1. In “12 Reasons to Get Back in Shape” by R.E. Somol, an imperative for architects to reconsider “shape” as a design driver is presented. The “shape” is discussed as something that is graphic and indefinite as an object, as well as a void that responds to its direct context. However, while this is true in a two-dimensional, virtual reality, how do you believe this translates into the three-dimensional realm?
2. In Notes on the Doppler Effect and Other Moods in Modernism, Koolhaas refers to architecture, especially in relation to the Dom-ino Drawing by Le Corbusier and the Barcelona Pavilion by Mies Van De Rohe, as something “… for seducing, becoming, instigating new events and behaviors.” This philosophy implies that architecture does not exist as a singular entity, but rather as a product whose sole purpose is to influence and allude to a “next big thing”. How do you believe we can sustain the individuality and novelty of an architectural piece in a society that constantly desires the “next big thing”?
3. Koolhaas uses the power of “shape” in his Very Big Library to define void both in a symbolic as well as literal sense. The voids serve as a residual, communal space to an otherwise solid program of virtual information, implying that the physical program of library has been replaced by a data base. Based on the times that we live in where more and more physical items are becoming digital, will the presence of simple programs of living and human interaction start to dominate the program schemes of modern buildings?
There seems to be a debate between whether architectural expression should emphasize the design process to the point at which it can only be understood through this process or whether the formal qualities should be explicit and digestible. One of the main critiques of Peter Eisenman’s work is the fact that it cannot be approached or interpreted in a different way from the way he has prescribed you to understand his work. While this process is founded in a design methodology that is heavily developed and dense in content, it limits the average viewer from accessibility. Often it seems that architects attach so much value to the ideas and “process”, that they forget that architects are not the single entity that inhabit the spaces we create. In fact, the vast majority of the public has little to no understanding of the architectural field, creating an immense lack of “proper” perception of a work of architecture. The value of architecture should not be held on how intelligent and calculated the concept of a building can be, but rather how conscious and impactful it can be to a much wider audience. Whether it be through a focus on a sensory experience, a contextual relation, or a programmatic experimentation, architecture should be shaped by the people it was made for and leave the design process in the office.
1. R.E Somol discusses the role of shape in design, specifically within the field of architecture. He states ” An architectural bastard or no-name clone, shape has no need to point back to its paternity for justification. In a profession prone to confession, shape is never having to say you’re sorry.” In this sense how does shape play into the role of an architect? Does it begin to imply that an architects’ formal identity and authorship hold a greater importance than that of the architects responsibility to respond to societal and cultural conditions?
2. While discussing the Doppler Effect and the moods of modernism , Somol describes the index as a mediator for the ‘between’ because it automatically combines materialism with significance. While Hays describes the Barcelona Pavilion as ” an event with temporal duration, whose actual existence is continually being produced.” This calls into question the lifespan or mortality of architectural works, both physical and theoretical. What is the most significant architecture in terms of history and in the future? And how does the view of these works affect the influence of individual architects themselves?
3. Peter Eisenman questioned Somol’s theory on ‘Green Dots’ with the simply worded yet inherently complex question ” How do you teach Green Dots? ” This brings in greater questions of representation within architecture and of the implicit correlations within the question itself. Somol describes these correlations as ” the association of the geometric with an architectural project of critical representation or description, and the graphic with the performative or projective.” Along this same idea, if we think of architecture as an essentialist object, can the architectural object be projective or is it confined to the cultural and societal constraints it is created within?
Just as thinking of the role of shape and form in a creating an architects identity brings into question the role or greater purpose of architects in society so does the concept of ‘Laziness’ within architecture. During the seminar it was discussed that ‘laziness’ does not always equate to the easiest or quickest solution but rather one that is efficient in terms of the recycling of materials, structure or base-work of former architectural works, along with responding to the social/cultural qualities present. This concept is different however to the reality of certain architects who are in fact lazy, in a non-ironical sense, where time is spent on purely one aspect of architecture (e.g. aesthetic) without also considering all the other dynamic possibilities. The presenting group also described graphic populism as a technique to broaden the appeal of building by reducing the information people need to process. This could be interpreted as a branch off from the ‘aesthetic object’ type of architecture that becomes more about the people than the designer. However this could be somewhat of a trick as in a sense the technique of graphic populism becomes a form of laziness itself by simplifying the building to make it more understandable, instead of intensely designing the program and space in a way that brings the local culture to meet the complex architectural world.
1. Koolhass discusses how architecture should be a product of influence both culturally and socially to strive for the next architectural movement. How does this reflect and contradict with the fact that in modern cities there has been such a push for architecturally driven urban spaces which thrive for contextual context of its surroundings and are pockets of spaces rather a whole space?
2. In the Dopper Effect and the moods of modernism Koolhass and Somol place an importance in contextual influence and materialism. However, many great influencers of early modern architecture only worked in drawing without anything ever being built, what do their theoretical works of architecture at the time have to say on the impact they have given on the overall progression of architecture? Through this logic is it any less than architecture that in fact was physically built and through its physicality was able to have for of a presence culturally and socially?
3. Modern architecture along with its presence seems to come with a lifespan. Architects and the community places such a high importance on provocative architecture that changes the meaning of architecture itself yet still places a lifespan on it. Differently throughout early history such as in roman times buildings were thought to last forever and currently we spend so much time preserving them. What does this have to say about our priorities in architecture? Do modern buildings that change the meaning of architecture even have a chance to last longer than intended to and to acquire that level of importance and historical significance for the future?
The analysis of architecture styles of the past is hence a reinterpretation of what we can only assume were the ideals of the past. Unless the creators of that particular piece of architecture or important faces of a particular style give their impression on the ideals and figural forms of the constructs of that style, the reinterpretations can launch a completely different view or movement such as what happened with the futurism movements and the importance of the machine. The combination of modernism and the theoretical ideas of the bringing together of architecture and the machine defined modernism for a time and was arguably one of the most radical influential forms on modern architecture. It brought new forms and shapes to architecture. In the Dopper Effect and the moods of modernism the reading didn’t place an importance on theoretical works as much as works that had been produced but I would argue that the movement of the futurists prove that as invalid. That movement and combination of the machine and architecture created a new radical and provocative artform to architecture which has arguably been carried through current forms of architecture by its radical forms and combination with technology.
1. The structural grid is described as “necessary to maintain continuity” in reference to Peter Eisenman’s design process. The conversation then shifts from the line to the curve, and how the new generation has called for a “new generic.” How does the curve regulate under the same capacities as the regulating line? How does non orthogonality relate to its context and avoid becoming self referential as an object?
2. What is laziness and how is recycling a building considered lazy? Sometimes it requires greater consideration to comply with preexisting conditions and balance new intentions.
3. Architecture is a discipline that is all encompassing and takes into account issues that are ever changing. Architectural ideas have proven to be timeless, but how can there ever be a perfect formula for creating timeless Architecture? Are there any buildings that actually stand t he test of time or is it actually only the ideas and what they represent that does?
Robert Venturi’s diagram of the duck in relation to the decorated ahead concludes two distinct typologies, outlining the difference between an all-encompassing figuration or silhouette. When Architecture focuses so much on shape, form, and developing new form, the result is something like a silhouette, so strong it becomes an object, or an icon within its context. I disagree with Rem Koolhaas’’ position on the integrity of context. What makes something iconic is its ability to stand out among its context, and with the help of hierarchy, people are afforded a certain mood about a building and the city becomes a series of overlapping moods and unique senses. If buildings were produced neglecting its surrounding physical context in its place, and the social context of its time, not only would we be living in a wallyworld of sculptures, but circulatory, infrastructural, historical, and ecological systems would go ignored – or chaos.
1. W.J. Neutelings speaks at length about the programmatic, social, and environmental benefits of designing void spaces as an integral part of the building. In Koolhaas’ writing, he discusses the potential of electronics/the digital “to eliminate all necessity for concentration and physical embodiment.” Is it possible for these void spaces Neutelings advocates for become a container for digital spaces, such as virtual and augmented reality scenarios? How would that manifest, both physically (if at all) and digitally?
2. Somol, like many contemporary architectural writers, is interested in the use of language to describe architecture. In last week’s readings, we discussed the “blob” as a type of architectural form. Now, we are looking at Koolhaas’s “voids” and Somol’s “shapes;” the meanings of the three seem to merge and overlap in parts. How could we write about these three terms in ways to make the distinctions (or unities) between them clear? Could a certain hierarchy or nesting be applied to relate these items?
3. Projective architecture – an architecture more concerned with context, culture, etc than formal operations, process, etc – is discussed in the text by Somol and Whiting as a shift from “hot” to “cool” architecture. Are there larger contextual underpinnings to these shifts between hot and cool architecture, ie. is the change from hot to cool internal to the practice or a product of the growing external demands of society?
W.J. Neutelings’ essay “On Laziness” playfully discusses several points as to why architects should be lazier, including deriving forms from existing typologies and concepts, reducing and recycling construction, and using ingenuity in design. In the class discussion, the idea of the difference between laziness and efficiency was brought up, and we discussed students’ patterns of workflow, laziness, and efficiency. What Neutelings’ seems to be arguing for is not for architects to procrastinate on their work more – as students often do – or to make their work of lower quality, but instead to work with more efficiency and cleverness. The counterpoint to this, that some famous architects have been able to produce masterworks in a matter of hours, seems to be a rare exception rather than the standard. Neutelings advocates for architects to be more conscientious of their work, working harder to make simpler, better decisions which can spare architects of time and complex schemes.
1. In “12 Reasons to Get Back in Shape” by R.E. Somol, Somol mentions how shapes are, “simply cool or boring,” but he also mentions how shape is adaptable. Can a shape adapt in which it goes from boring to cool or vice versa?
2. In the reading, “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics & Ingenuity” by Neutelings, W. J. several ways are mentioned on how laziness can work in the architectural world, but the closing thought stated no matter how successful the method is, the major disadvantage is that it all requires a lot of work. If the laziness methodology is not taken, then what is to be done about abandoned structures located on the given site?
3. In the “Green Dots” reading, there is a step where it says to saturate with a monotone treatment. My question is, why is that necessary, why can’t you just skip to step 5?
1. Shape could adapt giving new meaning and perception whether it be by means of illusion or physical change. My understanding is that if a shape were able to actively switch between states, even at its “boring state” we would consider it cool just by knowledge of its ability.
2. In some scenarios, the laziness tactic is taken but not used fully, some old buildings become a new “hybrid” building where the original building was only partially destroyed and the remaining structure flows into the new fresh structure.
3. From what I understand, you don’t skip the step as it could provide a new understanding of the form.
1. In the “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape,” the author speaks of shape as an unwanted tool by architects. One of the few reasons the “simple” factor is utilized is as a void for it possesses complexity with the fact that it is a shape that is not seen but seen through. It is perplexing. Shapes were in fact found in nature and are capable of sustaining things up in the material world where massing and form fail. Why is it that architects do away with shape even though shape’s simplicity is in fact its difficulty and leads to complexity? Or perhaps simplicity is what architecture needs?
2. Architecture, as an entity and discipline, is a form of representation indicative of the times and culture. In addition, the architect builds architecture with the cultural mindset at play. At what point do we separate the architect and the architecture for it is humans that design and are influenced by the times? Is architecture a type of flexible material or does it have a say? Does it speaks for the people, and therefore speaks to the architect through culture or vice versa?
