is “solely justified solely by its relations and not by its own particular and autonomous qualities.” How would you consider the idea of objects at various scales being “the ultimate stuff of the cosmos” to relate to form-propelled architecture? How might this contradict with contextual-based design like the Brazilian brutalism of Lina Bo Bardi, where multidimensional contextual implications are the main driver of design and signifier of its success?
2. How can an object achieve any measurable success beyond being itself? Should it?
3. It’s often said that design is only noticed when it fails. Gage discusses this idea and its relation to OOO in a comparison to a water bottle—you don’t notice it at the foreground of your attention until it leaks all over your hand. He argues that OOO rejects this idea of seeing architecture as static and only accessible in certain situations. Do you believe that architecture as “form follows function” renders architecture as trying to become invisible? Or, if a space is so subservient to its use, the architecture is at risk of invisibility? Is successful use itself considered enough to challenge this notion?
The presentations engaged a new way of thinking about speculative realism: real-world contemporary connections to alternative facts and pop culture motifs of object oriented ontology. The Waluigi example was a perfect comedic touchdown of representation. This feedback loop finds itself in context-referential architecture as well as its seeming opposite, the gem-object content in its own equal existence or being. I also realized the power of truth in its relation to self-awareness and personal experience, as each person’s own bubble is often intrinsically related to outside forces bound to exterior reference as much as object orientation.
1. Mark Foster Gage asserts a radical difference between the object-building, and the building conceived as an object. In architecture, that which is typically considered a form is grounded – or has a definitive relationship with the ground condition. Should architecture continue to reject its context and liberate itself from “form” as many practitioners tend to do, or must it begin to operate under the philosophy of the object-oriented ontology, and become legible, independent of all external pressures and relations?
2. The desire for architecture of today, according to David Ruy, is for architecture to be considered independent of the socio-cultural affairs and free itself from the constraints of the architectural field and context. However, if architecture is considered independent of contextual relations, how does this begin to impact notions of urbanity? Will demographic and cultural relationships be completely ignored in the future of architecture, and will urban planning and design begin to operate independently of architectural discourse?
3. Carrie Lambert-Beatty reveals in her writing that parafiction is closely related to reality, but not entirely truthful. What could be considered examples of architectural methods or practices that employ paraficton, as a means of deceiving the viewer or the designer?
The goal of object-oriented ontology is to reject the privileging of human existence, over the nonhuman entity. Eschewing the prioritization of the context and external factors, the architect must be begin to evaluate his or her design decisions, and how they can make an architecture that can be freely interpreted. However, OOO not only requires and understanding of all human and non-human objects, but the acknowledge of these objects are “being,” actively making a difference and making changes to the surrounding environment. However, do these objects truly have a meaning if we are to evaluate them without context and human enforced opinions? How will architecture have value in the future, if only the building is considered? Nevertheless, we as architects must continue to deconstruct architect, and loosen the confines of structure and context, to generate ambiguity and reduce constructions and designs to basic objects.
1. Mark Foster Gage makes a good point when he argues that describing a building as “LEED Certified social housing” diminishes the object, the housing itself. He says that Schumacher falls into the same issue when describing his buildings as parts of fields. But I think objects must belong to some sort of larger field, whether this is context, environment, or belonging to a style, especially if we’re trying to create Kipnis’ notion of a New Architecture. Without this association, do you think Object-Oriented philosophy like Gage’s contributes to the issue Whiting was speaking of, where new buildings become icons for the sake of icons, competing with each other in the skyline?
2. This same analogy goes even further, suggesting that the architect (and his computer) are passive tools in this system, as well. If the intention is to create an object that is unified within itself, and not fully knowable, what is the role of the architect when producing the object? Is producing even the right word?
3. To what extend do you think architects should just accept our role as designers of buildings? Is there really a need to assign meanings that come from this OOO? Hyping up objects so far as to say they can never be fully understood? It is a very godly way of thinking from someone who doesn’t have much built work, compared to unbuilt visions.
If we’re just a tool in producing the OOOobject, what happens when we’re gone? Once built/created, it no longer needs us. In the eyes of OOO philosophers, I suppose we’re similar to the analogy of using a car to get from point A to point B, and then it breaks down, we can no longer serve our purpose once the object is done with us. However, once the car breaks down on the road, the DRIVER must begin pushing IT, and the situation is reversed. In this way, the objects we produce could continue to push us forward, once we’ve put them out. Buildings can win awards, respect, commissions for the architect.
1. The famous physicist Hawking believes that the duty of science is to ask “how” and the duty of philosophy is to ask “why.” The main achievements of Hawking’s cosmology exploration lie in the singularity theorem, black hole radiation, and cosmic self-solution, and these three aspects all have the meaning of deep speculative philosophy, and therefore have an internal connection with a humanistic philosophy. Philosophy and science are inextricably linked. So how can scientists specifically use speculative philosophy to guide scientific research?
2. The speculative philosophy guides people to pursue the essence, pursue the truth, and reach the ultimate position by reason and through the cognitive path. After more than two thousand years of development, speculative philosophy has been fully demonstrated, showing a mature appearance, but at the same time, it has failed to achieve its goal. However, practical philosophy negates the pursuit of speculative philosophy and opposes the division and opposition between the sensory world and the super-sensory world. In particular, it opposes the view of the super-sensory world as real existence and real reality. Will practical philosophy replace speculative philosophy in the future?
3. Ontology is a philosophical concept that studies the nature of existence. Ontology can be divided into four types: domain, generality, application, and representation. What current scientific research results apply object-oriented ontological ideas?
The speculative philosophy is a philosophy that proceeds from pure logical thinking, pushes the entire objective reality, and makes the development of the objective world subject to the general law of human thinking. It insists on the understanding of the knowledge or truth that rational thinking achieves inevitability through concept, and aims to abandon the opposition of the subjective and objective, and achieve the unity of specific diversity or the unity of opposites. With the development of society and culture, philosophers ‘understanding of speculative philosophy is also more comprehensive. Speculative philosophy is mainly manifested in metaphysics, first philosophy, ontology, and knowledge theory. The exploration of the same, essence, and cause by speculative philosophy has some one-sidedness, so it should be constantly improved. Ontology is the philosophical study of existence. Object-oriented ontology crucially puts things at the center of this study. Its proponents contend that nothing has special status, but that everything exists equally.
I think philosophy is conducive to the advancement of society. So while studying these theories, people should pay attention to how to combine these theories with scientific experiments. Because scientific research cannot be separated from the guidance of philosophical theory. The combination with science can further reflect the value of philosophy. Because in modern society, many people have prejudice against philosophy and believe that learning philosophy is useless. I expect object-oriented ontology and speculative philosophy to bring more value to society.
1. Killing Simplicity: Object-Oriented Philosophy In Architecture, the three words “overmining, undermining, and duomining” are significant when discussing diagrams. Is it possible create diagrams without overmining, undermining, or duomining? Or are they unavoidable when creating diagrams?
2. In Make-Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility, Safiye Behar a character was able to become “alive”/real by though. In architecture, by laying out all significant and minute detail, can this setup create a parafiction that can impact others?
3. Implied by the title of the read, “Returning to (Strange) Objects,” architecture should go back to focusing on the object, massing. However, by doing so function would then follow form. Could architecture still return to strange objects without starting with function first?
When discussing about object, two different examples were given in the students’ presentation. With the Waluigi example, if the two components do not exist the product does not exist. Saying that there would be no product if there are no starting object or objects. In that case if this thought process was applied to the beginning, there creation of an object would be impossible. However, with the relation of hydrogen and oxygen to water, it is interesting that the components individually possess completely different properties to that of the combination. The students focuses on different aspects of the components related to the product. For Waluigi, I believe that the components do not necessarily have to exist in order for Waluigi to exist because the latter could be the first creation. On the other hand, water needs hydrogen and oxygen to exist.
Ruy claims that “by relaxing hang-ups over legitimacy” architecture can become less constrained and more creative. How has the preference for architectural discourse over object affected contemporary design? Can architectural objects exist without discourse?
Gage describes an ideal of architecture where buildings have validity from their mere existence. However, can this exist outside of theory? How does one prevent duomining while relating to the practical problems of ecology and regulation?
Lambert-Beatty describes multiple works of art and satire that use perceived authority to reveal reality. Can architecture use the same infelicitous power to allow architecture more freedom, or is architecture too dependent on its own sources of authority?
How do we know what is true? Object-oriented ontology aims to find truth and reality outside of human consciousness, without making references to human culture and morality. In such a system, humans are not unique, but merely objects that make a difference like other objects. Meanwhile, parafiction attempts to create a believable lie, which depends on human trust instead of external reality. The amusing pranks where people believe something based on a specious authority draws attention to the ways in which we are disconnected from reality. OOO and parafiction are two different contemporary approaches to the noumenal and the phenomenal; reality as it is juxtaposed against how we perceive reality. I thought it was interesting and amusing how the presenters brought up Waluigi as an example of something that exists only as a reference to other ideas. In architectural theory, it becomes possible to create a network of ideas completely disconnected from reality.
1) With the ontology philosophy of Graham Harman, how can architects move away from simplistic observations of architecture to something more profound? How can we understand the unknown?
2) Given that making sustainable buildings require a lot of code and therefore bounds architecture design, would one argue that that is something worth the trade-off? Most buildings will last longer than the average human; should our goals aim for long-term achievements? Or are other architectural factors far more important that “now” is where things are at?
3) How does the shift from object to field, as stated by David Ruy in “Returning to Strange Objects”, change (or lackthereof) our fundamentals of design?
In this week’s lecture, there were many interesting topics brought up about reality. What makes something “real”? Given the topic about object oriented ontology, we delved into what is beyond the human consciousness. In such idea, humans are nothing more than objects in a space. They are made of smaller components that depend on one another to form a “being”. This idea of being as a result of building from other ideas is quite intriguing. Our imagination is built from this. We can create different realms and people just from a network of ideas.
1. In the essay “Killing Simplicity: Object-Oriented Philosophy in Architecture”by Mark Foster Gage, he proposed an idea that breaks away from the traditional “form follows function of the structure” architectural ideology. The tradition ideology has been contrary in the past century, will Gage’s idea be a revolutionary move or will that just create a new round of debate in the architecture field?
2. A main discussion in “Make-Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility” by Carrie Lambert-Beatty is that almost everything is a lie in the art field. She states that “you can speculate, make up facts, blend different types of facts, or even lie in art because it is understood as a fundamentally frivolous zone”. As seemingly true as the statement sounds, if art institutions lie and almost none of the facts are actual facts, will art itself become a lie?
3. In the lecture “Return to Strange Objects” by David Ruy, he criticizes that the discipline of architecture might misdirect the desire to be active in the world and in current events. He thinks that it’s a loss of authority on the part of the architect. Base on his view, does is mean that the discipline of architecture was always in favor of knowledge-based practices and therefore restricted architects’ freewill of doing whatever they want?
1) Mark Foster Gage brings up a point about how buildings are justified by a simplistic metaphor. He talks about Calatrava’s ridiculous metaphor of the new World Trade Center Hub and how its exterior mimics a flying bird. What’s wrong with Calatrava’s metaphor of the WTC Hub? I’ve visited that place and heard many other reasons as to why the Hub is designed the way it is.
2) Levi R. Bryant brings up the idea of “design space” to talk about the properties of objects. It’s said that “design space” is not fixed and can be changed depending on its surroundings. In relation to architecture, a building can have a set program space when being designed and built; however, through time, do the program and idea of the building change? Can the outside surrounding context of a building influence how the building functions afterward?
3) David Ruy seems afraid of the shifting of powers from the architectural object to field. Maybe we have a new way of thinking? He believes that we’re turning away from the focus of the object itself, but isn’t there much more to architecture than solely the object?
This week’s presentation brought about a lot of relatable topics. The reference to Waluigi and how he is who he is due to the influence of others (Mario) and he wouldn’t be the same without the existence of Mario. In relation to architecture, the building is an object that is perceived from a network of ideas. Another way to think is the idea of “Object-oriented ontology” (OOO). OOO is to learn what the truth is by rejecting human existence over the existence of nonhuman objects. By using the philosophical idea of OOO, society may be able to bring more value to the objects they design and create
1. Mark Foster Gage’s “Killing Simplicity” starts with arguing that architects have focuses part of their design into “object oriented ontology”. How does ontology play a role in the grand scheme of architecture in the design of buildings. Is the nature of being or ontology a design factor that allows buildings to fit in their respective locations?