3. Can architecture really be rid of all responsibilities since voids or empty spaces are now being used to save urban architecture, clean up cities, and allow communication between the people within cities? Is that not a responsibility that influences architecture, or lack thereof?
At this time in architecture, urbanism has become a problem due to its rise in unhealthy sanitation issues and overpopulation. In addition, people within the city tend to not communicate with each other, establishing a lack of a united culture. This is where this week’s readings come into play. The point was made about shapes and voids being too simple. The ego of architects has blown up to where they only create something unnecessarily complex. As mentioned in the presentations and readings, architecture is not about the architect. It seems that architecture needs simplicity, while architects need laziness. In order to save the discipline and definition of urbanism, architects need to use voids in order to open up space to provide a clean and gathering space for citizens. A void is simple but it also represents meaning; in this case, it would represent the relationship between people in the city as well as their relationship with the existing architecture. Lastly, laziness is hard work. This is what architects should possess, in cities especially. There is no need to demolish buildings to create their complex “masterpiece.” Renovating buildings should be seen as a serious consideration or option, not to mention that it would be of more difficult measure to create something new from someone else’s old. It was talked about last week that renovating or transforming is still considered creating something new. It is still architecture. We must take these steps as architects to allow for the improvement of urban cities.
1. In the reading “12 Ways to Get Back in Shape”, R. E. Somol argues that shape is anything and by that it is cool because “it has no need to point back to its paternity for justification.” If only architecture was perceived as ‘cool’, would the boundaries of architecture be limitless due to this justification?
2. According to Neutelings, laziness can be used as a design strategy with varying degrees of success because laziness leads to recycling, sculptural mathematics, and ingenuity of buildings. Should laziness be an attitude so that designs that are difficult would be easy to understand and use?
3. A logo is a generic category used as a graphic representation. Comparing the figuration of John Hejduk and the decoration of Robert Venturi to recent architectural projects that show the difference of shape and saturation, do the graphics of these styles determine the formal qualities of these projects?
In this week’s presentation, laziness was explained in several ways as beneficial for architecture. These strategies include recycling buildings by saving previous geometry and renovating it, sculptural mathematics by using mathematical concepts to guide design processes, and ingenuity by allowing laziness to generate design development. One example is the “Zilverzijde” Social Housing by Atelier Kempe Thill, located in Amsterdam. The distinguishing idea of this project was basing their buildings on the existing street and block structure because the street grid was impossible to change, so the architects adhered exactly to the surrounding lots. The housing complex formed a border on the edge of the area. Thus, architecture is projectile; it is related to moving entities. There can always be a new way to produce architecture. It is only a matter of understanding and calculating the given ecological, cultural, and social system.
1. In the readings from the previous week, there was the idea that “new” architecture isn’t really new because it is simply a new design based on principles and styles that already exist. In Neuteling’s reading this week, it was said that 66% of what is done to a building is based on a code that the architect has to follow, which only leaves room for 33% of the building to actually truly be designed by the architect. Do you think following code contributes to the reason of not being able to create a new architecture?
2. The interior of a building is usually designed using the constraints of the exterior of the building. The interior (in this case) is created based on the exterior form, rather than having a form for itself. In Somol’s “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape”, he says that with shape, “[the] inside is inconsistent with its exterior treatment (unlike [with] form)”. How is shape different from form?
3. Laziness is known as the quality of being unwilling to work or use energy or effort. It is known as taking the easy way, or the way where more is done for you. In the reading by Neutelings, “On Laziness Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, & Ingenuity”, laziness is mentioned as a good design strategy, and explains five reasons why. However, it is also stated that the one disadvantage to the strategy of laziness is that it requires a lot of effort. If the definition of laziness is to not use a lot of effort, what is meant by this disadvantage? How can it require a lot of effort when its very definition is the opposite?
During the discussion in class the statement that program doesn’t define the form of a building was brought up. It is interesting to see how program and form of a building are always working together, yet not necessarily dependent on one another. When starting a building from the ground up, yes, many architects create form based on what program will be taking place. For example, if the architect is designing a theater, it is likely they will design a building with big open spaces, and the walls of the theater would be designed for good acoustics. However, to prove that program doesn’t necessarily define the form of a building, one can simply look at buildings that were designed as one thing, and then completely used for something else. Example, Lina Bo Bardi’s Sesc Pompeia, was a designed and used as a factory, before Lina re-purposed the building for a community center for the people of Brazil. Once used for production and machinery, now is being used for galleries, exhibitions, plays, sports, eating, etc.
1. Considered the four paths of creation in R.E. Somol’s “Green Dots 101”; figuration, decoration, articulation, and notation, how does Peter Eisenman’s work of the past thirty years instituting grid manipulations produce a discontinuity between the structural grid and makeup of the project in regards to scale, and rendering his use of the grid as seemingly a tool of ornamentation?
2. Within the “Notes on the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism”, Somol and Whiting assimilate the relationship of architecture and philosophy to that of an actor to the character they are portraying. Including even going as far as to mention the most obsessive method actor of them all; Robert De Niro, known for heavy research in preparation of roles in movies including the Godfather, Taxi Driver, and Cape Fear. In this idea of method acting being congruous to method designing, how does the architect of the nineteen-eighties and nineties espouse the notion of providing their own subversive vision?
3. Defined in a multitude of seemingly incongruous terms, R.E. Somol’s “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape” provides an attitude of shape that interests itself in opposing differentiated views on the traditional and current architectural thinking. How does this alignment of theorized shape give way to a liberated architecture more freely communicated through the companions of his twelve terms?
Discussed within the presentations from Reyner Banham’s linkage to Peter Eisenmen’s and his search for originality a question is posed of how the student can strike a new position independent of their teacher’s? Stemming from this question is the idea of the projective and whether there is a theory and design within the current first machine age championed by futurists as form becomes a byproduct of the machine. If form becomes a byproduct of the machine is form always a surprise? Can form be premeditated if produced by the machine? Does this relate to the process of the first architectural education form itself? As abstractions are layered upon one another and continually derived from the previous work does the form itself become a surprise in the same way as the first section and plan generated does? The new position of considering content as standing lower in importance than form creates a material interest parallel to the attention given to color and formal organization.
1. In R. E. Somol’s “12 Reasons to Get Back in Shape,” it defines what shape is through words such as easy, expendable, graphic, adaptable, fit, arbitrary, and intense. Somol says that architects like to do things the hard way, therefore not using shapes because shapes are already designed. Relating back to last week’s presentation, what then is not a taboo for architects but a new idea for their basis of design?
2. In the “Strategy of the Void” it says “Wanting to win a competition is not the same as wanting to do your best possible work.” The author says that juries have a standard and criteria which forces one to want to create and design to meet their ideas in order to win, while individuals have no standards but want to just expand their ideas infinitely. Would you agree with this interpretation? Is there another way to look at this statement?
3. Neutelings explains why laziness is actually useful to architects in his article “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics & Ingenuity.” However, through each point Neutelings mentioned, how far can an architect take laziness to the point where laziness becomes a negative impact?
In the presentation, the students discussed negative space the terms of void and solid. When determining what is negative space, either the void becomes a solid, or the solid becomes the void. This idea does make sense when you study an image or a object. Depending on what you are focusing on, the void or solid is important, thus becoming the meaning of each other. For example, the void inside a building’s volume becomes a solid because of it’s importance as the program holder, while the solid becomes the void as it is less important. Rem Koolhas explains in the “Strategy of the Void” that the void, in which removing something, was once difficult to do but is now fun and easy. The space becomes shaped and defined by what was removed, instead of building up and thinking about it’s boundaries. Creating spaces and designs in terms of void presents an interesting design tool.
1: What does Koolhaas mean when saying “rid architecture of responsibilities it can no longer sustain”?
2: What is this instance of “Index” Somol and Whiting talk about and how is it significant?
3: How does Somol define what’s “teachable” and what is not?
The presentations today all concluded why and how shape can be utilized in architecture. The simplest way to define architecture is the design of buildings or the creation of spaces that express ideas. In the ancient world, architecture was symbolic and dimensions and sun orientation were critically important. Their legacy includes the geometrical shapes comprising the Parthenon, particularly the rectangle and the triangle. I’d argue that in current days, it’s our job and opportunity to take what we already know about shapes and alter it in a new way that hasn’t been done before, creating a new type of spacial quality unseen up to this point in time.
1. In your opinion, does laziness, as it explained by Neutelings, make the architect directly a better designer, or are they simply a happy product of their own shortcomings?
2. By trying to escape preconceived notions of “architecture”, or by trying to strip down the goal, as Koolhaas says, “architecture’s last function will be the creation of the symbolic spaces that accommodate the persistent desire for collectivity,” will architects stray farther from easy architecture?
3. Is productive laziness, when applied to architecture, intrinsic, or does it have to be learned?
Laziness, as we saw today in class, generally has a fowl connotation. Laziness, as is described by the readings this week, does not mean an inability to finish work on time, or to the level that it should be completed by. Put simply, laziness is equivalent to efficiency in terms of the text. As was said in class, there is often the assertion that architecture Is hard and that it takes so much time. This is not inherently false, however it also is assuming that a “lazy” architect is an inefficient, not creative architect. Some of my favorite projects are those that has done something with existing buildings, programs, or ideologies. There is certainly the bad kind of lazy alongside the good kind of lazy, but the distinction has to be made between efficiency and inefficiency.
1. Neuteling claimed that laziness enforces ingenuity within the 33% of space that the architect has the freedom to design. Neuteling emphasized the advantages of laziness includes recycling buildings, typologies, and concepts. How is an architect able to take advantage of his/her laziness to produce an intelligent design if recycling is an option?
2. According to R.E. Somol, shape is “easy” because it is something that is already defined. Then is using shapes a form of lazy architecture according to Neuteling?
3. In Green Dots 101, a logo is a hybrid state of figural decoration by intensifying the incongruence of mass and surface, and condensing them into the monolith of a saturated space. Is there a way for this logo to exist as a hybrid if his previous belief of shape was an easy way out and architects should do things the hard way?
During the presentations it was discussed that laziness in architecture does not have the same connotation we usually prescribe. It is about finding the most efficient strategy in architecture to achieve your goal. Instead of creating new architecture, its recycling materials, typologies, or reusing structure. There is architectural potential within the confinement of existing space or design and this allows architects to force themselves to generate ingenuity. Especially in modern day, where the population is increasing and there is less land to develop in cities, its more beneficial to adopt this lazy strategy to recreate architecture by using the old. Using the old also focuses architects to think about shape and developing new forms. This can create something like a silhouette where it is strong and can become its own much like how iconic skyline or attractions are recognizable by a simple silhouette or shapes.
1. In the “Green Dots 101” written by R. E. Somol, he mentioned the proposal made by Peter Eisenman: The significance of making architecture become legible and refining control of architecture. Especially during the design of “logo” buildings and landscapes, Somol clearly labeled five steps for architects to follow. Do you agree it is necessary for keeping those principles and rules and the same time gain same quality of creativity and decency?
2. Somol noticed the shape is graphic as avoiding the rhetorical excess of geometric form to expressive mass as well as generating a new identity. But Somol has also mentioned in the last reading which it is vital to build architectural principals in order to understand intricacies. So does it mean there are certain rules about figuration and decoration about shapes?
3. Does laziness count as a subconsciousness in the design process or it is a principle architects should follow?
The presentation concluded the importance of considering ‘shape“ in the design of architecture by providing lots of examples about architectural diagrams. The shape of architecture is the main “soul” to a building as a decent shape can increase attractions in the first stage. Detailedly, shape works as an intensive hight concentrated pattern which has been applied on the CCTV tower project in China. It can also get involve into the process of generating extension and projecting to the initial massing in order to create “logo” buildings mentioned by Somol. Based on those twelve reasons for architects to get back into shapes during the design process, the representation of the architecture becomes more easy to be designed based on genuine intentions just as Neuterings has noticed in his book that the laziness helps architects to design “the lazy architect has to peel the skin off the type to be able subsequently to manipulate the model and dress it up again”. Therefore, it is very important to get deep into the shape of architecture since in last week’s reading Deleuze has mentioned ways of sensation in architectural diagrams and drawings.
1. In “Strategy of the Void,” Koolhaas describes his “Very Big Library” as a symbol of all forms of memory, encapsulated in different forms of “technological placenta.” In this instance, is the void interpreted as a symbolic form (failures in memory, etc) or does it represent shape, as championed by R.E. Somol?
2. In R.E. Somol’s “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape,” we are told that in contemporary architecture, shape is either “cool” or “boring”, lacking the capacity to draw a more polorizing opinion. What drove architecture from shape- its connotations, or fear of the cliche? Has shape’s loose adaptability been misconstrued as a negative?
3. Along the lines of misconstrued negatives, Neutlings claims that “laziness” is actually a virtuous quality in architects, despite its connotations, as it “enforces ingenuity.” It is, however, described as “hard work” to be lazy, because essentially, successful laziness in architecture is the ability to not think too hard, and over-complicate things for yourself. Can this be taught, or is it an inherent trait you either immediately master or never quite grasp?
Today’s was a conversation about emptiness- nothing created from something, by way of literally erasing the post product, or directly from the design process: paring down to the simplest thought, with an utter lack of overcomplication: the laziness and subsequent taboo of shape. The interior condition of shape is empty; it is both void and a celebration of void. “Empty” thought, presented in the simplest terms for the general public, is thus a spring board for further speculation- nothing is ever fully prescribed. What is more appealing? The building that is complicated and looks like it was a nightmare to compose, or the building that is simple and looks like it took no time to design. What we seem to want, as designers and as human beings, is the best of both worlds. We want a building that gets our point across beautifully and concisely and without looking tortured, while simultaneously wanting to be acknowledged for the hard work that we’ve done. Who is architecture for? Its designer or its inhabitants? The answer can be a hard kebab to swallow.
1. Consensus, especially on broad stroke design topics, such as shape, is rare in the architectural community. Peter Eisenman’s structural grid is “necessary to maintain continuity”, much like Le Corbusier used his Domino Grid. Contrarily, Somol claimed that shape is “An architectural bastard or no-name clone, shape has no need to point back to its paternity for justification. In a profession prone to confession, shape is never having to say you’re sorry.” In the current architectural vogue, what is shape’s role? Has it become irrelevant, or should it be revisited?
2. “Laziness, one of the seven cardinal sins, is one of an architect’s most useful characteristics.” Neutelings claims that, for a slew of reasons, laziness can help create more effective designs. An architect’s tendency to be lazy in their designs can make them more ingenious in their work, and more efficient in materials and process. What are some ‘lazy’ tendencies in architecture? Are voids, which Koolhaas claims will “rid architecture of responsibility” too lazy, or is that laziness efficient to architecture’s (and society’s) benefit in the end?
3. From Somol and Whiting’s Notes on the Doppler Effect, “A projective architecture does not make a claim for expertise outside the field of architecture nor does it limit its field of expertise to an absolute definition of architecture.” Does architecture need to adapt in order to match our rapidly evolving world (technologically, societally, politically, ecologically) ? What is, i.e., technology’s place in architectural discourse? What changes about the designer’s role in that discourse?
Who is architecture for? One might say that it is for everyone to enjoy, but that would be the same as saying that art is for everyone. In some ways, this is true, but in many ways it is not. Some art is certainly meant for public consumption, as is some architecture. But some aspects of art and architecture do a better job alienating the general public than welcoming it. The academic architecture community is accustomed to an entirely new set of vocabulary, and come from a common ground of understanding. Architects can all too easily fall prey to allowing the complexities and skillfulness of their design overshadow the intent of the building, and of architecture; to be enjoyed by as many people as possible.
So when architects like Eisenmann, Wright, and Rohe begin to specify not only the form of the building but the prescribed ‘correct’ way to enjoy and understand the design, is this practice purely self-indulgent for architects and removed from the wants and needs of the public?
1. Architectural design is based on geometric underlines. Forms emerge from that grid and are considered formal elements, contrary to shapes. Is architecture only considered as such if it’s composed of forms, constricted to a geometric order? Or can architecture retain its properties even when basing its order off of shapes?
2. In “12 Reasons to Get Back in Shape”, shape is considered an adaptive element, one that moves over the contours rather than sit as a rigid form. It seems that shape is becoming increasingly popular in urban architecture so how does that trait manifest in the design? How does today’s architecture adapt to its site rather than reimagine the existing parts?
3. The Very Big Library is described as a solid block of information with its spaces as absences of buildings. In that definition, what is a void’s purpose in architecture if it’s not a hole, but rather, an absence of material? How does this absence affect the order and what can the absence potentially signify?
This week’s readings address the idea of representation, focusing on shape, voids, and methods of design. Somol states that critical architecture must reconcile community with autonomy. In other words, it must reconcile its graphics with its architectural features, such as its geometry for instance. Shape, for example, can be a great aesthetic feature and an important element in the design, but shape doesn’t determine the geometric order. Decoration is just a performative while articulation is natural and authentic. Form is considered to be part of that order as it’s formal and is to be read. However, these factors are more for an architect’s or a designer’s mindset. The presentation mentions how the graphic condenses the project into an image to collect the potential audience while the geometric addresses a specific reader. That reader is the architect, or designer, so the discussion then goes to how we can reconcile views of architecture with both sides. We must think about how we can relate geometry to aesthetics.
1. Koolhaas suggests that, “liberated from its former obligations, architecture’s last function will be the creation of the symbolic spaces that accommodate the persistent desire for activity.” For me, this seems a bit backwards. Shouldn’t this be its first function?
This makes me think of his CCTV tower. He makes such a humongous building that twists and turns and cantilevers, spending a ton of energy ensuring that it stands up and functions. All of this leaves the huge atrium-like void underneath the top portions of the form, which becomes the most symbolic space in the end. It seems to me that he spent so much time designing and designing, when the most powerful space in the end is what he didn’t design, as the region under the building becomes the site for major protests, with the odd form in the background as an icon.
Which should come first? The “former obligations” like square footage and structure, or the symbolic social spaces?
2. Koolhaas asks us, “Is it that bigness alone makes everything easy to the point of automatism?” Does XL architecture lose the importance of sound program or scalar relationships, just because it is fantastically large and there’s enough room to do anything you want? Imagine creating a humongous building using the “methodology of sculptural mathematics” (parametric design) that Neutelings praises as a strategy for laziness, allowing the parameters to run and fill the program of this big building according to your script. Is this the automatism Rem was worried about? Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
3. Somol posits in the “Doppler Effect” effect reading the idea that very critical architecture often stays within the realm of “betweenness” (of history/theory). This is interesting to think about, as we’re all in a school that tries so hard to produce different architecture, critical of norms that our culture sees today. What do you think our chances are to actually build critical architecture, rather than having it stuck in our portfolios and never making it out of the academic circle?
During the discussion today, Prof.’s comments made some connections between some of the stuff I was wondering. It sounds like Rem must have designed the void in the CCTV tower (contrary to my point in Question 1), based on what he learned from OM Ungers in their Green Archipelago project. Here, we see clear evidence of a notion of erasure as a productive action, as they investigate how much of an urban fabric can be removed, but still constitute a city. They begin to design certain vistas connecting certain cultural buildings, which end up being contrary to the city grid. In the CCTV tower we can read the large void underneath the massing in a similar manner, erasing as a productive movement, allowing space on the ground-level for tons of activity. And don’t forget the odd grid facade system! Definitely contrary to the grid we’re used to seeing. (With portions of the grid appearing to be erased away)/
1. R.E. Somol describes Mies’s architecture as being “between the efficient representation of preexisting cultural and the wholly detached autonomy of an abstract formal system” in his paper “Notes on the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism”. He points out Mies’s work as being designed for the place in which the building is, but also made sure to apply his own formal design. Too often do architects focus on one or the other. Is it right for an architect to design whatever and wherever he wants or is it his responsibility to design for the people?
2. In Neutelings paper, “On laziness, recycling, structural mathematics and ingenuity” he mentions in the third point that for architecture new developments do not relay on earlier achievements, but rather the rejection of them. This to me is too the ultimate laziness. Why take a discipline as complex as architecture and ignore everything that was laid out before us to learn from and develop further?
3. In R.E. Somols “12 Reasons to Get Back Into Shape” he describes shape as being “the great taboo” poking fun at architects for choosing to do things the hard way. Going back to the previous question, why do architects intentionally choose to make their lives more difficult by ignoring what they already know? Yes it is good to try new things and explore for yourself, but there has to be an easier way than rejecting all that is known to us.
Architects try too hard to be “great architects”. Sometimes they try too hard to be just architects. They so badly want to be remembered for the things they create. Making their lives more complicated than they need to be by taking basic shapes out of the scenario and rejecting all previous achievements. Architects should not be given the status of “great architect” solely based on the look and process of their design, but rather for what their architecture does for the greater betterment of its people. The conversation that was had about “lazy architecture” being more beneficial was very interesting. How one would take an abandoned structure and turn it into something of use becomes more productive and useful than designing something new right next to it. Yes the new option may be more innovative, but it becomes useless in the setting that it’s in. The architecture should not just compliment the architect, it should compliment its surroundings.This, I found, is something that architects don’t always consider. Great architects design for the place and the people first and then for themselves. If they don’t consider either their eye catcher will likely become an eye-sore.
1. In the “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shapes”, Koolhaas listed 12 merits of shape, and he mentioned in the first paragraph that shape has been considered as hard way in the architectural field, so why architects consider shape as taboo at first place?
2. In the “Strategy of the Void”, while they were designing the storage of the library, the author found that forms and shapes have a certain degree of autonomy and uncertainty, so how do we apply these features while we are designing?
3. At the last paragraph of “Green Dots 101”, Somol makes a conclusion that: “All of this is to say there’s nothing scientifically or technically true about Green Dots or the general performative category of the logo.” Then, is the “5 step for how to do logo buildings” practicable?
The shape of the building refers to the internal and external shapes of the building, and it always connects with form and space, material and structure, site and environment. The different components of the different buildings have different functions. The architectural shape and form are not mainly reflected by the internal space structure and the external form to give people a sense of spiritual beauty. The form of architectural design determines the shape of the building. The function of the building is also mainly reflected by the architectural shape and form. As the level of people’s life and technique increases, the shape and form of the building are more and more diverse.
1.) In the reading “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, a Ingenuity” it proposes many advantages about being lazy is on of the most useful characteristics in an architect; they try to find easy solutions to make their life a bit easier. In conclusion it has been proven that the projects were successful with the help of laziness, but it requires a lot of effort. What if we didn’t recycle and take less effort to make building? will it still be as successful if laziness was not involved?