2. “The Ontic Principle” by Levi R. Bryant focuses on philosophy as a part of architecture. This essay is history centric in that it highlights philosophers in history and points in time. Philosophy in architecture is more apparent in ancient times, when the Parthenon was built or the Colosseum in Rome. Is Philosophy still important to architecture? What are modern examples of this?
3. David Ruy’s “Returning to Strange Objects” begins with the claim that architecture has been normalized and that certain risks that made it beautiful are no longer really important. Ruy believes this regression in Architecture has occurred as a result of modern society and the environment that is created as a result. Ruy’s argument seems to be subjective and somewhat contradictory. He states that architecture lovers would overlook these faults yet, he as an author makes a claim against said ideas. On an Objective mindset, has architecture been watered down, or has design simply changed?
Object-Oriented Ontology & Speculative Realism is an interesting topic to explore in the field of architecture. The readings and the presentation brought new points to the table about how architecture and the ideas of Realism and Philosophy come together to create architectural works.
Although all essays were similar in their titling and what they addressed, Mark Foster Gage’s piece “Killing Simple” stood out. His ideas about creating innovative architectural styles and simply deeming the later unreasonable is an interesting idea coming from a modern world architect. It is hard to fathom the idea that new forms in architecture should be kept to a minimum since it is merely the way in which architecture functions. How can architecture stand out in a world were cookie cutter houses are made, and all brick monstrosities are erected around the world. As a response to Gage, The world is better off with creative and outgoing minds. Creativity brings realism to a whole new realm. Reality is synonymous with contemporary.
Ontic Philosophy and Realism come together through the work of minds who project their thoughts and make them Physical. Philosophy like architecture is the same in that far fetched ideas are shown to the world, both gathering antagonists and fanatics.
1.In “Killing Simplicity”, modern society has become materialistic and its perception of value is blurred. How do objects resemble independent value? What are the independent and dependent variables between the object and its environment? Has architecture become object-oriented and how does it prevent itself from losing value over time?
2. According to Mark Foster Gage, individuality apply to objects. There are specific purposes assigned to objects to confirm its existence. Do objects solely exist to serve its purpose? Once an object becomes nonfunctional, does it lose value in the human perspective?
3. Architects are coming up with new designs everyday, sometime they are rushed to complete a deadline and leave out small details in drawings. Isolating even the smallest details, strip away individuality from the designs. Undermining and over-mining designs can prevent architecture from achieving its full potential. How can design become independent from architecture when the relationship gives them significance?
Independence in objects must exist apart from its surroundings, to understand the objects we must not interfere with perceptions. There are ways to change perspectives without having to modify or switch the subject of attention. People see the objects as visual representation, however objects differed in value and meaning. The focus should be what does the object symbolize or represent, what kind of purpose keeps it existing in reality. In relation to architecture, architects are always trying to understand the conceptual background of structures in order to bring them into reality. Think of architecture as an object, does OOO apply the same way? Before thinking about the purpose for humans, objects should be dependent upon each other and nature. As the object holds significance in a system of objects, it will not lose value and can become independent in reality. Can humans really understand the depth of objects outside of their own conscious?
1. In “Killing Simplicity”, modern society has become materialistic and its perception of value is blurred. How do objects resemble independent value? What are the independent and dependent variables between the object and its environment? Has architecture become object-oriented and how does it prevent itself from losing value over time?
2. According to Mark Foster Gage, individuality apply to objects. There are specific purposes assigned to objects to confirm its existence. Do objects solely exist to serve its purpose? Once an object becomes unfunctional, does it lose value in the human perspective?
3. Architects are coming up with new designs everyday, sometime they are rushed to complete a deadline and leave out small details in drawings. Isolating even the smallest details, strip away individuality from the designs. Undermining and overmining designs can prevent architecture from achieving its full potential. How can design become independent from architecture when the relationship gives them significance?
2. How does the Ontic Principle impact on simplicity?
3. While processing we need all different kinds of simplicity, reduction, and abstraction, how could we achieve the final scene of object-oriented ontology?
1.) In Returning to Strange Objects, Ruy mentions how Architects have commonly use biophilia to create their designs. Is it possible to make an architecture which does not or is that considered “bad design” since it’s recognized as our intrinsic drive?
2.) Killing Simplicity discusses how architecture has strayed from solving complicated obstacles to solving simple ones. How does an architect reinstate this “fall from grace” and does Lindsay Lohan have the answer?
3.) What caused the shift from idealism to realism in architecture?
1. In “Returning to (Strange) Objects”, David Ruy makes a note of pointing out the political bias of nature and equilibrium. I agree with his argument, but what is the alternative? A discriminatory hierarchy of the wealthy and influential who can afford expensive buildings and architects who oblige them?
2. On the topic of “continental philosophy” from “Towards a Speculative Philosophy”, the author writes, “By contrast with the repetitive continental focus on text, discourse, social practices, and human finitude, the new breed of thinker is turning once more toward reality itself”. In architecture we have diverted our attention from intuitive philosophical thought and focused it on materiality and the detail. What trade-offs are there to diverting from a more thoughtful world view?
3. In object-oriented onthology, when you say that every object has its own hidden reality, is it assumed that that reality is isolated or part of a collective reality?
1. In “Killing Simplicity” Mark Foster Gage argues that architecture is independent of its surroundings and does not need to relate to them. Architects design a structure’s program and purpose around its site, however, Gage feels that this is not necessary. How can architecture be successful without taking into account context and surroundings?
2. In “Returning to (Strange) Objects” David Ruy argues that architecture should not be constrained to its immediate surroundings or materiality. He feels that architecture should be more boundless and “magic”. Why is architecture so often pressured to conform to its site rather than being completely unique?
3. In architecture and art in general, conforming to societal standards has always been the “correct” way to do approach design. However, many artists do the complete opposite of what is thought of as acceptable and are successful. Can this approach also work in architecture?
What is reality? Can we trust our own consciousness? In analyzing object-oriented ontology, we try to find out whether our existence and perception has any meaning. Reality and perception often do not align and everyone’s consciousness is unique. We often can only base the value of an object or idea when comparing it to something similar. Is one thing good and another bad just because it is preferred in one person’s perception? Something’s “existence” may not even exist in reality, but only in an idea.
1. In the article of “Returning to strange objects” by David Ruy, he stated that the new generation of architects are more focus on how to design architecture as product of social interaction but not design their ideas to stranger network organization as the old architects did. Is the new generations of the architects are returning to strange network? Why is this happen?
2. In the article of “Killing Simplicity” by Gage, he thinks that architecture is justified by its relations and how objects are meant to be independently from their surroundings. However, architecture should start to look at its own particular and autonomous qualities. Is this gonna help us to create new concept or moment in architecture?
3. In the article of “Killing simplicity: Object-oriented Philosophy in Architecture”, Gage talks about the idea of the arrows and think that arrows are very common in the world of architecture. And it is so hard to find a project that is not using the concept of an arrow. Is there any architecture could be done without the concept of arrows? What is the meaning of this type of architecture?
According to the presentation, the presentation talked about continental realism and materialism. Also, the concept of the OOO expresses the idea that object exists by relating to another object but not hinder each other. The most important concept is that “The difference is not difference” is talked about in the reading of OOO. Objects and beings make differences but there is no other objects can have the same things. In this case, those objects create the infinity of themselves. The other thing in the presentation and the class is that a substance can change into different form through the time history so that people start to think about the existence of substance the concept of it.
Mark Foster Gage’s Killing Simplicity proposes an alternative to the traditional ‘form follows function of the structure’ idea. This is not the first time that an alternative has been offered for this sort of mentality, and it likely will not be the last. Gage says we are “guilty of constantly undermining and overmining the primary products of (our) trade – buildings” by applying limitations and specifications like LEED and other such codes to them and not allowing them to become pure ‘object-buildings’ through an uninhibited design process. Is this an unfair limitation for architects today? Is this a genuine concern for designs, or does this mindset come from a purist and minimizing classical worldview?
Object oriented ontology, as an ontological method, has been criticized for being dismissive of metaphysical/process philosophy. Process philosophy (i.e. Whitehead, Deleuze) deals with the creation and endurance of objects, and argues that being is equivalent to becoming. In contrast, architects often like to believe that objects are ‘already there’ and that the creative process simply finds them. This base level understanding of the definition of an object is important to understand before an architect can decide whether ‘form follows function’ is a valid concept. Do architects create a building as an object-building, or is a building a conglomeration or assembly of constructed objects?
Rem Koolhaas noticed that architects haven’t had much of an influence on the pop culture/media scene at large for quite some time, as art and artists’ vogue has fallen to influencers and figures in Hollywood and on the internet. How can architects reclaim the public’s interest and imagination?
This week’s presentation chose to think outside the box and take the application of the subject matter to the next level. While certainly unique (and maybe a little orthodox), that creativity demonstrated a deep understanding of the subject matter on several levels.
OOO, the philosophy of ‘thinginess’, is being revisited at an interesting time in architecture. New methods, ideologies, and technological advancements have blurred the line between what objects are definitively real and which can only exist in conceptual space.
1. In modern days, the main concern of people is what celebrities are doing 24/7. They appear on every magazine and every news commentary, even though most of the time these people do not really affect our everyday lives. It is a fact that architects, even the famous and great ones never really get the same type of recognition. In what ways can an architect expose him/herself further in order to influence people at the same scale celebrities do?
2. It is said to us that form follows function and that is something that will never really change throughout the years. To what degree is this saying actually accurate, considering the fact that throughout history, the forms of any architectural works have drastically changed, but the function has stayed relatively the same?
3. The main idea behind a philosophical question is that an answer will always be different depending on who answers it, or there may even not be an answer at all. Is it a smart idea to try to simplify the meaning of these types of question, in order to get a more concise answer?
I thought that this week’s presentation was quite entertaining. It was interesting to see how the subject could be taken to a completely different level, one that did not necessarily relate to architecture itself. The most entertaining part of the presentation for me was the great spaghetti harvest. It was a comical way of showing how much people would actually believe from a simple. The documentary seemed to be produced in a very serious matter, showing that by just making something look legitimate, anyone would really trust the information they are given without prior checking the sources. This relates to the idea of how it is so easy for people to focus plainly on what is put in front of them on a screen. The same ideal that follows us to this day about celebrities and how they get the most recognition from not actually doing anything important of relevant, and most of the time fake. It is now our goal to change that ideal, and get the people that really matter to show up on the front pages of those big magazine and news covers.
1. Is the longevity of a building determined by its function or stature?
2. Whats considered a simple and in killing simplicity, would it be removing the whole movement of minimalism?
3. How does the shift from idealism to realism affect the designs caught in the shift?
From my understanding of Speculative realism, the notion of reality does not exist outside of the human mind. Kant argued that human beings are only able to conceive of reality in relation to human perception; therefore if there are multiple realities it would be only through the human perspective. In watching the presentation and doing more research on speculative realism, I’ve realized that the subject is very broad and lacks authoritative resources. Speculative realist constantly question the idea of reality and its correlation to human beings. Is reality strictly a perspective, in that everybody has a different reality or is there more? If reality existed only though perspective then that would mean that there are infinite realities; however if reality only exist outside the human mind, then is there only one reality? Others also argue that Realism revolves around the notion that everything objective exist outside the mind.
1. From reading the piece, by Rem Koolhas, I have noticed that he pointed out how architects seem to be underappreciated for the everyday work we do. He mentions specifically that most architects will never see themselves on the cover of a magazine. Will there ever be a time where architects will be appreciated enough to receive publicity like being on the cover of a famous magazine?
2. From reading, Towards a Speculative Philosophy, the author mentions how we as a global unit are approaching more advanced technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence. If AI becomes a reality and we give it purposes that very important humans have, will there be consequences that could hurt the human race?
3. From reading Returning to Strange Objects, the author, David Ruy mentions a definition of “Nature.” As I read through the piece I had thought of other meaning that could be relatable to Nature. What would other definitions of Nature be in this case?
1. In the book “Returning to Strange Objects” by David Ruy, the focus shift from independent architecture to dependent architecture groups is a tendency in recent years. What does this tendency suggest?
2. Mark Gage proposed a claim in “Killing Simplicity” that only when an object ceases to function,, it becomes visible and sensible to the public. It reminds me of the blind spot of human beings. Do architect also has a similar blind spot like unable to notice the disadvantages of adding new form the architecture groups until they destroy and notice the benefits of the surrounding environment in their design?
3. In the “Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object” written by Levi R. Bryant, the author claims that items have their interconnection, which might not be noticed by the human, so the perspectives of seeing items perfect the whole design. Many famous architects are known for their distinct design characteristics. What will be produced if we aggregate their views to an object and create an architectural design based on their ideas?