2.) There are many ways to express architecture. In “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape,” it expressed architecture in those 12 terms, when architecture can be expressed in different ways, why was it narrowed down to those 12 terms?
3.) Since voids are shaped accordingly to their own logic, independent of each other, and do not have to be built. How are voids shaped according to their logic?
From today’s lecture and group presentation, It has come to a term that being lazy is not so bad, in fact, it can be useful when coming up with architectural design. In today’s world, we are using up a lot of energy to build new buildings from bottom to top. With the advantage of recycling, the amount of energy would be reduced by renovating old projects or use different materials. Most importantly, it would help reduce the cost of the construction. Being lazy is not a bad thing; it does not mean that people who are lazy are not hardworking or dedicated, it is only working smarter.
1. In the article “S,M,L,XL-compresse”, Koolhass made an intriguing argument about the shape of space. He blurs the definition of one single construction element like floor and thus form a “formless architecture”. He said “Room loops the loop”. Traditionally, we considered every independent component of a building as individuals that connected together so that it has such a conventional form. Will the new “formless architecture” rebuild the way we live, and will we see the world in a different scale? Is the “deduction” of architecture also going to reverse anything?
2. In the reading “ Green dots 101”, Somol generated a list of characteristics of what is called “logo architecture”. Personally speaking, I found this to be very interesting for the reason that it almost fits every modern architecture nowadays. At the meantime, a question emerges: with these strategies, how do we perceive the changes in the future? will it be more concentrate on the shape/logo or will be more formless like Koolhass suggested?
3. Like what Somol and Whiting suggest in “Notes on the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism”, under the big circumstance like politics, economics, architecture has always been more or less transformed from its original design. But, what is the real purpose of architecture? Does it means to serve the social, political, or economic field or does it stand for itself? If it stand for itself, what is the meaning of making different types of architecture?
Is architecture more reflective or more prospective? From, today’s presentation, we are acknowledged of the potentiality of the “laziness” in architecture. For example, Koolhaas might did made some references to the Green Archipelago when designing the CCTV building. Being inspired by other’s work, in fact, is a clever starpoint rather than an unoriginal criticism. Sometimes, we tried our best to prevent our works from looking like someone else’s former projects to avoid plagiarism. But Paul Gauguin said “Art is either plagiarism or revolution”, and it also fits in the field of architectural design. We must put ourselves forward to more possible uncertainties, in the meantime, be respect to the previous works. And according to my third question, I was questioning the real meaning of architecture. I think I know the answer from one perspective understanding the discussion of the “shape” in today’s presentation. For me, architecture is a language, or a method, that tell stories in the physical and visual way. It could be considered as a kind of technical art that embodies social/political/economic/etc. demands in this world.
1. From the reading Green Dots, R.E. Somol mentions that “emphasizing message or content over formal medium, decoration and figuration embrace the conventional and arbitrary as a way to take pleasure in the ersatz and artifice.” through the history, they were many eras that focused on the importance of decoration and figuration, so what’s the difference among those focuses? What make this are’s focus stand out?
2. In the reading Green Dots, the term “architectural logo” is mentioned multiple times; how should we understand the term “logo”, what differs “logo” from “language”?
3. Rem Koolhaas mentions that the voids are not to be “built”, so what characteristics should come along with the voids, since the other programs have their unique logic (or say their “forms of memory”)?
This week’s topic is about voids and shapes, in architectural terms they all having similar but different meanings; they are all about space, but one is commonly related to emptiness, and the other one is commonly related to things that are built (existing things). Shapes are important features to architecture, but they are not speaking for the architecture. The logic and language of architecture is from its spatial organization, geometrical formation, and living logic. Voids are not spaces that left blank, they are as designed as those are built; when leaning an architecture, and the voids should not be ignored because they are designed also for the readers. For us, learn to read the voids are as important as read the massing, the achievement in aesthetic is to let people understand and enjoy by telling the story through the spaces and voids. Projective architecture is a trend for nowadays field, and it is achieved by series study between shape and void; without the understanding and conscious of those terms, a building will lose its balance in the content of space.
1. In “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape,” R.E. Somol states that “shape must float” due to its tendencies of seeming hollow and its contrast to form and mass. While form exists in drawings or computers and mass allows the limitation of gravitational pull, shape does neither. How can shape compare and be alike form and mass rather than differ from it? How can architecture allow the existence of all 3, but none at the same time?
2. W.J. Neutelings’ “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, and Ingenuity,” explains seven ways to take advantage of laziness in terms of architecture. One of the ways is how “compulsory laziness enforces ingenuity.” In this way, Neutelings describes how large buildings are often already told how to be made by books of guidelines, where most of the building has to follow these laws and only a small area can be free for the architect to create. Wouldn’t the freedom that the architect has be the hardest part in the integration with loads of specifications?
3. In “Strategy of the Void,” Rem Koolhaas describes the voids in The Very Big Library as “absences of building” as they do not have to be built, but are rather shaped by the logic of the surrounding. Can the presence of the void shape the surrounding rather than the other way around? Can voids dictate the whole premise of certain projects?
This week’s lecture focused on the idea of shapes, voids, and laziness in architecture. There were a lot of ideas that were projected that brought up interesting points. One of them is about voids in architecture. From past classes and this lecture, I realized that voids aren’t exactly just empty spaces. Although, it means just an empty space, these moments in architecture can define a creation. These “empty spaces” can direct a lot of the ideas being certain architecture pieces. I was once told that spaces don’t exactly need a program nor a reason to be there but can be a driving force in a project or just a moment for people to find. Another idea that was brought up is the idea that laziness is an advantage in architecture. Although I found most of the points to be valid, I also found myself disagreeing with others. For example, I don’t believe “recycling” projects is lazy unless it’s a very close copy. I think most projects come as inspiration from others and to me, this isn’t laziness, it’s just inspired.
1.According to Strategy of the Void, Koolhaas mentions that the Very Big Library is interpreted as a solid block of information and the public spaces are absent of building. Does it means the public spaces are voids and do not have to be built? How can spaces be shaped if they are void? What’s their own logic?
2. According to Notes on the Doppler effect and Other Moods of Modernism, what does instruments of metropolitan plasticity mean?
3. In 12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape, Somol mentions that architecture doesn’t have to hurt. What does it mean? Does it indicate architects prevent themselves from shape so as to do something complex while encountering with great pain due to lack of simplicity?
From this lecture, I learned that laziness can bring benefits to architecture design. We architects can improve the overall quality of buildings with innovation, taking advantage of information around. One way to get out of commission is to recycle a previous building instead of building a new one. Sculptural mathematics can guide programmatic structure. It is the continuous state of laziness leads to ingenuity. For instance, a combination all circulation into one central hole.
Shape, which is simple, is always illicit in architecture field. However, shape extending outward beyond something else make shapes projective
To think of whether function or shape first, we need to keep in mind that void is unavoidable. It is solid that reflects information while living void makes space to create function.
Green dots overcome the relentless tendency toward criticality of shapes. They are unteachable and can only be performed.
Speaking of Representation as Graphic, the latter one have no issue with arbitrariness while representation is descriptions. Graphic expediency collects audience and geometric intricacy create an audience that does not exist.
To sum up, Projective architecture can be a new way of architecture. We architects should learn the process and promote innovation and explorations.
1. In Somol and Whiting’s article, “Notes on the Doppler”, an interesting point is brought up, “The skyscraper-machine allows the projection infinitely upward of virtual worlds within this world.” While I understand building a skyscraper allows for creativity on many levels. Wouldn’t the laws of physics so greatly limit the building that it no longer becomes a projection of out imagination?
2. In Neutelings article on laziness, in the first sentence he states that laziness is one of the most useful characteristics to architects. While he defends his points in the next paragraphs, saying how compensating for laziness produces the best results. that means that it is not in fact laziness that is the useful trait, but the compensating that is the better trait. If laziness is as important as Neutelings says it is then why is it that architects don’t always just take the easy route and create the most simple buildings possible? There are many buildings out there that require much thinking and planning in order to build.
3. ? Shape is generally thought of to be a 2-dimensional concept. However Somol gives characteristics used to describe 3-dimensional objects like buoyant, adaptable, and fit in his “12 reasons to be in shape” article to describe shape. Shape is used in almost everyday design functions. Over time it has come to have may different meanings, but every building must have some sort of a shape at some point in the design process. Why would shape become the great taboo for architects if it is so commonly used?
With the beginning of the minimalist movement, the content of the work started to matter less and the meaning behind the work started to matter more. For example the decorated duck building. The easy to recognize shape of the silhouette became a graphic icon, and that meaning was much more important than how the building looked. Additionally not just the shape is important but the void also contains meaning. In studio, the professor has told me, don’t just keep adding on, remember you can take away too. At the time I didn’t really understand the value of void, I thought that I had to keep adding on and keep making the building more and more impressive. Void can complement the shape of the building to give more meaning. It can just as important if not more important than the physical building, providing additional meaning that needs to be inferred and not just seen.
1. R. E. Somol’s talks a lot about shape and how it is perceived as simple and arbitrary in architecture. He feels that architects attempt to challenge themselves by straying away from shapes in their designs to increase complexity or difficulty. Why is it that we learn to avoid shapes as opposed to embracing them? Can we not be innovative with shapes as a basis of design?
2. Neutelings claims that “laziness” is a good quality to have as an architect. Although it may sound counter-intuitive, laziness is actually beneficial for creativity. If one thinks or works too hard, they tend to over-analyze and overthink things. Laziness enforces ingenuity and freedom. Although there are many benefits to being lazy, is there a line where laziness starts becoming a bad thing?
3. Rem Koolhaas talks about how voids are not to be “built” and “rid architecture of responsibility”. What is a void, how are they shaped and what do they represent?
Although counterintuitive, architects strive to create new innovative designs in an ironically “lazy” approach. The simplest, most basic forms and shapes are the hardest to perfect and master in architecture. As shapes and forms amass in a design, the building’s meaning continually changes. There is a very fine line in finding a balance between efficient simplicity and overdesigning. Laziness correlates to efficiency and radical, innovative design. Instead of finding “new” forms or “new” ways to overthink design, one can simply go back to the most basic shapes and voids as a basis of design. The benefits of laziness do not only fall in the design category, but also can help create a future of sustainability. The idea of recycling and reusing materials and premade shapes comes to mind. For example homes made from old shipping containers or water bottles. Instead of trying to design from scratch, it is also important to take inspiration from everyday objects and shapes.
1. W.J. Neutelings in On Laziness Recycling Sculptural Mathematics & Ingenuity elaborates on how “laziness” of an architect brings forth a certain strength in their ability to design as they will begin to reuse and recycle existing concepts, forms and massings to create their project, thereby creating a cohesive architectural concept. How does this concept of repossessing the old and calling it the new impact the creation of inspirational architecture that drives the community to evolve rather than renovate?
2. Rem Khoolas in Strategy of the Void examines his though process in designing the Tres Grande Bibliotheque in Paris, France. He begins with explaining his position on the proposal; having a strong negative feeling toward the entire concept. As he continues to describe his process of design, no longer commenting on the project proposal, the reader will notice that his design is a direct physical embodiment of his social commentary. Is the future of architecture settled in satire and commentary? Should architects begin to interpret design proposals as being nothing more than a statement to be ridiculed through their design?
3. R.E. Somol in 12 Reasons to Get back into Shape delineates the importance of shape in architecture and how architects have strayed from the path of using shape in their projects as the leading influence in their design. Is shape and massing so different that they need to be emphasized as two separates? Though massing is more closely related to program and form than it is to shape, couldn’t one argue that form influenced by program further influences massing and then works back into modifying program and their spacial existence? Is architecture constantly retrospective, if so, can these three elements be considered so disconnected from each other?
The mid-20th century saw the formation of existentialism in architecture. Rem Khoolas, R.E. Somol, and W.J. Neutelings all express their distaste for the “modern”, for in their eyes, the modern is too forceful in their attempt. They instead propose that architecture and subsequent works should be influenced by their process of creation and by the creator’s perspective on the project. Rem Khoolas implores the creator to use a satirical perspective on the creation of something new and to effectively make a statement about how impractical the proposed project is. R.E. Somol argues that shape is a provocative tool that can be used to create the response to architecture that Khoolas desires out of modern architects. These two concepts are brought together by Neutelings who remarks on how (un)lazy architects are, and how this laziness ends up being an important tool that essentially brings a project to cohesion with its context. Though these three designers may not come to a universal agreement, their three commentaries bring to light how modern architecture sees itself in the 20th and 21st century: a tool for making social and political commentary that is recognized by very few for what it is and is recognized by many for their overall aesthetics and form.
Q1: The traditional definition of an architect is “a person who designs buildings and in many cases also supervises their construction.” According to Somol and Whiting, however, architects engage other topics “as experts on design and how design may affect [them].” Considering how the responsibilities of an architect go beyond the completion of a building, is it time to revisit the definition of what they are?
Q2: According to the essay “Green Dots 101”, “articulation and notation is technical and scientific… decoration and figuration may be viewed as political” Based on the steps it takes to do logo buildings discussed later in the text, it seems as though this architecture is only scientific in nature. Are there any examples of projects that bridge the gap between the technical and political?
Q3: Within the discipline of architecture, “new developments seem not to rely on earlier achievements, but rather their rejection.” From the conversations of last class, in order to be classified as new, architecture must go beyond old projects, in an attempt to create new rules and design criteria. Is Neutelings describing new architecture or merely a re-invention of the old?
One of the main themes for this week’s topic of Projective and Shape is the idea of change. In the case of architecture, change is vital in the way the discipline moves forward. Without any form of change to what has been done before, there can be no progression into the new. And even in some cases, there can be a change from the new, back to the old, with additional revisions. Architects are constantly drawing on references from the past and the present to propose a future scheme. The process of changing design often times related to the changing of focus or of the problem. For the Projective, there was a change in the focus of hot architecture, like Eisenman, to cool architecture, more similar to Hejduk. In the case of Shape, Somol argues that shape follows more closely with Hejduk as its vagueness is inherently “cool.” Change doesn’t necessarily mean the new is better than the old, but it is a key way to push development further.
1. In the writings of Somol’s and Whiting’s “Notes Around The Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism”, is raises a question of what architecture is. Is it a product that comes out of culture? Is it an autonomous entity? Or is critical to the both?
2. In Rem Koolhaas’ “S,M,L,XL”, he says “Since they are voids- they do not have to be ‘built’- individual libraries can be shaped strictly according to their own logic, independent of each other, of the external envelope of the usual difficulties of architecture, even gravity.” Are voids be considered a form of architecture or just a space that has been created?
3. Neutelings says that laziness “is one of an architect’s most useful characteristics.” Because it creates a “pleasing balance” to create “happy results”. However being lazy require more energy to complete a task in the long run?
When creating architecture we need to consider the environment, the designer and the building itself. The architecture is never static. Projectile architecture considers multiple aspects of designing, i.e, material, program, environment, technology and many more. The more constraints the architect faces, the more the design is being shaped.
The void can be created or it could have been a creation of other objects. Either way the void has an important part of any architecture. Even choosing to not give it a program or meaning is giving is a purpose for existing. “The void suggests both absence and presence.”
Laziness can create some beautiful works such as Fallingwater by Frank Lloyd Wright. But a point was brought up in class, where the architect might want to look back it his work but have no time to. When in a rush mistakes might be made or details forgotten. It is when we look back at our work and critique the mishaps, that the design is superior. I also think that being lazy might cause a person to use more energy because they have to work faster due to the loss of time.
1. In “Green Dots 101,” the author proposes that articulation and notation tend to be constative descriptions, while decoration and figuration operate more as performatives. This is an interesting distinction and I would want to further examine the ways in which the language we use in description of form and that which constitutes the “whole” of a work of architecture and alters its very function. Do such subtleties impact the nature of that which we filter our design methods through as well as our perceptions of said design?
2. The residual nature of shape was touched upon by Somol in “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape”. Specifically, how shape is differentiated from massing and form; massing constitutive of lack of hollowness and form consistent both internally and externally. Shape allows for the internal nature to be exposed; becoming a resolution for the exterior wrap. Shape becomes almost intangible in the way smol described-a mere function of its impacts and something discarded by architects. But is it really so intangible or is it instead the absence of its physical nature which in fact provides the vital connective tissue between massing and form?
3. The application of laziness as a design methodology, according to Neutelings, is a highly effective tool. I think the spontaneous aspect is one not fully addressed by the author but is important to note as the reliance on design matter which references precedent ideas can often, in its adaption to present conditions, provide for permutations not otherwise considered. Is the juxapositional quality of the balance between stability (layers of rationality) and spontaneity that it appears laziness may produce successful in furthering the forefront of innovative design or is it something reserved for that which is less demanding/ambitious within the conceptual realm?
A major topic discussed in the lecture was “laziness” and how we as architects understand this characteristic and the provocative nature of it being described as a positive certainly challenges what usually has a negative connotation. Certainly, laziness as a manner of oversight and/or lack of ambition becomes detrimental to a work of design but it is the unexpected innovative repercussions that can in fact provide for something that functions not only efficiently but creates discourse for new design methods. This ties into a strong point made in the discussion of whether design need always be radical and “new” and that this can in fact lead to less successful works. Sometimes it is better to take a step back and integrate such notions of laziness and referenced designs. And doing so not only for new works but in the development of that which already exists in order to drive adaptation that often is lacking in modern day projects set to last only 30 years.
1 In ‘12 reasons to get back into shape’ Somol points out that the definition of shape is easy, expendable, graphic, adaptable, empty and cool etc. Shape is an essential element in the architecture world. How does we relates shape to painting and architecture design in contemporary world?
2 In ‘Green Dot’ Somol mentioned four ways of creation—-figuration, notation, articulation and decoration. How does Eisemen’s work relate to modern architecture?
3 In ‘On Laziness_ Sculptural Mathematics and Ingenuity’ Neutlings claims that laziness is one of architect’s characteristics. Laziness is somehow helpful to architect as architect creates something new in the design. Is there a way to apply this tendency as a design method in the architecture at certain degree?
This week presentation’s topic is about recycling, typology and concepts. The topics implicitly indicate the laziness is a different term under conceal. Laziness actually represents authenticity, reservation and speedy. It is beneficial for architect to bring laziness into their design. Architects should treat it as a methodology when they are designing. If there is an old project needed replacement or designing a new project from the start, laziness will be helpful for architect to process their design in a smart way. Laziness is not an absolute representation of quickest solution but rather represents a highly efficient mean in terms of recycling of material, structure and design. Using laziness is more like simplifying the design with clear and strong concept rather than intense design of the space or detail that conflict the reality and culture.
1. In, On Laziness, by W.J. Neutelings, he explains the hidden successes of laziness, and how instead of avoiding and discriminating against such flaws, one can use them to their benefit. Admittedly this is an incredibly fine line to navigate but it begs the question of applicability in the demographics of today’s building environment. Is this laziness a quality that architects need to possess more of in an attempt to refine their aspirations for the divine pursuit, or it this just an excuse to those who don’t share the same determination as others. Is there a definitive proportion of laziness relative to the design and production?
2. Shape is regarded as this indistinct form, one where it shares a duality of compositions, being both hallow/empty yet whole, or rhetorical and philosophical yet real. It is said that shape has become taboo, but typically that which is taboo is something defined and universally understood, and thus universally disdained. How could shape, something without much definition, and littered with esoteric heterogeneity be taboo? Is this abrasiveness due to the fact that we understand its intrinsic nature and dislike that core, or is it that we can’t decipher it, and so we choose be distant from that which we can’t understand?
3. With the contexts of Neutelings and Somol/Whiting writings, the word shape has many definitions and yet with all of those characterizations, it has only desisted our efforts to understand the arcane. Have architects, designers, artists become the sole reason why shape has lost its meaning? Has the hyper-critical nature of such analyses rendered the meaning of shape to nothing? The notion of overthinking is applicable in this instance where it is seen with the constant determined efforts to interrogate. Is the more pressing void, one of space and design, or of our minds?
The discussion of laziness as it relates to architecture was interesting to listen to, given the various perspectives on the context of laziness. Although the term is often pejorative in nature, there are some clever uses of it that can yield incredible results. The example of Frank Lloyd Wright procrastinating for weeks, and then developing one of the most famous American houses in history was not only humorous, but a testament of how to use laziness as a tool. Admittedly Wright was an expert of design and residential form, but perhaps laziness can give your mind enough time to breathe, and to reassess the design in a way that was hidden before. Too often do people get wound up with production and deadlines, that they don’t give themselves a moment of air, whether physical or philosophical. These moments of solitude could give you the very answers you’ve been struggling to conquer. But in all honestly, things of this nature only work in moderation, it’s just a matter of calibration. Now this is the literal interpretation of laziness, there is the more architectural and design oriented questions, and how one designs smarter through restoration, but the lesson is all the same. Laziness through subtraction and rehabilitation as opposed to new construction and wasteful design, can be more appropriate remedies to new problems. Its a matter of context and suitability.
1) In “Green Dots 101” Somol discusses the “teachability” of design procedures (like Green Dots) and raises the question of why does Architectural theory have to be formulaic with set concepts or rules that qualify it as “Architecture”. The question is not how to teach these “Green Dots”, but rather why they were given authority to become concepts of Architectural projects in the first place?
2) “Twelve Reasons to Get Back into Shape” mentions how Architects commonly reject and criticize the simple and straight forward. Are architects simply being cynical when they do this and is the pressure to have complicated ideas a result of a hypocritical mindset in the profession?
3) Neutelings’ article “On Laziness” discusses how laziness is commonly a useful tool in Architecture. Omission of certain standard practices (i.e. drawing, design concept trends) allows for a more interesting conversation or dialogue, so the question is what is truly important when making a design proposal (how do you do it, who gets to decide) and how do you maximize your point by using minimum effort?
1. Rem Koolhaas`s earliest work explores the diagram as a symbolic form to create voids space more logical by shaping them to be inhabit by creating their own logic with a symbolic of discontinuous form. Why Shifting the voids space became a new strategy to explore a new architecture horizontal?
2. 12 reasons to get back into shape, R. E. Somol argues for an idea of “shape” in architecture. The term shape is a term that is related to form and mass, but distinct from them in critically important ways. Why a shape doesn’t require special pleading?
3. In Neutelings article on laziness, Neutelings goes over laziness as one the most useful method in architecture, which I disagreed because the laziness wont pursuit integrated in a project, however it pursuits simplification. Why laziness is one the most useful method in architecture?