Philosophy is the central idea in today’s presentation and lecture. Think philosophically is a new approach for modern architects to open their minds for creating powerful architectures. Because of the approach, a series of “-ism”, realism, continental materialism, speculative realism, etc., have been proposed. These Speculative Turns push architects to find crazy and bizarre sparks.
“OOO”, “object-oriented ontology” is another point in our seminar. “All being is tool-being.” What role does an object play in architecture in the theory of OOO? Do they play a similar role to those people within the building? In Graham Harman’s theory, the human is a part of architecture as other objects like concrete slabs, sunshine, and the wind does.
Parafiction, a branch of fictive art, is the last idea we discussed in the class. Parafiction, an art weave reality, and fiction together, deceives the audiences by applying to incorporate materials as evidence by means of the public trusts to the “fact”. Architects apply the concept as a strategy to create their own perception of factual or fictional works.
1. In the book “Killing Simple”, Mark Foster Gates Heidegger’s thought:”In architecture, phenomenology is typically associated with a form of practice that translates the philosphical discourse to jutify its concern for phenomena.” As critics, do we tend to notice architectural errors rather than appreciate the correct approach?
2. In the article “Regression (strange) objects”, the author states that architecture is influenced by time and culture rather than objects. Of course architecture can represent a piece of history, but does it have the ability to mark a period and most cultures?
3. Nature, to architects, is not something just to be mastered; it is a tutor and mentor for human actions. Nature, for ecological designers, is not something just to be mastered; it is a tutor and mentor for human actions. As buildings increasingly attempt to mimic the efficiency and aesthetics of natural processes, will architects focus on ecological and scientific design than aesthetic design approach?
This week’s presentation discussed the Object-oriented ontology which creates an interesting narrative in the context of creating reality in architecture. The presenters poke out the modern connection between the real world and alternative facts, and the popular cultural theme of object-oriented ontology. The example of Waluigi explained that if two components o not exist, the product does not exist. We see a reality that is only visual to us. From this point, we could start to design in ways that the function of an object would not followed by forms.
1: Ruy complains about how today’s architecture has been forced to conform with sustainable politics as if it was negative thing. These days, as sustainable architecture becomes more and more popular, I believe it will shape architecture into something we’ve never seen before in a positive way. Is there a way to embrace these greener ideology, but still progress as an architectural mind?
2: Gage argues that architect’s interest in the philosophy of object-oriented ontology and speculative realism is growing out of a frustration that architecture is increasingly justified solely by its relations and not by its own particular and autonomous qualities. How could it be both?
3: According to Gage, by applying Harman’s thinking to architecture, one can conclude that architects constantly undermine and overmine the buildings they design. What would the criteria be in Harman’s mind to perfectly utilize them then?
The presentations this week were very interesting in the fact that this week’s topic was much more broad than in week’s past. It focused more of the philosophy and history of its materialality than something specific. Having such a broad topic helped each group to be relatively different and therefore held my interest more.
1. As parafiction is used as a way to explain or illustrate possible outcomes, why it is such paradox that mixing “true” and “false”; how should we predict this deception?
2. The speculative perspective is used to view and learn, as architects, should we apply this vision in our design? Or is that possible to make it themes of some design?
3. How to project object-oriented principles toward both audiences and creations?
This week’s topics are related to ontology and realism. Architecture, as subject that embedding meanings and expectations, is not purely designed object. Beside delicate designs and specific details, ideologies are equally important. Architecture are language that architects communicate with the society and the history, illustrating their wishes and thoughts.
In the contrast between real and unreal, visible and invisible; our job as architect is to wake up the awareness. By building up things that should be unreal, people would think about the existences of those invisible objects. According to the given articles, identify the meaning of the term “object” is significant, since this sets foundation of “existence” in our perception. By understanding what an “object” is, we are able to learn and construct it, and we are able to response based on the understandings of the ontology.
1. The ontology has its great limitation and can only be used to bridge the instant perception of the spectator and the instant statue of the world which was spectated at a particular moment. Since the human perception is transcoded by the language used to describe the world, we can define things and explain them to other people within the same linguistic system, but essentially language is hardly descriptive but more prescriptive, which wipes out almost all the information other than the term itself. Therefore, it is indeed more accurate to deny instead of defining the property of the substance, namely, to spectate the negative and non-existence other than the existence. Within the discipline of architecture, which is at its very essence, a crafting and constructing technique and activity, spectatorship heavily rely on the existence and the positive, does that mean the architectural experience is falsely fabricated from the beginning?
2. Once the spectator is within the architecture, his or her existence is integrated into the existence of the architecture itself, therefore the exterior experience must be the true and whole experience subtracting his own volume & mass. Does that actually justify the current contradiction mentioned above？
3. Should architecture as an application in the material world, really embed any philosophical ideologies?
1. In Make-Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility, artist Michael Blum’s fictional character Safiye Behar was believed to be real by many observers. What does this intersection between an imaginary personage and the living world demonstrate about our behavior as a public?
2. In Killing Simplicity, Mark Foster Gage asserts that the current state of architecture was realized from a profession which “does not validate its production on its own terms”. How can we begin to value architecture for its own qualities, and what does this look like in a real architectural setting?
3. What consequences may arise as a result of the simplifications, reductions, and other processes of abstraction which are necessary to the work of theorists and philosophers?
What really struck me about this week’s discussion was the topic of Killing Simplicity by Mark Foster Gage. I found it particularly relevant when Gage deemed it unnecessary to develop ‘new’ styles and ‘new’ shapes considering this is what most modern architects seek to do. Most architects rising to fame seem to have always developed some new architecture to give lectures on, and I think it is important to ask ourselves how any architecture can truly be new to the world with the volume of architecture already existing. Similar to the discussion on collages, most of these new and exciting developments are actually a collection of pre-existing styles, forms, etc. which have intersected into something seemingly new. The simple statement that “architecture is not a crime and architects need no alibi” (106) by Gage seems embody the problems with architecture’s current state, and the fact that most new work validates its production with exterior factors instead of on its own terms.
1. In “The Year of the Fake” Naomi Klein suggests a more characteristic deceptions of the recent past are performative rather than a representation, why are we set on launching falsities into quasi-truthfulness, i.e. “fake news”?
2. In “Returning to Strange Objects”, David Ruy describes how nature has transcended from being a direct inspiration for design and acting as more of an inspiration for the process of design a muse. How has technology influenced this paradigm shift, focusing less on nature and biomimicry?
3. One use of an architect is to help change and shape a space depending on what the client wants. I argue that the client can never fully know what they want, the architect is needed to bring this vision to architectural reality. Can architecture exist without authorship?
Object-oriented ontology rejects the privileging of human existence over the existence of nonhuman objects. I enjoyed the comparison to Pendleton Ward’s Adventure Time which was set in the Land of Ooo, on a post-apocalyptic Earth. Finn the human is the last known living human, and all the other inhabitants are animals, plants, and traditionally inanimate non sentient objects. Due to radiation and other factors, new life has emerged. Going back to privilege, today in the African Student Association’s general body meeting on African and world beauty standards had the privilege of hearing other white students learning and acknowledging their privilege in regards to other cultural and race groups. In relation to architecture, there has been and most certainly will continue to be fetishizing of objects in architecture as a result of what I think is the privilege of ignorance and idolizing. It is acceptable and rightly encouraged to seek inspiration from object. But to blatantly reproduce the form of an object, and expect it to hold architectural credibility is lazy. Ooo is an interesting theory, but its practice should be warranted.
1. In “Returning to (Strange) Objects,” David Ruy talks about how the focus of architecture has shifted from the architecture itself to the context that surrounds the architecture, that architecture has become a by-product of context. What inspired this change in focus?
2. In “Make Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility,” Carrie Lambert-Beatty writes about parafiction and multiple examples of its applications throughout the world. Will the advancement of technology improve parafiction to the point where reality is nearly impossible to discern?
3. In “Killing Simplicity,” Mark Foster Gage writes about the shift of architecture from producing unique things to reacting to real world problems and how this change is painful to witness for him. What is wrong with architecture taking a more practical approach?
The readings from this week focused more on philosophical ideas rather than architectural topics. The first reading, ” Make-Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility,” Carrie Lambert-Beatty explores parafiction and multiple examples of hoaxes that use an array of well thought out techniques to make them extremely believable. Some examples include the falsifying of historic facts and convincing false branding and marketing. In ” Returning to (Strange) Objects,” David Ruy writes about modern-day architecture transitioning from the focus on the architectural object to the focus on the architecture’s surroundings, with architecture being more of a by-product of its context. He also states that there is a desire for engagement with the conditions of the world. However, he believes this leads to the authority of the architect becoming vague and ambiguous. This topic is also mentioned in “KIlling Simplicity: Object_oriented Philosophy in Architecture,” where Mark Foster Gage observes the same issue. In “The Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object-Oriented Ontology,” Levi R. Bryant explores where to begin in thought, as well as the Ontic Principle, which seeks to define difference.
1. In the article ‘Returning to Strange Objects’, David Ruy has mention nature has often been a source of architectural innovation but architectural practice has not has much concern for nature until recently. Besides using programs to analyze energy, comfort, and ecology to the architecture, do you agree that ancient architecture do consider natural elements into their designs?
2. Levi Bryant, Nick Srnicek , and Graham Harman give us a glance on the Ontic Principles. Following Deluge’s quote about all modalities are not the same but are ‘equal’ for all, What does the writer want to empathize by repetitively mentioning ‘If a difference is made, then the being is’.
3. In the article ‘Killing Simplicity’, Mark Foster Gage has mentioned several opinions from Graham Harman, who is the OOO movement’s founder. One of them is saying buildings housed be understood to have vast numbers of qualities, properties, and even relations but that that their full reality can never be reduced to a single, simplistic observation. Can you think about any principles claimed by other architects before can be used to arguing against this?
This week’s topic provides us a new understanding of the relationship between human being and realism. Also, the readings mention new ways of thinking continental realism and understand distinction of the material. Importantly, Mark Foster Gage has mentioned the credibility of OOO which lies in its comparison other philosophical schools of thought. Also, OOO helps open up possibilities and thoughts which are all revolved around difference. In the chapter of OOO, he mentions a very vague idea about ‘The difference is not difference’. In other words, anything physical or object can produce a difference no matter how it is. Moreover, differences are always distinct depends on statement of objects. The Ontic principle defines what things and objects are. Consciousness understand what the objects are, know their existence, and are be abled to compare with each other. Ontological difference is by constructs, positive, affirmative and differentiate without negation. Based on the concept of OOO, Harman has further explain on the meaning of difference and the principle of Act-uality. Therefore, Harman has activated people’s thoughts and mind in order to make them start to think about the concept of “substance”.
1. In “Killing Simplicity” Mark Foster Gage discusses the tendency for tools and equipment to be treated as invisible entities unless they cease to function properly. He explains that, as we grow accustomed to mechanized and digitized extensions that constantly surround us, we are numbed to their presence and overall effects. Where do we acquire this learned-indifference? How does an entire species ride around in 4000lb metal machines with such apathy?
2. While the “Nikeplatz” hoax drew attention to the trending corporate-buyout of municipalities, most passersby were both unfazed and un-intrigued. How does the modern takeover of Amazon, Apple, Google, and other corporate giants have capacity to echo the plight at which “Nikeplatz” pokes fun?
3. Can Object-Oriented-Ontology advance the field of architecture to the point where architects accrue similar levels of fame to rock-stars, or even make the same salaries as their engineer-counterparts
1. In David Ruy’s Returning to Strange Objects, he mentioned that the shift from architecture as a practice of embodiment to architecture as a practice of coordination is a peculiar feature of the Modernist legacy, he also mentioned a movement from object to field. Is the practice of embodiment related to architectural objects while coordination related to the architecture field?
2. According to The Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object, the reason why the Ontic Principle is a prince that does not govern is that difference differs. What does it mean? Does it mean the application of the principle should be adapted to different environments?
3. In Gage’s Killing Simplicity, he mentioned that we should try to understand the feature, relationship within architecture itself instead of considering it as a simple object. Is it the reason he forced so much on the details? But will the appearance of architecture be too complex for people to understand?
The presentation today talked about some philosophical themes. To discuss the nature of reality, the presentation introduced continental materialism and realism first.
In order to move towards realism, we cannot move towards common sense because it is so limiting, we must often move towards what is “downright bizarre”
Speaking of negation in OOO, the one is not the other. Object exists with a relationship to one another but don’t hinder other objects, even if they gain from a relationship with another object.
According to flat ontology, there id no difference that does not make a difference. Sets of beings make differences and there is not one set of beings which have the same differences, creating an infinite extension of object.
The lecture also mentioned an interesting example. What will an architecture be when it is eroded by time. A substance is still here, but a different form, which broadens our perspective towards the existence of substance.
1. Over the past several thousand years, the ideas and processes of thinking have evolved according to social, political, and economical times and their consequential adaptions and changes. How has the process of thought and it’s relevance in society played a role in design and architecture? How has the relationship between philosophical thought changed in the last 2,000, 200, and 20 years? How is it changing now and how will in change in the next 20?
2. How much relevance does the monotony of function in it’s ability to blur out the day to day functions and uses of objects and so-called “equipment” have in regards to architecture in our everyday lives, and how to we determine what ceases to become “visible”, and what becomes interesting and purposeful enough to become prominent in our understanding of architecture?
3. How does the materiality of an object form it’s functionality? Must an object have a form in reality for it to be considered a philosophical object?
An understanding of reality and the physicality of objects seemed to play a key role in this week’s discussions. These two concepts felt like they revolved highly around one another, creating a relationship between object, thought, and evolution. It seemed to become clear to me during the presentations just how important yet difficult it is to define certain terms, and put a label on processes and objects that occur and grow in what we consider our “reality” our construct of the idea of life as we know it. Architecture itself is so difficult to define and discover, with an extraordinary amount of open ended opportunities that can be defined and understood in a seemingly infinite number of ways by every individual person that experiences it. It’s both mind boggling and fascination to me the seemingly infinite circle of how to define certain concepts and objects within our world of architecture and architectural philosophy.
Contemporary Design Approaches 
1. Rem Koolhas has said and noticed that architects rarely, if ever, appear on the cover of magazines such as Times magazine. Instead, we see figures such as Kylie Jenner. How can an architect have more authority and influence on the world today?
2. “Architectural practice has not had much concern for nature until recently” (David Ruy). Is this statement accurate? Has architecture not considered nature until now? Or should the statement be reworded? Should the word nature be replaced by ecology and sustainability?
3. What exactly is meant by OOO? Is object-oriented ontology to question whether objects, or non human entities experience their existence in a way that humans can’t understand? Like if objects have meaning or purpose that goes beyond human consciousness. And if so, how does this work when people create objects for a certain purpose or with a certain meaning?
LikeLike
I am still a bit confused with the idea of object oriented ontology. Ontology is concerned with the nature of being and so OOO is an attempt to understand the being of objects without imposing the subjectivity of human perception. Artist who follow OOO work with the idea of allowing the material to lead the artist through the creation of whatever it is they are making. But, even while doing this, isn’t the artist just following what they think that the material is doing, but there’s no way to actually know the consciousness of what a material wants. And another person could follow the material in a different direction because they perceived it differently. So overall, aren’t humans still giving meaning to objects? I am confused.
LikeLike
1. Within Mark Foster Gage’s ‘Killing Simplicity’ is the reference of Graham Harman’s examination of objects through their relationship to each other as overmining, undermining and duomining. In this way, the existence and ideas of the object are held within their relationships rather than their sole existence. How do architect’s undermine and over mine the objects of the discipline within the built?
2. Additionally, does the philosophy of Harman rely only on the physical and tangible form is applied to architecture? Is this idea only applicable to the object itself or rather its orientation on the object is more related to the dialogue between the building and its surrounding context and conditions?
3. David Ruy’s ‘Returning to (Strange) Objects’ brings the previously mentioned Harman into the conversation through the critique of “relationism” and its inability to consider how change comes into the object’s relationships. Does this line of thought introduce the need for withdrawing the relationships of object to object?
LikeLike
Considering the speculative realism discussed within the presentations is a breakdown of language embedded in the discussion of object-oriented ontology. The concept of being and the syntax or confusion of both deconstructivism and post-structuralism arises after looking into the works of both Peter Eisenmen and Daniel Libeskind, especially that of Libeskind’s Chamberworks. This loosening of elements and creation of ambiguity and complexity brings about Martin Heidegger’s ‘Poetry, Language and Thought.’ His use of the term nearness in describing the object aims to get close to the fundamentals or aspects of the thing itself. In this way, the object can even become an extension of the person utilizing it creating a meaning within its relationship to other objects.
LikeLike
1. In Ruy’s Returning to Strange Objects, he mentions that nature and world are not real objects, but what comprises them are (trees, frogs, plants). If this is true for those words, then it also must be true for architecture. Architecture is that false unity, so how can we decompose it into the bare objects that comprise it. And if that is possible, what are the object standards that fall under the architecture unity?
2. In Gages’ Killing simplicity, he talks about object relations and how objects are meant to be seen independently from their surroundings. However, if we start to look at the tectonics between objects and their relationships, is it then possible to create new, strategic moments in architecture?
3. In Bryant’s Towards a Speculative Philosophy, he talks about things relating to artificial intelligence and new realisms and materialisms. If artificiality takes over, and we synthesize those ideas to create political actions, what would be the repercussions? is it smart to design artificially?
LikeLike
In discussing the object what is OOO, there came the issue of what is real and what is presented as reality. The most interesting topic from the discussion was the political aspect of reality. What is the virtual or fake aspect and how much, if any, is actually a reality? politically speaking, things can be altered easily by people and the media leaving a certain population with this altered reality. this can also apply to the world we live in and things that we see. We see a reality that is only visual to us, but what about the non visible? someone else sees it and so lives a different reality. this can then be used to alter our own perception on OOO objects, because we know we exist and know objects exist, but it exists only in relativity to us and to it.
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?
LikeLike
The variation in our reality is different to everyone based on the experiences of individuals. The different perspectives of individual people are the basis of different options and conflicts. The reality is that our opinions are merely opinions and architecture is viewed differently by everyone. This is why architecture advances and the people have new ideas on other peoples work to improve it. This also however creates a lot of repetition I architecture. Even if its unintentional, our brains subconsciously remember things we find interesting.
LikeLike
1. In “Returning to Strange Objects” what form of the word nature is being used? David Ruy hint’s at a specific definition, but depending on how the reading is interpreted one could insert a couple different definitions of the word nature?
2. “While architects inflict plenty of damage by undermining the validity of the building as object, it is through overmining that the most intellectually destructive work is done.” When is it okay to over mine/over design or undermine/under design? Sure it’s not a common practice in architecture, but it is usually an idea that is over thought or an idea that was quickly put together that causes a wave (great effect whether for the good or the bad) within the profession.
3. “You can speculate, make up facts, blend different types of facts, or even lie in art because it is understood as a fundamentally frivolous zone.” Is/can architecture be viewed/treated the same way? Sure in architectural theory one must do a little speculation to grow an idea, but is there a line drawn in the sand that shouldn’t be crossed? And if there is a line drawn in the sand where is it in the sand, should somethings just stay as theories to provoke thought or conversation or should the designer go down the rabbit hole to chase their idea?
LikeLike
If object-oriented ontology focuses on the reality of an object that lies beyond the human consciousness, how does that change when reality is individually perceived or manipulated. Can the object be viewed if the human consciousness was altered in a way where it wasn’t functioning normally? Let’s consider someone with dementia or Alzheimer’s, their reality is altered due to a disease that deteriorates the mind. Or considering someone who is under the influence. So if OOO lies beyond a normal human consciousness, does it lie within the range of a consciousness that is altered? Reality is what you make it so you could say everyone’s reality is different in one way or another. They only become intertwined when there is an interaction with others (especially around someone who has a stronger sense of “reality” (their reality)). So the question being asked is can an object be viewed by some and not others?
LikeLike
1. In Ruy’s reading “Returning to (Strange) Objects”, he warns of the “profoundly problematic assumptions in theories of the architectural field from an ontological point of view.” Given this, as well as the fact that Ruy stated earlier that architecture has moved away from the discourse of architectural object to architectural field, are the fears he presents valid? Even more, how are we to know of the fears and problems that exist in the field if we’re moving towards a different style of thinking?
2. In “Towards A Speculative Philosophy”, we see the in Kant’s Copernican revolution the idea that objects conform to the mind, not the mind conforming to objects. This presents itself nicely in relation the idea of ontology, given the concept of objects standing alone in their own right. While a truly remarkable concept, it should be asked: to what extent can the object conform to the mind? Is there by chance an object who’s capability is perhaps beyond human understanding? Or has this philosophy created a “dumbing-down” of all things physical to be on par with human understanding?
3. The concept of ontology, and the idea that as a field, we are moving more and more away from purely focusing on form to the implications of architecture in a broader sense is fascinating. While architecture has long been seen as a uniquely independent object (a building standing on its own), we are now coming to see architecture take on the guise of worrying more and more about context and overall creation of a total environment. Because of this shift, what place will architectural object hold in the future? Will the field evolve into something beyond the grasp of what we understand architecture to be now (i.e.: planners, theorists)? Or will it stay as it is now, a hybrid of built form, and the creation of environments that surround us and our buildings?
LikeLike
Object-oriented ontology creates an interesting narrative in the context of creating reality in architecture. Just because you’ve created a reality doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a real, tangible thing. VR is much like this in that you have created a reality for one to play out, yet it’s not physical at all. While that is one example, the duality of ontology is one that is still almost a mystery to many. Safiye Behar’s apartment is a perfect example of this. Just because someone said something was to exist isn’t always necessarily what it seems to be. However, going forward, we need to be wary. To what point are we going to allow this push-and-pull between reality and the real exist, and how are we going to let it shape our future? These are things we need to take into consideration in the design of our object-oriented futures.
LikeLike
1. If architectural form is dependent on its function, how has form changed over the year when functions haven’t?
2. Does architecture truly ever respond to nature, despite the fact that most architectural form is geometric and nature is organic?
3. In a world that is object oriented, there has been a push to autonomous objects, everyone has the same objects, clothes, technology. How can architecture prevent itself from following the same path?
LikeLike
1. Forms can be dependent upon fads of the time. While specific ornamentation is popular in one era could be completely disregarded in another, causing the major difference.
2. While formally, the architecture is in major contrast, since one can never perfectly replicate nature, materially, and organizationally, architecture can take ideas from and replicate nature.
3. It truly depends on a culture but it has to do with each individual architect and their goal to strive to do their own unique architecture and inspire individuality.
I did not enjoy this week’s presentation. While they were relatively creative, and possibly tried to interact more with the students, I thought they lacked a seriousness in presenting the subject material. Their deficiency of professionalism for the class and the subject matter caused me not to get very much out of the presentation at all. It almost seemed as if many of the presenters were trying to “outdo” the other ones with the crazy things they could put on the screen. I thought their presentation while creative, did not have much correlation to architecture.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks!
LikeLike
Thank you Allison, very cool!
LikeLike
Thank you, sir, may I have another?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent parafictional response Allison! that is the spirit. However, if what you wrote is nonfiction, I suggest you re-read “Make-Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility” and see if you change your mind 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good Morning Allison,
Thank you for your response.
Kindest Regards,
Jonah R. Fields
LikeLiked by 1 person
1. In “Returning to Strange Objects,” it is stated that it is important for architecture to take reference to nature before creating their design, due to “global warming and environmental collapse.” It is true that a large portion of energy is used for buildings’ heating, cooling, and other such requirements. Is it possible, or more importantly, ideal, to destroy old, power-hungry buildings and replace them with greener ones, or should we stick to focusing on the buildings being made now?
2. The reading “Killing Simplicity: Object-Oriented Philosophy in Architecture,” the arrow diagram is able to show a main idea to the change of a building. It can be used for the movement of borders, a heightening of a wall, and other such concepts while staying simple enough for the client to understand. How can this idea be used for concepts either too complex to be simplified or can’t be understood with arrows?
3. Within “The Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object-Oriented Ontology,” There is a section that talks about Anti-humanism, which is the idea of humans gaining nothing from the changes and differences found within a building, and not the removal of humans from architecture. With that in mind, would a building still be considered architecture if it did all that it could to isolate itself from humans?
LikeLike
The existence of architecture solely exists by the fact that objects exist. Without reality there would be no objects, and therefore architecture would neither. Even if architecture could exist without object, if objects never existed, neither would architecture. Similarly, architecture is also affected by the nature that surrounds it. At the same time, the “object” affects the very “field” that it is placed upon. As the flora grows around the foot of the wall, the energy used within the architecture. As architects it is important to modify the architecture to damage the surroundings as little as possible. The interactions between architecture and humans, on the other hand, is greatly contrasting to the former pair. While it is thought that the reason architecture exists is for humans to use, there are plenty of other interactions that a building has with objects other than humans, such as animals, weather, and even other buildings. There are many more interactions within the realm of reality, many of which happen outside the perception of humanity. After all, the perception of humans is limited by their own interactions upon reality.