One of the main themes for this week’s topic of Projective and Shape is the idea of change or explore a new architecture horizontal. The changes in architectural are crucial for diverse reasons as new diagram forms, graphic styles or translate a building shape into a logo. For example, Rem Koolhaas explores innovate change through diagram as a symbolic form to create voids space more logical by shaping them to be inhabit by creating their own logic with a symbolic of discontinuous form. Another main theme for this week was laziness, how laziness became one the method in architecture, which I disagreed because the laziness wont pursuit integrated in a project. But laziness pursuits less effort which a lot of people do not like to put effort in a project and pursuing laziness you won’t be able to maximum and archive your points or thought through a design proposal because during a design proposal is truly important to dialogue or discusses with your colleagues
1. Neutelings discusses the various ways that laziness can help us improve our designs. He states that one way to utilize laziness is through recycling buildings rather than building new ones in their place. Why is such a strategy, that is so helpful to the environment, perceived in such a negative way through the word “laziness”? Shouldn’t we be describing these strategies with a term that is viewed as more positive than negative?
2. How can we produce a shape in architecture that does not appear empty and is more than just an exterior condition?
3. Rem Koolhaas discusses how they are only dealing with quantities rather than aesthetics in “S,M,L,XL”. In what ways are theses voids merely dealing with quantity and not aesthetics at all? Don’t we all, to some extent, think about the beauty of our designs subconsciously?
This week’s lecture and presentation explored the ideas of the void in architecture along with the ways in which our laziness as designers can be beneficial. The negative spaces in our designs can end up being the most thought out spaces even though they are not built but rather subtracted from the form itself. Our most innovative designs are typically ones which are both visually pleasing to us and also are sustainable. The sustainability that we strive for can be achieved through reusing buildings rather than tearing them down and building once more. This strategy of reusing a building is just one of the ways Neutelings describes the benefits of laziness in the field of architecture. While this method may appear to be the easier way out, it certainly should not be categorized with such a negative term like lazy.
1. Is laziness actually one of an architect’s most useful characteristics? Let’s say one decides to partake in this idea of laziness, where do they draw the line and how far will they take this idea in their professional career before it affects the public wellbeing?
2. In “Strategy of the Void” The Very Big Library is defined as a solid block of information with the major public spaces are defined as absences of building. But it goes on to say “Since they are voids – they do not have to be built” – individual libraries can be shaped strictly according to their logic, independent of each other…” Usually, when one thinks of a major public space it’s a focal point within the building where the public would circulate through and or gather around to look down upon such an immersive space. But with the individual libraries being independent of each other does that mean the voids are enclosed or can the libraries still interact with each other? Is one better than the other meaning should the voids have their own individuality or should they somehow be intertwined with each other?
3. When it comes to shape in architecture should one allow it to control their design or should it be there just to strengthen the design? Another question that arises is should we design from the inside out or from the outside in and is there a right or wrong or is one better than the other?
1. The Doppler Effect described by Somol and Whiting measures the interactions between waves to project future conditions at localized points. This related to what is described as a ‘projective’ architecture where it is not derived from a single articulation of form or program, but is generated by the surrounding culture and design. If culture, technology, market forces, etc. are constantly changing, then too would the architecture have to be rapidly reinventing itself? Is there any way that a once critical form of architecture can evolve into a projective?
2. In R.E. Somol’s 12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape, he discusses shape as being, “Easy”, “Empty”, and “Arbitrary”. In this way, shape is becoming a representation of architecture rather than a constructed form. If shapes are originally derived from nature and begin to take on more complex constructions, then is shape truly considered “cool” and conceptually vacant? How then can architects begin to completely restrain from conceptualizing a building in order for it to take on its own identity? Would there be no constraints?
3. Within On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics and Ingenuity, Neutelings attests that laziness allows the architect to have more freedom, which leads to ingenuity. While this may appear lazy, the amount of thought and innovative ideas generates “a lot of effort” which equates the work avoided in the first place. Is laziness then still the more efficient method for design? Hard work is something that can be achieved over time, but is everyone able to take on this mentality of laziness?
Eisenmen was set on prescribing a process for design, but in moving away from a laborious process, design aligns itself more closely to the perception of laziness. There is a negative connotation of laziness, which associates it with a more apathetic attitude. The panel discussed procrastination or attempting to do less work to accomplish the same outcome, both of which might derive from a lack of initial concern. However, laziness can also correlate with the idea of working smart, not hard and maintaining efficiency. Step 3 of Neuteling’s essay asserts that architects should reuse historical typologies and concepts in a “contemporary vision”. This relates back to Reyner Banham and the idea of intentionally misreading history in order to develop a new lineage of thought. Being able to find this potential in historical buildings and reinvent them in some way is essential to obtaining sustainability. This might be lazy in the sense that a new building is not being generated, but if the amount of thought and concern for the architecture and surrounding community is present in the design then I think it is equally as effective as the more laborious process such as with Eisenmen.
1. Somol talks about all these different categories that a shape can fall into but how can a shape become a building?
2. Somol also talks about how it seems like architects are trying too hard to create and using the word shape as a something no one uses. How can architects methodically use shapes and not be afraid of them?
3. Eisenman discusses how a piece of architecture should show its conceptual construction and have it become legible to those who seek it. Should the reasoning for things within a building be legible or should they be up for interpretation?
1. A shape can become a building by using all the different categories they can fall into. A shape can account for the emptiness found in buildings, the coolness someone can find in a building, and the hollowness an area could have.
2.Architects should use shapes and not be afraid of them because even the most simple of shapes can create the most interesting forms. They should be able to use more shapes than just the square and the circle to drive their idea.
3. I think there should be a visible concept present in the architecture, however I think the building should be up for the audience’s interpretation. The concept should be clear but not explicitly written out. I think the architect should have his own meaning for things that maybe people never know of but people could walk into a building and notice that some things look like they go together or that there might be a bigger meaning behind something.
1. In Rem Koolhaas’s Strategy of the Void, he makes the remark “…is ‘fuck context’ becoming a theme?” in reference to the increasing number of designs that compose of the “‘neatness’ of the new architectural landscape”. If the “neatness” he is referring to is the standalone building that has been built in a different style to those within its context, then can buildings of differing styles still respond to each other within the same context?
2. Carl Andre states “a shape is a hole in a thing it is not”. The power of the shape is that it is nothing and everything at once. It is both structure and void at the same time. How can something so trivial also be something of such great importance?
3. In Green Dots 101, R. E. Somol states “those who can, do, and those who can’t, teach.”, although many of the greatest teachers were the ones who “do”. How has this concept of “doing” or “teaching” changed over time?
The question on “laziness” was interesting in how it is interpreted in discussion. At first glance it seemed as though laziness was taken literally in the sense that people were supporting doing less work. It was believed that by waiting until the last minute, one would not overthink the work and therefore be more productive. But the idea of laziness was not to be taken directly. The purpose of this question is to consider the elimination of extra work in accordance with the population at large. If people began to start designing less buildings from scratch, and dedicate more time to bettering those already built, it both simplifies the workload of the designer (laziness) and improves the lives of those whose interact with those places. The laziness mention is then known not as the amount of work done, but as the simplicity in which it is done.
1) Rem Koolhaas refers to his library as “formless architecture” but it clearly has a form and a set of formal ideas that surround it. The idea of voids and subtracting from the building create their own form, why does he call it formless?
) In 12 reasons to get in shape R. E. Somol talks about how using shape is now seen as the easy way out. He wants to bring shape back, “architecture doesn’t have to hurt.” As architecture progresses it gets more and more complex, is there something to be said about the simplicity of shape? Why do we strive to continue to out do ourselves as architects by achieving harder and more complex architectural feats?
3) “Eisenman’s problem is not really with the dubious ability to teach green dots, but with the very existence of green dots at all.” Says Somol in Green dots 101. We are taught a lot of abstract ideas as architecture students, is it our job to discern whether or not they actually exist in the real world?
Shape has become taboo for architects because it can be seen as basic. The idea of architecture is changing and evolving and for some using shapes just doesn’t cut it anymore. However, shapes can become great architecture if they have formal ideas. In Rem Koolhaas’ library he uses shapes by creating voids in the building which has a bounding box of another shape. The idea of a simple shape can be transformed into something vastly different. The shape is ambiguous, anything can be created from it. The ambiguity in shapes allows the transformation from boring to amazing architecture. An interesting point made by Neutelings and mentioned in the presentation that stood out to me was that laziness can be a good thing, especially in architects. “work smarter, not harder” might be a better way to phrase it. In our world today we need people that can work with recycled materials or reuse and repurpose materials and buildings. It is up to architects to see the potential in reusing and recycling, especially when a lot of people don’t recognize the urgency of climate change. To help our Earth we have to be lazy in the sense that we can’t keep getting materials that aren’t renewable or knocking down old buildings to make new ones. Be lazy and work with what’s already there.
1. Many architects seem to be searching for this new approach in architecture. Somol and Whiting name their idea as “the now dominant paradigm,” by linking critical architecture with projective architecture. What aspects of their concept would you use and what aspects wouldn’t you implement?
2. Freya Stark stated: “A part of all art is to make silence speak. The things left out in painting, the note withheld in music, the void in architecture – all are as necessary and as active as the utterance itself.” In your opinion, how do voids in architecture speak to you?
3. From the 12 key words, argued by Somol in reference to the philosophy of “shape” in architecture, which words do you believe are more integral to his stance? Which words do you believe could use more rigor in its explanation?
In conflicting manner, architects strive to create these new and innovative designs but they also strive to take the “laziest” approach possible. Designing new and innovative is perceived with rose colored lenses and isn’t necessarily the best approach. Meanwhile, laziness tends to have this negative connotation surrounding it, but it’s really all about finding the most efficient way to accomplish a task in the most time effective manner. Like all things in architecture it boils down to finding a balance. Neither method is better than the other, it just seems like some methods are more neglected than others. In the articles and during seminar attention is brought to the importance of this balance. The solution for every situation isn’t to always knock down what is currently present and rebuilding something new. Sometimes using spaces and voids you can re-purpose a currently existing space, which could also accomplish your goal while approaching design in a more efficient manner. Laziness leads to ingenuity, which can stem from creating within something already created.
1. As architects, it is ingrained in us to always create something new. Is it also our responsibility to try to reuse and recycle buildings, so as not to create architectural waste? And does it require the same design skills to reuse a building as it does to create a new one?
2. In the Koolhass reading, it talks about how the world was beginning to experience an electronic revolution while he was doing a project to design a large library. Can architectural design reverse or influence the course of a revolution – social, political, or economic? If so, how?
3. Why is it necessary to explicitly distinguish shape and form? There are characteristics shared by both, so why must they be studies as autonomous beings?
One of the more interesting parts of the lecture was the discussion on ambiguity. The theory behind ‘green dots’ is about overcoming the criticality of shape, and ambiguity is the perfect answer to that. The use of ambiguity also allows for greater ease of accessibility. It makes the architecture a pleasant, but more importantly, understandable experience for everyone. I think this happens because ambiguous shapes tend to be relatively simple, or at least the look as if they could have been easy to come up with. This is important because lack of detail tends to lead to the ability to capture a larger audience. Sometimes it is possible for architects and designers to overthink and do too much in their designs. However, this often leads to their design being alienated by the public and the community it was created for because they do not understand it. If an architect’s design is only understood by other architects, then it is not a successful, or accessible, design. This is not to say that trained architects won’t find a deeper meaning within buildings, it just means that buildings, and architecture in general, needs to operate on multiple levels. A level that is understandable to all/most, and a level that speaks to the higher ideas of architecture.