LikeLike
1. Returning to strange objects by David Ruy, the article based in theory, of how the old architects were articulating their ideas to stranger network organization, where now the architects are more preoccupied to design more a conceptual object and more relevant with considerations of architecture as product of social interaction. Why do you think the new architects are returning to strange object than create a social interaction product?
2. Killing Simplicity Object-Oriented Philosophy in Architecture. Now some architects relive ontology to oriented object philosophy, for diverse reasons as terrorism attack or global warning. So, reoriented an object to solve a philosophy term or environment problems and will build a simplify solution by owning particular and autonomous qualities with the object reorientation. Do you by object oriented will develop a vastly over simplified problem?
3. Towards a Speculative philosophy. Levi Bryant go over how Badious insists, is both a political and metaphysical imperative for philosophy. Why Alain Badious relives in the importance of the emerging speculative trends by situating his own work with respect to speculative realism?
LikeLike
We, as young architects will face a variety of forces to explore new design decision in an object by effecting the final result. As new architects, we are told to articulate ambiguities in an object to create a coherent schematic design. But, when discussing about object, two different examples were given in the students’ presentation. For example, Waluigi how two components do not exist the product does not exist. In other words, we can’t have a final object without a starting object because this object will miss a series of articulations or design process. In that case if this thought process was applied to the beginning, there creation of an object would be impossible. Now some architects relive ontology to oriented object philosophy, for diverse reasons as terrorism attack or global warning. So, reoriented an object to solve a philosophy term or environment problems and will build a simplify solution by owning particular and autonomous qualities with the object reorientation
LikeLike
1. In David Ruy’s article, he highlights the architecture must consider the longevity of buildings, similar to other practices, in the sense of nature. Can the life span of building’s materials outlast the functions of the building itself?
2. “-Undermining the validity of the building as an object,” in this article the author reviews how a building is valued. Is a building an object in a community when the building’s philosophy does not coincide with that of the community’s?
3. Milton Braga’s lecture at EMPAC on Monday night reflected on the importance of how we relate our buildings to our environments and emphasized the way humans live in a building is apart of the building’s architecture. In a way, I believe the ideas highlighted by all of the articles relatively reflect Braga’s key ideas in his own design. Will we go beyond considering just the materials and implications of the buildings surrounding environment? We are set on the idea that good architecture is when the building is culturally aware. Will we arrive to a new era of architecture once we break this barrier and enhance our ideas beyond being connected with the culture, people, and materials when designing a building?
LikeLike
1. In David Ruy’s Returning to (Strange) Objects, he states that “besides basic pragmatic concerns for manipulating the ground, … or making sure the interior has enough light and air, the practice of architecture has been more concerned with the endless logistics of the building itself.” Do you agree with the fact that we are shifting into ecological theory rather than learning about nature to help build?
2. Do you believe that architects are drawn to the philosophy of object oriented ontology due to the fact that architecture is no longer defined by its own autonomous qualities but is characterized by “form follows function”?
3. Do you agree with Gage’s philosophical findings that a building is more than just a single entity but it is about the objects that create the building?
LikeLike
Object oriented ontology focuses on the reality of objects outside of the human consciousness. Objects in the universe are all equally the same. We have to think about how each object is related to each other and to nature as well not just to ourselves. I found Mark Foster Gage’s architecture to be revolutionary because of all the ornaments and embellishments that cannot be found in most architecture. The building that he created is not just a single item, but it is multiple entities that give the architecture different qualities and relations to each object that makes up the building. His building has characteristic that go beyond the reality that we know.
LikeLike
1. In “Killing Simplicity” by Mark Foster Gage, Gage brings up one of the most known architecture quotes in his section on invisible form, “form ever follows function”. Do you believe that it is better to follow the original “form follows function” meaning (the form follows the function of the structure) or to follow the new meaning of “form follows function” (the form follows the function of the program)? Do you think the meaning of this phrase could evolve and change again in a couple of 100 years?
2. In “Returning to (Strange) Objects” by David Ruy, it is states that “It is only in the longer view of architectural history that this shift from object to field sees odd because architecture has predominantly been presented throughout its history as a thing in the world.” If were going off of of proper nouns categories (person, place or thing), why would a building be considered a thing and not a place?
3. If you look up OOO online it is said to be a “21st century Heidegger-influenced school of thought that rejects the privileging of human existence over the existence of nonhuman objects”. is this an accurate definition of OOO based off of you interpretation of the reading “The Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object-Oriented Ontology”?
LikeLike
There is no difference that does not make a difference. This goes for the interpretation of the saying “form follows function”. It makes a huge difference on how this quote is interpreted by the architect. Designing for the program and then design for the structure can result in two very different forms. This phrase is so important because of the fact that there has to be a reason for a form. A building can’t just be a square object with no reason. There has to be a purpose behind the form/shape like the function and/or structure. I believe that people should combined both interpretations of the saying and design for function and structure.
LikeLike
1. Based on “Returning to (Strange) Objects” Do you think the architectural object is actually de-emphasized by the want to apply architectural intelligence when it cannot really be defined? Do you think they are linked?
2. Based on “Killing Simplicity” Do you think the broad view on architecture is taking away from its fundamentals? Is too much focus being turned towards the more abstract relations in architecture?
3. If the purpose of architecture is to act for simple human function does the over simplification of the purpose become too caught up in the concept?
LikeLike
Reality can only be individually perceived and defined which makes it easier for people to begin to influence and deceive others. When viewing an object one thing could appear very differently to one person than to another. Even the purpose of an object can change how someone views it. Reality can then be altered. If you are able to convince one person of something you will more successfully be able to change the opinion of many others. This can be applied to many things in life including architecture. When a form is created, if it loses its purpose will it still be that object in our eyes?
LikeLike
1.) In “Returning to Strange Objects,” it is stated that architectural design must first consult nature, due to the ever-growing environmental, global issues such as global warming. What other options do we have as a species and what part of us distracts us from all designs being “green.”
2.) In “Towards A Speculative Philosophy”, Kant goes into depth about objects, the mind, and ontology. It is thought that the only thing we know is that we think therefore we are. However, with all of this ambiguity how can one then dive into the world of architecture and feel comfortable supporting one’s ideas?
3.) Lambert Beatty once again brings up the importance of studying precedents of architecture before learning to design. When trying to form new solutions to new problems it is important to look to the past for reference, but why would we want to continue using these principals if they only hinder new, sustainable designs?
LikeLike
1. How does the simplification of architecture change the way we experience our every day lives? Does it cause a burden?
2. Why do people chose to take away from the meaning of architecture when designing just to make themselves look more intellectual?
3. Is the broadening of architectural concepts causing us to stray from the usual form follows function which has been used for ages? Are we focusing on the unimportant in order to make it more “modern”?
LikeLike
Form follows function will always be engraved in my mind until the day I die. But why is this saying so important? Why have so many architects taught this to their students? There is no real rule that says we need to design as if the object always holds a use. We should be viewing the final object as a whole entity. We shouldn’t look at things and identify them based on what purpose they serve. If we looked at a fork and didn’t know what it did and how it helped us, would we still be able to identify it as a fork? I think todays readings helped to emphasize this whole idea that without function we should still have an object. How would this challenge our reality? Is the fork still real to us?
LikeLike
1. In Returning to (Strange) Objects, David Ruy makes the argument for architecture to shift its focus on the field to the object. Although there may be studies showing that the earth has never been truly stable, we humans are increasing the rate at which it is getting destroyed. Architecture is long lasting and an essential part of our daily lives, and I think we should be more focused now than ever on the field, in terms of the environment and ecology. Having said that, why is it that we cannot focus on both the field and the object? Does one dictate the other? There are hundreds of projects that are both aesthetically pleasing in design while also being environmentally friendly. Why must we choose one over the other?
2. In architecture school, especially in RPI, students are pushed to think critically, conceptually, and theoretically. Almost in all my studio classes, professors have told me to let my concept/thesis drive the aesthetics or the design of the building rather than the other way. However, Ruy believes that by focusing on the object, the theory will follow as a reaction. How can his belief be played out in the real world (such as school or work) where the driver is typically the theory rather than the object itself?
3. In Killing Simplicity by Mark Gage, there was a quote from Graham Harman that brought up the invisible qualities of tools/objects, explaining that “we generally notice equipment only when it fails”. This is an interesting way to incorporate into architecture. How can we use this invisible/silent quality to enhance the architectural/spatial experience of the inhabitants?
LikeLike
I found the presentation on viewing objects in terms of its design and beauty rather than in terms of its function was very intriguing. The presenter spoke about how people do not see objects as objects until they stop functioning or their “purpose/use” is absent. For most things, we see them simply as tools. For example, we don’t necessarily see the beauty of the design of a trash can, but rely on it daily as an object that contains dirty things. It is a completely different way of viewing objects, but certainly a necessary step as we are designers and creators of visually pleasing things. I think this also challenges the classic saying “form follows function”. We can start to design in ways that the function of an object would have no relation to its form, therefore being viewed as the object in its purest form.
LikeLike
1. In Gage’s Killing Simplicity: Object Oriented Philosophy in Architecture, he state that architecture has become justified by its relations but not by its autonomous qualities. Why has architecture become this way?
2. In Ruy’s Returning to Strange Objects, he states a shift in architectural discourse from object to field. What caused this shift? What is its effect on our approach to design?
3. Ruy introduces the idea of a synthetic ecology, rather than one developed from observing nature. Do you agree with him that we should move away from what he described as a romanticized ideal of a nature-oriented ecology, and instead towards something more man-made and synthesized? What are some ways this shift in approach could alter design?
LikeLike
This week’s readings discussed the topic of reality. What we might perceive as real may actually be false, but presented as real to us. It can be very easy to manipulate people’s perceptions and to persuade them into believing what is false. Fake news has swarmed social media. However, there are many people who stand by this fake news, insisting that it is real and that other people and news outlets are in fact the ones propagating fake news. It can be difficult to decipher what is real and what is false. With objects and tangible items, though they are the same, there are different ways people can view it. In fact, the object’s purpose or functionality can even change depending on how the viewer reads it. How a piece of architecture looks or what it represents could vary greatly depending on perception.
LikeLike
1. Mark Foster Gage reasons that today’s architects are frustrated with architecture that is “solely justified solely by its relations and not by its own particular and autonomous qualities.” How would you consider the idea of objects at various scales being “the ultimate stuff of the cosmos” to relate to form-propelled architecture? How might this contradict with contextual-based design like the Brazilian brutalism of Lina Bo Bardi, where multidimensional contextual implications are the main driver of design and signifier of its success?
2. How can an object achieve any measurable success beyond being itself? Should it?
3. It’s often said that design is only noticed when it fails. Gage discusses this idea and its relation to OOO in a comparison to a water bottle—you don’t notice it at the foreground of your attention until it leaks all over your hand. He argues that OOO rejects this idea of seeing architecture as static and only accessible in certain situations. Do you believe that architecture as “form follows function” renders architecture as trying to become invisible? Or, if a space is so subservient to its use, the architecture is at risk of invisibility? Is successful use itself considered enough to challenge this notion?
LikeLike
The presentations engaged a new way of thinking about speculative realism: real-world contemporary connections to alternative facts and pop culture motifs of object oriented ontology. The Waluigi example was a perfect comedic touchdown of representation. This feedback loop finds itself in context-referential architecture as well as its seeming opposite, the gem-object content in its own equal existence or being. I also realized the power of truth in its relation to self-awareness and personal experience, as each person’s own bubble is often intrinsically related to outside forces bound to exterior reference as much as object orientation.
LikeLike
1. Mark Foster Gage asserts a radical difference between the object-building, and the building conceived as an object. In architecture, that which is typically considered a form is grounded – or has a definitive relationship with the ground condition. Should architecture continue to reject its context and liberate itself from “form” as many practitioners tend to do, or must it begin to operate under the philosophy of the object-oriented ontology, and become legible, independent of all external pressures and relations?
2. The desire for architecture of today, according to David Ruy, is for architecture to be considered independent of the socio-cultural affairs and free itself from the constraints of the architectural field and context. However, if architecture is considered independent of contextual relations, how does this begin to impact notions of urbanity? Will demographic and cultural relationships be completely ignored in the future of architecture, and will urban planning and design begin to operate independently of architectural discourse?
3. Carrie Lambert-Beatty reveals in her writing that parafiction is closely related to reality, but not entirely truthful. What could be considered examples of architectural methods or practices that employ paraficton, as a means of deceiving the viewer or the designer?
LikeLike
The goal of object-oriented ontology is to reject the privileging of human existence, over the nonhuman entity. Eschewing the prioritization of the context and external factors, the architect must be begin to evaluate his or her design decisions, and how they can make an architecture that can be freely interpreted. However, OOO not only requires and understanding of all human and non-human objects, but the acknowledge of these objects are “being,” actively making a difference and making changes to the surrounding environment. However, do these objects truly have a meaning if we are to evaluate them without context and human enforced opinions? How will architecture have value in the future, if only the building is considered? Nevertheless, we as architects must continue to deconstruct architect, and loosen the confines of structure and context, to generate ambiguity and reduce constructions and designs to basic objects.
LikeLike
1. Mark Foster Gage makes a good point when he argues that describing a building as “LEED Certified social housing” diminishes the object, the housing itself. He says that Schumacher falls into the same issue when describing his buildings as parts of fields. But I think objects must belong to some sort of larger field, whether this is context, environment, or belonging to a style, especially if we’re trying to create Kipnis’ notion of a New Architecture. Without this association, do you think Object-Oriented philosophy like Gage’s contributes to the issue Whiting was speaking of, where new buildings become icons for the sake of icons, competing with each other in the skyline?
2. This same analogy goes even further, suggesting that the architect (and his computer) are passive tools in this system, as well. If the intention is to create an object that is unified within itself, and not fully knowable, what is the role of the architect when producing the object? Is producing even the right word?
3. To what extend do you think architects should just accept our role as designers of buildings? Is there really a need to assign meanings that come from this OOO? Hyping up objects so far as to say they can never be fully understood? It is a very godly way of thinking from someone who doesn’t have much built work, compared to unbuilt visions.
LikeLike
If we’re just a tool in producing the OOOobject, what happens when we’re gone? Once built/created, it no longer needs us. In the eyes of OOO philosophers, I suppose we’re similar to the analogy of using a car to get from point A to point B, and then it breaks down, we can no longer serve our purpose once the object is done with us. However, once the car breaks down on the road, the DRIVER must begin pushing IT, and the situation is reversed. In this way, the objects we produce could continue to push us forward, once we’ve put them out. Buildings can win awards, respect, commissions for the architect.
LikeLike
1. The famous physicist Hawking believes that the duty of science is to ask “how” and the duty of philosophy is to ask “why.” The main achievements of Hawking’s cosmology exploration lie in the singularity theorem, black hole radiation, and cosmic self-solution, and these three aspects all have the meaning of deep speculative philosophy, and therefore have an internal connection with a humanistic philosophy. Philosophy and science are inextricably linked. So how can scientists specifically use speculative philosophy to guide scientific research?
2. The speculative philosophy guides people to pursue the essence, pursue the truth, and reach the ultimate position by reason and through the cognitive path. After more than two thousand years of development, speculative philosophy has been fully demonstrated, showing a mature appearance, but at the same time, it has failed to achieve its goal. However, practical philosophy negates the pursuit of speculative philosophy and opposes the division and opposition between the sensory world and the super-sensory world. In particular, it opposes the view of the super-sensory world as real existence and real reality. Will practical philosophy replace speculative philosophy in the future?
3. Ontology is a philosophical concept that studies the nature of existence. Ontology can be divided into four types: domain, generality, application, and representation. What current scientific research results apply object-oriented ontological ideas?
LikeLike
The speculative philosophy is a philosophy that proceeds from pure logical thinking, pushes the entire objective reality, and makes the development of the objective world subject to the general law of human thinking. It insists on the understanding of the knowledge or truth that rational thinking achieves inevitability through concept, and aims to abandon the opposition of the subjective and objective, and achieve the unity of specific diversity or the unity of opposites. With the development of society and culture, philosophers ‘understanding of speculative philosophy is also more comprehensive. Speculative philosophy is mainly manifested in metaphysics, first philosophy, ontology, and knowledge theory. The exploration of the same, essence, and cause by speculative philosophy has some one-sidedness, so it should be constantly improved. Ontology is the philosophical study of existence. Object-oriented ontology crucially puts things at the center of this study. Its proponents contend that nothing has special status, but that everything exists equally.
I think philosophy is conducive to the advancement of society. So while studying these theories, people should pay attention to how to combine these theories with scientific experiments. Because scientific research cannot be separated from the guidance of philosophical theory. The combination with science can further reflect the value of philosophy. Because in modern society, many people have prejudice against philosophy and believe that learning philosophy is useless. I expect object-oriented ontology and speculative philosophy to bring more value to society.
LikeLike
1. Killing Simplicity: Object-Oriented Philosophy In Architecture, the three words “overmining, undermining, and duomining” are significant when discussing diagrams. Is it possible create diagrams without overmining, undermining, or duomining? Or are they unavoidable when creating diagrams?
2. In Make-Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility, Safiye Behar a character was able to become “alive”/real by though. In architecture, by laying out all significant and minute detail, can this setup create a parafiction that can impact others?
3. Implied by the title of the read, “Returning to (Strange) Objects,” architecture should go back to focusing on the object, massing. However, by doing so function would then follow form. Could architecture still return to strange objects without starting with function first?
LikeLike
When discussing about object, two different examples were given in the students’ presentation. With the Waluigi example, if the two components do not exist the product does not exist. Saying that there would be no product if there are no starting object or objects. In that case if this thought process was applied to the beginning, there creation of an object would be impossible. However, with the relation of hydrogen and oxygen to water, it is interesting that the components individually possess completely different properties to that of the combination. The students focuses on different aspects of the components related to the product. For Waluigi, I believe that the components do not necessarily have to exist in order for Waluigi to exist because the latter could be the first creation. On the other hand, water needs hydrogen and oxygen to exist.
LikeLike
Ruy claims that “by relaxing hang-ups over legitimacy” architecture can become less constrained and more creative. How has the preference for architectural discourse over object affected contemporary design? Can architectural objects exist without discourse?
Gage describes an ideal of architecture where buildings have validity from their mere existence. However, can this exist outside of theory? How does one prevent duomining while relating to the practical problems of ecology and regulation?
Lambert-Beatty describes multiple works of art and satire that use perceived authority to reveal reality. Can architecture use the same infelicitous power to allow architecture more freedom, or is architecture too dependent on its own sources of authority?
LikeLike
How do we know what is true? Object-oriented ontology aims to find truth and reality outside of human consciousness, without making references to human culture and morality. In such a system, humans are not unique, but merely objects that make a difference like other objects. Meanwhile, parafiction attempts to create a believable lie, which depends on human trust instead of external reality. The amusing pranks where people believe something based on a specious authority draws attention to the ways in which we are disconnected from reality. OOO and parafiction are two different contemporary approaches to the noumenal and the phenomenal; reality as it is juxtaposed against how we perceive reality. I thought it was interesting and amusing how the presenters brought up Waluigi as an example of something that exists only as a reference to other ideas. In architectural theory, it becomes possible to create a network of ideas completely disconnected from reality.
LikeLike
1) With the ontology philosophy of Graham Harman, how can architects move away from simplistic observations of architecture to something more profound? How can we understand the unknown?
2) Given that making sustainable buildings require a lot of code and therefore bounds architecture design, would one argue that that is something worth the trade-off? Most buildings will last longer than the average human; should our goals aim for long-term achievements? Or are other architectural factors far more important that “now” is where things are at?
3) How does the shift from object to field, as stated by David Ruy in “Returning to Strange Objects”, change (or lackthereof) our fundamentals of design?
LikeLike
In this week’s lecture, there were many interesting topics brought up about reality. What makes something “real”? Given the topic about object oriented ontology, we delved into what is beyond the human consciousness. In such idea, humans are nothing more than objects in a space. They are made of smaller components that depend on one another to form a “being”. This idea of being as a result of building from other ideas is quite intriguing. Our imagination is built from this. We can create different realms and people just from a network of ideas.
LikeLike
1. In the essay “Killing Simplicity: Object-Oriented Philosophy in Architecture”by Mark Foster Gage, he proposed an idea that breaks away from the traditional “form follows function of the structure” architectural ideology. The tradition ideology has been contrary in the past century, will Gage’s idea be a revolutionary move or will that just create a new round of debate in the architecture field?
2. A main discussion in “Make-Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility” by Carrie Lambert-Beatty is that almost everything is a lie in the art field. She states that “you can speculate, make up facts, blend different types of facts, or even lie in art because it is understood as a fundamentally frivolous zone”. As seemingly true as the statement sounds, if art institutions lie and almost none of the facts are actual facts, will art itself become a lie?
3. In the lecture “Return to Strange Objects” by David Ruy, he criticizes that the discipline of architecture might misdirect the desire to be active in the world and in current events. He thinks that it’s a loss of authority on the part of the architect. Base on his view, does is mean that the discipline of architecture was always in favor of knowledge-based practices and therefore restricted architects’ freewill of doing whatever they want?
LikeLike
1) Mark Foster Gage brings up a point about how buildings are justified by a simplistic metaphor. He talks about Calatrava’s ridiculous metaphor of the new World Trade Center Hub and how its exterior mimics a flying bird. What’s wrong with Calatrava’s metaphor of the WTC Hub? I’ve visited that place and heard many other reasons as to why the Hub is designed the way it is.
2) Levi R. Bryant brings up the idea of “design space” to talk about the properties of objects. It’s said that “design space” is not fixed and can be changed depending on its surroundings. In relation to architecture, a building can have a set program space when being designed and built; however, through time, do the program and idea of the building change? Can the outside surrounding context of a building influence how the building functions afterward?
3) David Ruy seems afraid of the shifting of powers from the architectural object to field. Maybe we have a new way of thinking? He believes that we’re turning away from the focus of the object itself, but isn’t there much more to architecture than solely the object?
LikeLike
This week’s presentation brought about a lot of relatable topics. The reference to Waluigi and how he is who he is due to the influence of others (Mario) and he wouldn’t be the same without the existence of Mario. In relation to architecture, the building is an object that is perceived from a network of ideas. Another way to think is the idea of “Object-oriented ontology” (OOO). OOO is to learn what the truth is by rejecting human existence over the existence of nonhuman objects. By using the philosophical idea of OOO, society may be able to bring more value to the objects they design and create
LikeLike
1. Mark Foster Gage’s “Killing Simplicity” starts with arguing that architects have focuses part of their design into “object oriented ontology”. How does ontology play a role in the grand scheme of architecture in the design of buildings. Is the nature of being or ontology a design factor that allows buildings to fit in their respective locations?
2. “The Ontic Principle” by Levi R. Bryant focuses on philosophy as a part of architecture. This essay is history centric in that it highlights philosophers in history and points in time. Philosophy in architecture is more apparent in ancient times, when the Parthenon was built or the Colosseum in Rome. Is Philosophy still important to architecture? What are modern examples of this?
3. David Ruy’s “Returning to Strange Objects” begins with the claim that architecture has been normalized and that certain risks that made it beautiful are no longer really important. Ruy believes this regression in Architecture has occurred as a result of modern society and the environment that is created as a result. Ruy’s argument seems to be subjective and somewhat contradictory. He states that architecture lovers would overlook these faults yet, he as an author makes a claim against said ideas. On an Objective mindset, has architecture been watered down, or has design simply changed?
LikeLike
Object-Oriented Ontology & Speculative Realism is an interesting topic to explore in the field of architecture. The readings and the presentation brought new points to the table about how architecture and the ideas of Realism and Philosophy come together to create architectural works.
Although all essays were similar in their titling and what they addressed, Mark Foster Gage’s piece “Killing Simple” stood out. His ideas about creating innovative architectural styles and simply deeming the later unreasonable is an interesting idea coming from a modern world architect. It is hard to fathom the idea that new forms in architecture should be kept to a minimum since it is merely the way in which architecture functions. How can architecture stand out in a world were cookie cutter houses are made, and all brick monstrosities are erected around the world. As a response to Gage, The world is better off with creative and outgoing minds. Creativity brings realism to a whole new realm. Reality is synonymous with contemporary.
Ontic Philosophy and Realism come together through the work of minds who project their thoughts and make them Physical. Philosophy like architecture is the same in that far fetched ideas are shown to the world, both gathering antagonists and fanatics.
LikeLike
1.In “Killing Simplicity”, modern society has become materialistic and its perception of value is blurred. How do objects resemble independent value? What are the independent and dependent variables between the object and its environment? Has architecture become object-oriented and how does it prevent itself from losing value over time?
2. According to Mark Foster Gage, individuality apply to objects. There are specific purposes assigned to objects to confirm its existence. Do objects solely exist to serve its purpose? Once an object becomes nonfunctional, does it lose value in the human perspective?