1. In 12 Reasons to Get Back Into Shape, it implies rules for what a shape should be, such as buoyant, adaptive, and low resolution. Along with these statements, it says shape should be arbitrary and expendable, but do these characteristics not clash if such rules are imposed?
2. In On Laziness, it says that architects are able to have full creativity and ingenuity when unbound by programmatic details. Whilst being true, it is only a small percentage of freedom that they have. With that being said, how can architects think creatively and “outside the box” whilst being tied down to a list of specific programs?
3. In Green Dots, it is mentioned that newer, more expensive modeling programs are hindering architects’ ability to be inventive. Is this true? And if it is, how can we start incorporating older techniques of modeling into this new, tech-savvy design style we live?
The panel brought up a thought provoking question of “does laziness actually create ingenuity and increase efficiency?”. It is important to realize that the word laziness is being used ironically and also as a general concept. For example, the Very Big Library by OMA, mentioned by James during the lecture, is intriguing in that they were able to revisit the typical cube and make quite revolutionary. OMA uses their “laziness” to redefine shape in architecture. It is lazy due to the typical geometry of the building, a cube, but it is radical in their use of excavation and removal of mass to create new shapes, on the interior. Another view of “laziness” that was brought up was the recycling of old buildings, which is very environmentally and economically friendly. However, the anthesis would be that there is not a lot of room to create truly new designs, which brings up the question of how can we decrease our ecological footprint while also creating new architecture?
1. In the article “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape” shape is said to be criticized by architects while they accept form and mass. If shape is being explained as this adaptable medium why shouldn’t architects claim it?
2. In “Strategy of the Void” the author writes about how architecture must focus on its last function “the creation of the symbolic spaces that accommodate the persistent desire for collectivity.” Can the human desire for collectivity be the only factor to lead to the creation of space?
3. In ” Laziness Recycling Sculptural Mathematics and Ingenuity” the author writes about how recycling old buildings, typologies, concepts, and strategies is considered lazy. Would you consider it lazy seeing that with this process you are able to gain the notions of the previous design and keep improving upon it leading to a more developed and innovative product?
Your first thought when you hear the adjective lazy is usually negative. However, when you apply the term to architecture (or just your thought processes in general) you can see how it positively impacts one’s processes. What is identified as laziness isn’t always defined by an unwillingness to work. To think completely outside of the box and be able to come up with unthought of designs and ideas within architecture can be very difficult. By using this “lazy” process of thought it enables you to excel in other ways and create a more effective, logical, and beneficial outcome. By revisiting things people are able to redefine and repurpose them increasing the new while bringing up, unseen before, resolutions and issues. The laziness approach creates a more efficient way of bringing about innovation and ingenuity.
1.R.E. Somol’s “Green Dots” discusses the simplicity the green dots concept, which is inherently similar to the ideas of the ‘ink blots’ discussed in the previous lecture. Eisenman questions the understanding of the green dots concept, saying that the “real problem isn’t that teaching green dots is too confusing or complicated, but that it’s too easy”. How is simplicity in architecture misunderstood or forgotten in the world of design?
2. Two common themes mentioned, particularly in “12 Reasons” and “Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism”, are mobility and cyclical production. How is the existence of the architecture affected by its ability to change? Should architecture be designed to remain structured for its lifecycle or adapt with its changing environment?
3. In “12 reasons”, the concept that, “Form is essential…it is made fit for a purpose, contingent…whereas shape adapts”. Are the two concepts entirely distinct or are they capable of working together in combination and how does this apply to the architecture of design?
This lecture has clarified the concept of simplicity in terms of design and architecture. While laziness is often considered a synonym with simplicity, the term to me means efficiency and ability to change over time. Another major topic discussed throughout the class and the readings was the focus on inconsistent entities that are constantly in a state of change and motion. The two concepts, simplicity and adaptability coincide with one another. Does simplicity mean complexity in its meaning rather than complexity in its form? Form and shape play a major role in this concept.
1. Within the reading “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, a Ingenuity,” It is stated that many forms of architecture is created using mathematical equations. This can be seen with ancient Greek architecture, where the pillars are made with specific dimensions that could be used to design the rest of a temple. My question is: Is it possible for a building to be seen as well-planned without following a pattern as a base of design?
2. In the Reading “Strategy of the Void,” there are many examples to how crucial including void is to architecture. Many buildings have different amounts of void within them, each one given the amount needed to punctuate the building’s design. Is it possible, however, for there to be a building that uses as little void as possible while still being viable?
3. The “12 reasons to Get Back into Shape” reading talks about the different ways shape helps to create architecture. There is one thing I don’t understand when it comes the reading. It is implied that it is possible that shape is not integral to architecture. How can shape be used to design architecture?
Within architecture, form and shape are the cores of design. There are many ways to look at how we can shape a building. In one form, there is iconicity, where the building can be set to follow the shape of a common object or symbol. This has resulted in both amazing buildings, as well as less than spectacular designs. Another style of designing form is through a change of prioritization. Instead of focusing the form and then inserting the required machinery inside, some architects focuses the placement of the machine and forms the shape to what is needed. This can create very unique buildings that can provide an industrial or futuristic design.
It is stated that a lazy man will find the easiest way to complete their job. This holds true for most architects. One method that they have used for thousands of years is the method of basing the designs and measurements off of mathematical equations. This idea goes back to even the ancient Greek civilizations, where the temples would be based off of the Pythagorean Theorem, fitted into the pillars as the plan to the rest of the building, rather than building a unique temple each time. Even though laziness may seem like a bad habit, when it comes to architecture, it can lead to amazing ideas.
1. In the “12 reason to get back in shape” reading by Somol, he cites many reason why the Shape in its simplest form has been rejected because of it’s implicit simplicity. There is a paradox in Architecture in that we reject the simple often citing it to be taboo, too easy, or generic, but in a similar way we design with conventions that have been laid out before us. How do you feel Rule-of-Thumbs guide architectural practice and do you see this convention of design as productive or a burden?
2. A step back to “Green Dots”; Becoming critical of design and reasoning and pulling back the curtain to a simple theory, Green Dots. This is provocative in nature but is one of the true architectural challenges for architects who’ve come before us. Green Dots could mean everything and nothing. I feel often we skip past the Green Dots and go straight to convention of design, burdened by our fancy tools and programs. Do you feel that we don’t think enough about the “Green Dots” in our architecture here at school?
3. We’ve talked quite extensively regarding Indexes and the forces that play a part in our lives. One of the main Indexes I see in society is Power. Political or monetary power, both of which have driven the field of Architecture to what it is today and in some ways is why the field exists today. Do you feel Architecture in service of the index of power does justice to our intentions as architects? or is it just the means for realization of our vision?
1-“Form is essential, whereas shape adapts, it is made fit for a purpose, contingent” (12 reasons to get back into shape SOMOL). If the saying is true and form follows function, and the architecture will be based on the function it houses, how does shape effect architecture. Or is it an architectural idea that shapes space?
2-If a diagram is a representation of the virtual and the index is a representational trace of the real, how can the index become a physical diagram to connect the virtual idea and the augmented reality the index creates? Is this how an architectural diagram is expressed physically?
3-How can we as architects take old building and recycle then whist still creating new architecture? Will this laziness continue a loop of repetitiveness in architecture or can we recycle buildings in a way that is economical and ecological whist still creating new ideas and new forms of architecture for the future.
Shape and form must be balanced in architecture. Can shape be the same factor for understanding architecture that form is? It can be, because once shape is implemented into a building design it is given a particular meaning. Shape is what gives personality and character to a building whereas, form is what describes the greater function and program. Yet the success for a program is not only limited to form. The shapes that are in a space ( like voids for negative space) introduce new opportunities for what program may be housed there.
The discussion of laziness is an interesting one as well and an important factor in architecture. Although laziness has a negative connotation to it, in architecture it is surprisingly positive. It becomes a form of efficiency in building. Unlike the usual connotation of the word, it actually provides a new force of creative expression. It take something already designed, created and built and augmenting it into something radical and new takes more effort than would be thought. Yet at the same time the exiting construction does allow for laziness to ensue; the thing is already built, how do we now change it to give it new meaning, new life and to create a new movement of architecture. There were the modernists, the futurists, will this form of building become the re-cyclists movement?
Contemporary Design Approaches 
1. In “12 Reasons to Get Back in Shape” by R.E. Somol, an imperative for architects to reconsider “shape” as a design driver is presented. The “shape” is discussed as something that is graphic and indefinite as an object, as well as a void that responds to its direct context. However, while this is true in a two-dimensional, virtual reality, how do you believe this translates into the three-dimensional realm?
2. In Notes on the Doppler Effect and Other Moods in Modernism, Koolhaas refers to architecture, especially in relation to the Dom-ino Drawing by Le Corbusier and the Barcelona Pavilion by Mies Van De Rohe, as something “… for seducing, becoming, instigating new events and behaviors.” This philosophy implies that architecture does not exist as a singular entity, but rather as a product whose sole purpose is to influence and allude to a “next big thing”. How do you believe we can sustain the individuality and novelty of an architectural piece in a society that constantly desires the “next big thing”?
3. Koolhaas uses the power of “shape” in his Very Big Library to define void both in a symbolic as well as literal sense. The voids serve as a residual, communal space to an otherwise solid program of virtual information, implying that the physical program of library has been replaced by a data base. Based on the times that we live in where more and more physical items are becoming digital, will the presence of simple programs of living and human interaction start to dominate the program schemes of modern buildings?
LikeLike
There seems to be a debate between whether architectural expression should emphasize the design process to the point at which it can only be understood through this process or whether the formal qualities should be explicit and digestible. One of the main critiques of Peter Eisenman’s work is the fact that it cannot be approached or interpreted in a different way from the way he has prescribed you to understand his work. While this process is founded in a design methodology that is heavily developed and dense in content, it limits the average viewer from accessibility. Often it seems that architects attach so much value to the ideas and “process”, that they forget that architects are not the single entity that inhabit the spaces we create. In fact, the vast majority of the public has little to no understanding of the architectural field, creating an immense lack of “proper” perception of a work of architecture. The value of architecture should not be held on how intelligent and calculated the concept of a building can be, but rather how conscious and impactful it can be to a much wider audience. Whether it be through a focus on a sensory experience, a contextual relation, or a programmatic experimentation, architecture should be shaped by the people it was made for and leave the design process in the office.
LikeLike
1. R.E Somol discusses the role of shape in design, specifically within the field of architecture. He states ” An architectural bastard or no-name clone, shape has no need to point back to its paternity for justification. In a profession prone to confession, shape is never having to say you’re sorry.” In this sense how does shape play into the role of an architect? Does it begin to imply that an architects’ formal identity and authorship hold a greater importance than that of the architects responsibility to respond to societal and cultural conditions?
2. While discussing the Doppler Effect and the moods of modernism , Somol describes the index as a mediator for the ‘between’ because it automatically combines materialism with significance. While Hays describes the Barcelona Pavilion as ” an event with temporal duration, whose actual existence is continually being produced.” This calls into question the lifespan or mortality of architectural works, both physical and theoretical. What is the most significant architecture in terms of history and in the future? And how does the view of these works affect the influence of individual architects themselves?