3. Architects are coming up with new designs everyday, sometime they are rushed to complete a deadline and leave out small details in drawings. Isolating even the smallest details, strip away individuality from the designs. Undermining and over-mining designs can prevent architecture from achieving its full potential. How can design become independent from architecture when the relationship gives them significance?
LikeLike
Independence in objects must exist apart from its surroundings, to understand the objects we must not interfere with perceptions. There are ways to change perspectives without having to modify or switch the subject of attention. People see the objects as visual representation, however objects differed in value and meaning. The focus should be what does the object symbolize or represent, what kind of purpose keeps it existing in reality. In relation to architecture, architects are always trying to understand the conceptual background of structures in order to bring them into reality. Think of architecture as an object, does OOO apply the same way? Before thinking about the purpose for humans, objects should be dependent upon each other and nature. As the object holds significance in a system of objects, it will not lose value and can become independent in reality. Can humans really understand the depth of objects outside of their own conscious?
LikeLike
1. In “Killing Simplicity”, modern society has become materialistic and its perception of value is blurred. How do objects resemble independent value? What are the independent and dependent variables between the object and its environment? Has architecture become object-oriented and how does it prevent itself from losing value over time?
2. According to Mark Foster Gage, individuality apply to objects. There are specific purposes assigned to objects to confirm its existence. Do objects solely exist to serve its purpose? Once an object becomes unfunctional, does it lose value in the human perspective?
3. Architects are coming up with new designs everyday, sometime they are rushed to complete a deadline and leave out small details in drawings. Isolating even the smallest details, strip away individuality from the designs. Undermining and overmining designs can prevent architecture from achieving its full potential. How can design become independent from architecture when the relationship gives them significance?
LikeLike
1. What will we remain if we kill simplicity?
2. How does the Ontic Principle impact on simplicity?
3. While processing we need all different kinds of simplicity, reduction, and abstraction, how could we achieve the final scene of object-oriented ontology?
LikeLike
1.) In Returning to Strange Objects, Ruy mentions how Architects have commonly use biophilia to create their designs. Is it possible to make an architecture which does not or is that considered “bad design” since it’s recognized as our intrinsic drive?
2.) Killing Simplicity discusses how architecture has strayed from solving complicated obstacles to solving simple ones. How does an architect reinstate this “fall from grace” and does Lindsay Lohan have the answer?
3.) What caused the shift from idealism to realism in architecture?
LikeLike
1. In “Returning to (Strange) Objects”, David Ruy makes a note of pointing out the political bias of nature and equilibrium. I agree with his argument, but what is the alternative? A discriminatory hierarchy of the wealthy and influential who can afford expensive buildings and architects who oblige them?
2. On the topic of “continental philosophy” from “Towards a Speculative Philosophy”, the author writes, “By contrast with the repetitive continental focus on text, discourse, social practices, and human finitude, the new breed of thinker is turning once more toward reality itself”. In architecture we have diverted our attention from intuitive philosophical thought and focused it on materiality and the detail. What trade-offs are there to diverting from a more thoughtful world view?
3. In object-oriented onthology, when you say that every object has its own hidden reality, is it assumed that that reality is isolated or part of a collective reality?
LikeLike
1. In “Killing Simplicity” Mark Foster Gage argues that architecture is independent of its surroundings and does not need to relate to them. Architects design a structure’s program and purpose around its site, however, Gage feels that this is not necessary. How can architecture be successful without taking into account context and surroundings?
2. In “Returning to (Strange) Objects” David Ruy argues that architecture should not be constrained to its immediate surroundings or materiality. He feels that architecture should be more boundless and “magic”. Why is architecture so often pressured to conform to its site rather than being completely unique?
3. In architecture and art in general, conforming to societal standards has always been the “correct” way to do approach design. However, many artists do the complete opposite of what is thought of as acceptable and are successful. Can this approach also work in architecture?
LikeLike
What is reality? Can we trust our own consciousness? In analyzing object-oriented ontology, we try to find out whether our existence and perception has any meaning. Reality and perception often do not align and everyone’s consciousness is unique. We often can only base the value of an object or idea when comparing it to something similar. Is one thing good and another bad just because it is preferred in one person’s perception? Something’s “existence” may not even exist in reality, but only in an idea.
LikeLike
1. In the article of “Returning to strange objects” by David Ruy, he stated that the new generation of architects are more focus on how to design architecture as product of social interaction but not design their ideas to stranger network organization as the old architects did. Is the new generations of the architects are returning to strange network? Why is this happen?
2. In the article of “Killing Simplicity” by Gage, he thinks that architecture is justified by its relations and how objects are meant to be independently from their surroundings. However, architecture should start to look at its own particular and autonomous qualities. Is this gonna help us to create new concept or moment in architecture?
3. In the article of “Killing simplicity: Object-oriented Philosophy in Architecture”, Gage talks about the idea of the arrows and think that arrows are very common in the world of architecture. And it is so hard to find a project that is not using the concept of an arrow. Is there any architecture could be done without the concept of arrows? What is the meaning of this type of architecture?
LikeLike
According to the presentation, the presentation talked about continental realism and materialism. Also, the concept of the OOO expresses the idea that object exists by relating to another object but not hinder each other. The most important concept is that “The difference is not difference” is talked about in the reading of OOO. Objects and beings make differences but there is no other objects can have the same things. In this case, those objects create the infinity of themselves. The other thing in the presentation and the class is that a substance can change into different form through the time history so that people start to think about the existence of substance the concept of it.
LikeLike
Mark Foster Gage’s Killing Simplicity proposes an alternative to the traditional ‘form follows function of the structure’ idea. This is not the first time that an alternative has been offered for this sort of mentality, and it likely will not be the last. Gage says we are “guilty of constantly undermining and overmining the primary products of (our) trade – buildings” by applying limitations and specifications like LEED and other such codes to them and not allowing them to become pure ‘object-buildings’ through an uninhibited design process. Is this an unfair limitation for architects today? Is this a genuine concern for designs, or does this mindset come from a purist and minimizing classical worldview?
Object oriented ontology, as an ontological method, has been criticized for being dismissive of metaphysical/process philosophy. Process philosophy (i.e. Whitehead, Deleuze) deals with the creation and endurance of objects, and argues that being is equivalent to becoming. In contrast, architects often like to believe that objects are ‘already there’ and that the creative process simply finds them. This base level understanding of the definition of an object is important to understand before an architect can decide whether ‘form follows function’ is a valid concept. Do architects create a building as an object-building, or is a building a conglomeration or assembly of constructed objects?
Rem Koolhaas noticed that architects haven’t had much of an influence on the pop culture/media scene at large for quite some time, as art and artists’ vogue has fallen to influencers and figures in Hollywood and on the internet. How can architects reclaim the public’s interest and imagination?
LikeLike
This week’s presentation chose to think outside the box and take the application of the subject matter to the next level. While certainly unique (and maybe a little orthodox), that creativity demonstrated a deep understanding of the subject matter on several levels.
OOO, the philosophy of ‘thinginess’, is being revisited at an interesting time in architecture. New methods, ideologies, and technological advancements have blurred the line between what objects are definitively real and which can only exist in conceptual space.
LikeLike
1. In modern days, the main concern of people is what celebrities are doing 24/7. They appear on every magazine and every news commentary, even though most of the time these people do not really affect our everyday lives. It is a fact that architects, even the famous and great ones never really get the same type of recognition. In what ways can an architect expose him/herself further in order to influence people at the same scale celebrities do?
2. It is said to us that form follows function and that is something that will never really change throughout the years. To what degree is this saying actually accurate, considering the fact that throughout history, the forms of any architectural works have drastically changed, but the function has stayed relatively the same?
3. The main idea behind a philosophical question is that an answer will always be different depending on who answers it, or there may even not be an answer at all. Is it a smart idea to try to simplify the meaning of these types of question, in order to get a more concise answer?
LikeLike
I thought that this week’s presentation was quite entertaining. It was interesting to see how the subject could be taken to a completely different level, one that did not necessarily relate to architecture itself. The most entertaining part of the presentation for me was the great spaghetti harvest. It was a comical way of showing how much people would actually believe from a simple. The documentary seemed to be produced in a very serious matter, showing that by just making something look legitimate, anyone would really trust the information they are given without prior checking the sources. This relates to the idea of how it is so easy for people to focus plainly on what is put in front of them on a screen. The same ideal that follows us to this day about celebrities and how they get the most recognition from not actually doing anything important of relevant, and most of the time fake. It is now our goal to change that ideal, and get the people that really matter to show up on the front pages of those big magazine and news covers.
LikeLike
1. Is the longevity of a building determined by its function or stature?
2. Whats considered a simple and in killing simplicity, would it be removing the whole movement of minimalism?
3. How does the shift from idealism to realism affect the designs caught in the shift?
LikeLike
From my understanding of Speculative realism, the notion of reality does not exist outside of the human mind. Kant argued that human beings are only able to conceive of reality in relation to human perception; therefore if there are multiple realities it would be only through the human perspective. In watching the presentation and doing more research on speculative realism, I’ve realized that the subject is very broad and lacks authoritative resources. Speculative realist constantly question the idea of reality and its correlation to human beings. Is reality strictly a perspective, in that everybody has a different reality or is there more? If reality existed only though perspective then that would mean that there are infinite realities; however if reality only exist outside the human mind, then is there only one reality? Others also argue that Realism revolves around the notion that everything objective exist outside the mind.
LikeLike
1. From reading the piece, by Rem Koolhas, I have noticed that he pointed out how architects seem to be underappreciated for the everyday work we do. He mentions specifically that most architects will never see themselves on the cover of a magazine. Will there ever be a time where architects will be appreciated enough to receive publicity like being on the cover of a famous magazine?
2. From reading, Towards a Speculative Philosophy, the author mentions how we as a global unit are approaching more advanced technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence. If AI becomes a reality and we give it purposes that very important humans have, will there be consequences that could hurt the human race?
3. From reading Returning to Strange Objects, the author, David Ruy mentions a definition of “Nature.” As I read through the piece I had thought of other meaning that could be relatable to Nature. What would other definitions of Nature be in this case?
LikeLike
1. In the book “Returning to Strange Objects” by David Ruy, the focus shift from independent architecture to dependent architecture groups is a tendency in recent years. What does this tendency suggest?
2. Mark Gage proposed a claim in “Killing Simplicity” that only when an object ceases to function,, it becomes visible and sensible to the public. It reminds me of the blind spot of human beings. Do architect also has a similar blind spot like unable to notice the disadvantages of adding new form the architecture groups until they destroy and notice the benefits of the surrounding environment in their design?
3. In the “Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object” written by Levi R. Bryant, the author claims that items have their interconnection, which might not be noticed by the human, so the perspectives of seeing items perfect the whole design. Many famous architects are known for their distinct design characteristics. What will be produced if we aggregate their views to an object and create an architectural design based on their ideas?
LikeLike
Philosophy is the central idea in today’s presentation and lecture. Think philosophically is a new approach for modern architects to open their minds for creating powerful architectures. Because of the approach, a series of “-ism”, realism, continental materialism, speculative realism, etc., have been proposed. These Speculative Turns push architects to find crazy and bizarre sparks.
“OOO”, “object-oriented ontology” is another point in our seminar. “All being is tool-being.” What role does an object play in architecture in the theory of OOO? Do they play a similar role to those people within the building? In Graham Harman’s theory, the human is a part of architecture as other objects like concrete slabs, sunshine, and the wind does.
Parafiction, a branch of fictive art, is the last idea we discussed in the class. Parafiction, an art weave reality, and fiction together, deceives the audiences by applying to incorporate materials as evidence by means of the public trusts to the “fact”. Architects apply the concept as a strategy to create their own perception of factual or fictional works.
LikeLike
1. In the book “Killing Simple”, Mark Foster Gates Heidegger’s thought:”In architecture, phenomenology is typically associated with a form of practice that translates the philosphical discourse to jutify its concern for phenomena.” As critics, do we tend to notice architectural errors rather than appreciate the correct approach?
2. In the article “Regression (strange) objects”, the author states that architecture is influenced by time and culture rather than objects. Of course architecture can represent a piece of history, but does it have the ability to mark a period and most cultures?
3. Nature, to architects, is not something just to be mastered; it is a tutor and mentor for human actions. Nature, for ecological designers, is not something just to be mastered; it is a tutor and mentor for human actions. As buildings increasingly attempt to mimic the efficiency and aesthetics of natural processes, will architects focus on ecological and scientific design than aesthetic design approach?
LikeLike
This week’s presentation discussed the Object-oriented ontology which creates an interesting narrative in the context of creating reality in architecture. The presenters poke out the modern connection between the real world and alternative facts, and the popular cultural theme of object-oriented ontology. The example of Waluigi explained that if two components o not exist, the product does not exist. We see a reality that is only visual to us. From this point, we could start to design in ways that the function of an object would not followed by forms.
LikeLike
1: Ruy complains about how today’s architecture has been forced to conform with sustainable politics as if it was negative thing. These days, as sustainable architecture becomes more and more popular, I believe it will shape architecture into something we’ve never seen before in a positive way. Is there a way to embrace these greener ideology, but still progress as an architectural mind?
2: Gage argues that architect’s interest in the philosophy of object-oriented ontology and speculative realism is growing out of a frustration that architecture is increasingly justified solely by its relations and not by its own particular and autonomous qualities. How could it be both?
3: According to Gage, by applying Harman’s thinking to architecture, one can conclude that architects constantly undermine and overmine the buildings they design. What would the criteria be in Harman’s mind to perfectly utilize them then?
LikeLike
The presentations this week were very interesting in the fact that this week’s topic was much more broad than in week’s past. It focused more of the philosophy and history of its materialality than something specific. Having such a broad topic helped each group to be relatively different and therefore held my interest more.
LikeLike
1. As parafiction is used as a way to explain or illustrate possible outcomes, why it is such paradox that mixing “true” and “false”; how should we predict this deception?
2. The speculative perspective is used to view and learn, as architects, should we apply this vision in our design? Or is that possible to make it themes of some design?
3. How to project object-oriented principles toward both audiences and creations?
LikeLike
This week’s topics are related to ontology and realism. Architecture, as subject that embedding meanings and expectations, is not purely designed object. Beside delicate designs and specific details, ideologies are equally important. Architecture are language that architects communicate with the society and the history, illustrating their wishes and thoughts.
In the contrast between real and unreal, visible and invisible; our job as architect is to wake up the awareness. By building up things that should be unreal, people would think about the existences of those invisible objects. According to the given articles, identify the meaning of the term “object” is significant, since this sets foundation of “existence” in our perception. By understanding what an “object” is, we are able to learn and construct it, and we are able to response based on the understandings of the ontology.
LikeLike
1. The ontology has its great limitation and can only be used to bridge the instant perception of the spectator and the instant statue of the world which was spectated at a particular moment. Since the human perception is transcoded by the language used to describe the world, we can define things and explain them to other people within the same linguistic system, but essentially language is hardly descriptive but more prescriptive, which wipes out almost all the information other than the term itself. Therefore, it is indeed more accurate to deny instead of defining the property of the substance, namely, to spectate the negative and non-existence other than the existence. Within the discipline of architecture, which is at its very essence, a crafting and constructing technique and activity, spectatorship heavily rely on the existence and the positive, does that mean the architectural experience is falsely fabricated from the beginning?
2. Once the spectator is within the architecture, his or her existence is integrated into the existence of the architecture itself, therefore the exterior experience must be the true and whole experience subtracting his own volume & mass. Does that actually justify the current contradiction mentioned above？
3. Should architecture as an application in the material world, really embed any philosophical ideologies?
LikeLike
1. In Make-Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility, artist Michael Blum’s fictional character Safiye Behar was believed to be real by many observers. What does this intersection between an imaginary personage and the living world demonstrate about our behavior as a public?
2. In Killing Simplicity, Mark Foster Gage asserts that the current state of architecture was realized from a profession which “does not validate its production on its own terms”. How can we begin to value architecture for its own qualities, and what does this look like in a real architectural setting?
3. What consequences may arise as a result of the simplifications, reductions, and other processes of abstraction which are necessary to the work of theorists and philosophers?
LikeLike
What really struck me about this week’s discussion was the topic of Killing Simplicity by Mark Foster Gage. I found it particularly relevant when Gage deemed it unnecessary to develop ‘new’ styles and ‘new’ shapes considering this is what most modern architects seek to do. Most architects rising to fame seem to have always developed some new architecture to give lectures on, and I think it is important to ask ourselves how any architecture can truly be new to the world with the volume of architecture already existing. Similar to the discussion on collages, most of these new and exciting developments are actually a collection of pre-existing styles, forms, etc. which have intersected into something seemingly new. The simple statement that “architecture is not a crime and architects need no alibi” (106) by Gage seems embody the problems with architecture’s current state, and the fact that most new work validates its production with exterior factors instead of on its own terms.
LikeLike
1. In “The Year of the Fake” Naomi Klein suggests a more characteristic deceptions of the recent past are performative rather than a representation, why are we set on launching falsities into quasi-truthfulness, i.e. “fake news”?
2. In “Returning to Strange Objects”, David Ruy describes how nature has transcended from being a direct inspiration for design and acting as more of an inspiration for the process of design a muse. How has technology influenced this paradigm shift, focusing less on nature and biomimicry?
3. One use of an architect is to help change and shape a space depending on what the client wants. I argue that the client can never fully know what they want, the architect is needed to bring this vision to architectural reality. Can architecture exist without authorship?
LikeLike
Object-oriented ontology rejects the privileging of human existence over the existence of nonhuman objects. I enjoyed the comparison to Pendleton Ward’s Adventure Time which was set in the Land of Ooo, on a post-apocalyptic Earth. Finn the human is the last known living human, and all the other inhabitants are animals, plants, and traditionally inanimate non sentient objects. Due to radiation and other factors, new life has emerged. Going back to privilege, today in the African Student Association’s general body meeting on African and world beauty standards had the privilege of hearing other white students learning and acknowledging their privilege in regards to other cultural and race groups. In relation to architecture, there has been and most certainly will continue to be fetishizing of objects in architecture as a result of what I think is the privilege of ignorance and idolizing. It is acceptable and rightly encouraged to seek inspiration from object. But to blatantly reproduce the form of an object, and expect it to hold architectural credibility is lazy. Ooo is an interesting theory, but its practice should be warranted.
LikeLike
1. In “Returning to (Strange) Objects,” David Ruy talks about how the focus of architecture has shifted from the architecture itself to the context that surrounds the architecture, that architecture has become a by-product of context. What inspired this change in focus?
2. In “Make Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility,” Carrie Lambert-Beatty writes about parafiction and multiple examples of its applications throughout the world. Will the advancement of technology improve parafiction to the point where reality is nearly impossible to discern?
3. In “Killing Simplicity,” Mark Foster Gage writes about the shift of architecture from producing unique things to reacting to real world problems and how this change is painful to witness for him. What is wrong with architecture taking a more practical approach?
LikeLike
The readings from this week focused more on philosophical ideas rather than architectural topics. The first reading, ” Make-Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility,” Carrie Lambert-Beatty explores parafiction and multiple examples of hoaxes that use an array of well thought out techniques to make them extremely believable. Some examples include the falsifying of historic facts and convincing false branding and marketing. In ” Returning to (Strange) Objects,” David Ruy writes about modern-day architecture transitioning from the focus on the architectural object to the focus on the architecture’s surroundings, with architecture being more of a by-product of its context. He also states that there is a desire for engagement with the conditions of the world. However, he believes this leads to the authority of the architect becoming vague and ambiguous. This topic is also mentioned in “KIlling Simplicity: Object_oriented Philosophy in Architecture,” where Mark Foster Gage observes the same issue. In “The Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object-Oriented Ontology,” Levi R. Bryant explores where to begin in thought, as well as the Ontic Principle, which seeks to define difference.
LikeLike
1. In the article ‘Returning to Strange Objects’, David Ruy has mention nature has often been a source of architectural innovation but architectural practice has not has much concern for nature until recently. Besides using programs to analyze energy, comfort, and ecology to the architecture, do you agree that ancient architecture do consider natural elements into their designs?
2. Levi Bryant, Nick Srnicek , and Graham Harman give us a glance on the Ontic Principles. Following Deluge’s quote about all modalities are not the same but are ‘equal’ for all, What does the writer want to empathize by repetitively mentioning ‘If a difference is made, then the being is’.
3. In the article ‘Killing Simplicity’, Mark Foster Gage has mentioned several opinions from Graham Harman, who is the OOO movement’s founder. One of them is saying buildings housed be understood to have vast numbers of qualities, properties, and even relations but that that their full reality can never be reduced to a single, simplistic observation. Can you think about any principles claimed by other architects before can be used to arguing against this?
LikeLike
This week’s topic provides us a new understanding of the relationship between human being and realism. Also, the readings mention new ways of thinking continental realism and understand distinction of the material. Importantly, Mark Foster Gage has mentioned the credibility of OOO which lies in its comparison other philosophical schools of thought. Also, OOO helps open up possibilities and thoughts which are all revolved around difference. In the chapter of OOO, he mentions a very vague idea about ‘The difference is not difference’. In other words, anything physical or object can produce a difference no matter how it is. Moreover, differences are always distinct depends on statement of objects. The Ontic principle defines what things and objects are. Consciousness understand what the objects are, know their existence, and are be abled to compare with each other. Ontological difference is by constructs, positive, affirmative and differentiate without negation. Based on the concept of OOO, Harman has further explain on the meaning of difference and the principle of Act-uality. Therefore, Harman has activated people’s thoughts and mind in order to make them start to think about the concept of “substance”.
LikeLike
1. In “Killing Simplicity” Mark Foster Gage discusses the tendency for tools and equipment to be treated as invisible entities unless they cease to function properly. He explains that, as we grow accustomed to mechanized and digitized extensions that constantly surround us, we are numbed to their presence and overall effects. Where do we acquire this learned-indifference? How does an entire species ride around in 4000lb metal machines with such apathy?
2. While the “Nikeplatz” hoax drew attention to the trending corporate-buyout of municipalities, most passersby were both unfazed and un-intrigued. How does the modern takeover of Amazon, Apple, Google, and other corporate giants have capacity to echo the plight at which “Nikeplatz” pokes fun?
3. Can Object-Oriented-Ontology advance the field of architecture to the point where architects accrue similar levels of fame to rock-stars, or even make the same salaries as their engineer-counterparts
LikeLike
1. In David Ruy’s Returning to Strange Objects, he mentioned that the shift from architecture as a practice of embodiment to architecture as a practice of coordination is a peculiar feature of the Modernist legacy, he also mentioned a movement from object to field. Is the practice of embodiment related to architectural objects while coordination related to the architecture field?
2. According to The Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object, the reason why the Ontic Principle is a prince that does not govern is that difference differs. What does it mean? Does it mean the application of the principle should be adapted to different environments?
3. In Gage’s Killing Simplicity, he mentioned that we should try to understand the feature, relationship within architecture itself instead of considering it as a simple object. Is it the reason he forced so much on the details? But will the appearance of architecture be too complex for people to understand?
LikeLike
The presentation today talked about some philosophical themes. To discuss the nature of reality, the presentation introduced continental materialism and realism first.
In order to move towards realism, we cannot move towards common sense because it is so limiting, we must often move towards what is “downright bizarre”
Speaking of negation in OOO, the one is not the other. Object exists with a relationship to one another but don’t hinder other objects, even if they gain from a relationship with another object.
According to flat ontology, there id no difference that does not make a difference. Sets of beings make differences and there is not one set of beings which have the same differences, creating an infinite extension of object.
The lecture also mentioned an interesting example. What will an architecture be when it is eroded by time. A substance is still here, but a different form, which broadens our perspective towards the existence of substance.
LikeLike
1. Over the past several thousand years, the ideas and processes of thinking have evolved according to social, political, and economical times and their consequential adaptions and changes. How has the process of thought and it’s relevance in society played a role in design and architecture? How has the relationship between philosophical thought changed in the last 2,000, 200, and 20 years? How is it changing now and how will in change in the next 20?
2. How much relevance does the monotony of function in it’s ability to blur out the day to day functions and uses of objects and so-called “equipment” have in regards to architecture in our everyday lives, and how to we determine what ceases to become “visible”, and what becomes interesting and purposeful enough to become prominent in our understanding of architecture?
3. How does the materiality of an object form it’s functionality? Must an object have a form in reality for it to be considered a philosophical object?
LikeLike
An understanding of reality and the physicality of objects seemed to play a key role in this week’s discussions. These two concepts felt like they revolved highly around one another, creating a relationship between object, thought, and evolution. It seemed to become clear to me during the presentations just how important yet difficult it is to define certain terms, and put a label on processes and objects that occur and grow in what we consider our “reality” our construct of the idea of life as we know it. Architecture itself is so difficult to define and discover, with an extraordinary amount of open ended opportunities that can be defined and understood in a seemingly infinite number of ways by every individual person that experiences it. It’s both mind boggling and fascination to me the seemingly infinite circle of how to define certain concepts and objects within our world of architecture and architectural philosophy.
LikeLike