3. Peter Eisenman questioned Somol’s theory on ‘Green Dots’ with the simply worded yet inherently complex question ” How do you teach Green Dots? ” This brings in greater questions of representation within architecture and of the implicit correlations within the question itself. Somol describes these correlations as ” the association of the geometric with an architectural project of critical representation or description, and the graphic with the performative or projective.” Along this same idea, if we think of architecture as an essentialist object, can the architectural object be projective or is it confined to the cultural and societal constraints it is created within?
LikeLike
Just as thinking of the role of shape and form in a creating an architects identity brings into question the role or greater purpose of architects in society so does the concept of ‘Laziness’ within architecture. During the seminar it was discussed that ‘laziness’ does not always equate to the easiest or quickest solution but rather one that is efficient in terms of the recycling of materials, structure or base-work of former architectural works, along with responding to the social/cultural qualities present. This concept is different however to the reality of certain architects who are in fact lazy, in a non-ironical sense, where time is spent on purely one aspect of architecture (e.g. aesthetic) without also considering all the other dynamic possibilities. The presenting group also described graphic populism as a technique to broaden the appeal of building by reducing the information people need to process. This could be interpreted as a branch off from the ‘aesthetic object’ type of architecture that becomes more about the people than the designer. However this could be somewhat of a trick as in a sense the technique of graphic populism becomes a form of laziness itself by simplifying the building to make it more understandable, instead of intensely designing the program and space in a way that brings the local culture to meet the complex architectural world.
LikeLike
1. Koolhass discusses how architecture should be a product of influence both culturally and socially to strive for the next architectural movement. How does this reflect and contradict with the fact that in modern cities there has been such a push for architecturally driven urban spaces which thrive for contextual context of its surroundings and are pockets of spaces rather a whole space?
2. In the Dopper Effect and the moods of modernism Koolhass and Somol place an importance in contextual influence and materialism. However, many great influencers of early modern architecture only worked in drawing without anything ever being built, what do their theoretical works of architecture at the time have to say on the impact they have given on the overall progression of architecture? Through this logic is it any less than architecture that in fact was physically built and through its physicality was able to have for of a presence culturally and socially?
3. Modern architecture along with its presence seems to come with a lifespan. Architects and the community places such a high importance on provocative architecture that changes the meaning of architecture itself yet still places a lifespan on it. Differently throughout early history such as in roman times buildings were thought to last forever and currently we spend so much time preserving them. What does this have to say about our priorities in architecture? Do modern buildings that change the meaning of architecture even have a chance to last longer than intended to and to acquire that level of importance and historical significance for the future?
LikeLike
The analysis of architecture styles of the past is hence a reinterpretation of what we can only assume were the ideals of the past. Unless the creators of that particular piece of architecture or important faces of a particular style give their impression on the ideals and figural forms of the constructs of that style, the reinterpretations can launch a completely different view or movement such as what happened with the futurism movements and the importance of the machine. The combination of modernism and the theoretical ideas of the bringing together of architecture and the machine defined modernism for a time and was arguably one of the most radical influential forms on modern architecture. It brought new forms and shapes to architecture. In the Dopper Effect and the moods of modernism the reading didn’t place an importance on theoretical works as much as works that had been produced but I would argue that the movement of the futurists prove that as invalid. That movement and combination of the machine and architecture created a new radical and provocative artform to architecture which has arguably been carried through current forms of architecture by its radical forms and combination with technology.
LikeLike
1. The structural grid is described as “necessary to maintain continuity” in reference to Peter Eisenman’s design process. The conversation then shifts from the line to the curve, and how the new generation has called for a “new generic.” How does the curve regulate under the same capacities as the regulating line? How does non orthogonality relate to its context and avoid becoming self referential as an object?
2. What is laziness and how is recycling a building considered lazy? Sometimes it requires greater consideration to comply with preexisting conditions and balance new intentions.
3. Architecture is a discipline that is all encompassing and takes into account issues that are ever changing. Architectural ideas have proven to be timeless, but how can there ever be a perfect formula for creating timeless Architecture? Are there any buildings that actually stand t he test of time or is it actually only the ideas and what they represent that does?
LikeLike
Robert Venturi’s diagram of the duck in relation to the decorated ahead concludes two distinct typologies, outlining the difference between an all-encompassing figuration or silhouette. When Architecture focuses so much on shape, form, and developing new form, the result is something like a silhouette, so strong it becomes an object, or an icon within its context. I disagree with Rem Koolhaas’’ position on the integrity of context. What makes something iconic is its ability to stand out among its context, and with the help of hierarchy, people are afforded a certain mood about a building and the city becomes a series of overlapping moods and unique senses. If buildings were produced neglecting its surrounding physical context in its place, and the social context of its time, not only would we be living in a wallyworld of sculptures, but circulatory, infrastructural, historical, and ecological systems would go ignored – or chaos.
LikeLike
1. W.J. Neutelings speaks at length about the programmatic, social, and environmental benefits of designing void spaces as an integral part of the building. In Koolhaas’ writing, he discusses the potential of electronics/the digital “to eliminate all necessity for concentration and physical embodiment.” Is it possible for these void spaces Neutelings advocates for become a container for digital spaces, such as virtual and augmented reality scenarios? How would that manifest, both physically (if at all) and digitally?
2. Somol, like many contemporary architectural writers, is interested in the use of language to describe architecture. In last week’s readings, we discussed the “blob” as a type of architectural form. Now, we are looking at Koolhaas’s “voids” and Somol’s “shapes;” the meanings of the three seem to merge and overlap in parts. How could we write about these three terms in ways to make the distinctions (or unities) between them clear? Could a certain hierarchy or nesting be applied to relate these items?
3. Projective architecture – an architecture more concerned with context, culture, etc than formal operations, process, etc – is discussed in the text by Somol and Whiting as a shift from “hot” to “cool” architecture. Are there larger contextual underpinnings to these shifts between hot and cool architecture, ie. is the change from hot to cool internal to the practice or a product of the growing external demands of society?
LikeLike
W.J. Neutelings’ essay “On Laziness” playfully discusses several points as to why architects should be lazier, including deriving forms from existing typologies and concepts, reducing and recycling construction, and using ingenuity in design. In the class discussion, the idea of the difference between laziness and efficiency was brought up, and we discussed students’ patterns of workflow, laziness, and efficiency. What Neutelings’ seems to be arguing for is not for architects to procrastinate on their work more – as students often do – or to make their work of lower quality, but instead to work with more efficiency and cleverness. The counterpoint to this, that some famous architects have been able to produce masterworks in a matter of hours, seems to be a rare exception rather than the standard. Neutelings advocates for architects to be more conscientious of their work, working harder to make simpler, better decisions which can spare architects of time and complex schemes.
LikeLike
1. In “12 Reasons to Get Back in Shape” by R.E. Somol, Somol mentions how shapes are, “simply cool or boring,” but he also mentions how shape is adaptable. Can a shape adapt in which it goes from boring to cool or vice versa?
2. In the reading, “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics & Ingenuity” by Neutelings, W. J. several ways are mentioned on how laziness can work in the architectural world, but the closing thought stated no matter how successful the method is, the major disadvantage is that it all requires a lot of work. If the laziness methodology is not taken, then what is to be done about abandoned structures located on the given site?
3. In the “Green Dots” reading, there is a step where it says to saturate with a monotone treatment. My question is, why is that necessary, why can’t you just skip to step 5?
LikeLike
1. Shape could adapt giving new meaning and perception whether it be by means of illusion or physical change. My understanding is that if a shape were able to actively switch between states, even at its “boring state” we would consider it cool just by knowledge of its ability.
2. In some scenarios, the laziness tactic is taken but not used fully, some old buildings become a new “hybrid” building where the original building was only partially destroyed and the remaining structure flows into the new fresh structure.
3. From what I understand, you don’t skip the step as it could provide a new understanding of the form.
LikeLike
1. In the “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape,” the author speaks of shape as an unwanted tool by architects. One of the few reasons the “simple” factor is utilized is as a void for it possesses complexity with the fact that it is a shape that is not seen but seen through. It is perplexing. Shapes were in fact found in nature and are capable of sustaining things up in the material world where massing and form fail. Why is it that architects do away with shape even though shape’s simplicity is in fact its difficulty and leads to complexity? Or perhaps simplicity is what architecture needs?
2. Architecture, as an entity and discipline, is a form of representation indicative of the times and culture. In addition, the architect builds architecture with the cultural mindset at play. At what point do we separate the architect and the architecture for it is humans that design and are influenced by the times? Is architecture a type of flexible material or does it have a say? Does it speaks for the people, and therefore speaks to the architect through culture or vice versa?
3. Can architecture really be rid of all responsibilities since voids or empty spaces are now being used to save urban architecture, clean up cities, and allow communication between the people within cities? Is that not a responsibility that influences architecture, or lack thereof?
LikeLike
At this time in architecture, urbanism has become a problem due to its rise in unhealthy sanitation issues and overpopulation. In addition, people within the city tend to not communicate with each other, establishing a lack of a united culture. This is where this week’s readings come into play. The point was made about shapes and voids being too simple. The ego of architects has blown up to where they only create something unnecessarily complex. As mentioned in the presentations and readings, architecture is not about the architect. It seems that architecture needs simplicity, while architects need laziness. In order to save the discipline and definition of urbanism, architects need to use voids in order to open up space to provide a clean and gathering space for citizens. A void is simple but it also represents meaning; in this case, it would represent the relationship between people in the city as well as their relationship with the existing architecture. Lastly, laziness is hard work. This is what architects should possess, in cities especially. There is no need to demolish buildings to create their complex “masterpiece.” Renovating buildings should be seen as a serious consideration or option, not to mention that it would be of more difficult measure to create something new from someone else’s old. It was talked about last week that renovating or transforming is still considered creating something new. It is still architecture. We must take these steps as architects to allow for the improvement of urban cities.
LikeLike
1. In the reading “12 Ways to Get Back in Shape”, R. E. Somol argues that shape is anything and by that it is cool because “it has no need to point back to its paternity for justification.” If only architecture was perceived as ‘cool’, would the boundaries of architecture be limitless due to this justification?
2. According to Neutelings, laziness can be used as a design strategy with varying degrees of success because laziness leads to recycling, sculptural mathematics, and ingenuity of buildings. Should laziness be an attitude so that designs that are difficult would be easy to understand and use?
3. A logo is a generic category used as a graphic representation. Comparing the figuration of John Hejduk and the decoration of Robert Venturi to recent architectural projects that show the difference of shape and saturation, do the graphics of these styles determine the formal qualities of these projects?
LikeLike
In this week’s presentation, laziness was explained in several ways as beneficial for architecture. These strategies include recycling buildings by saving previous geometry and renovating it, sculptural mathematics by using mathematical concepts to guide design processes, and ingenuity by allowing laziness to generate design development. One example is the “Zilverzijde” Social Housing by Atelier Kempe Thill, located in Amsterdam. The distinguishing idea of this project was basing their buildings on the existing street and block structure because the street grid was impossible to change, so the architects adhered exactly to the surrounding lots. The housing complex formed a border on the edge of the area. Thus, architecture is projectile; it is related to moving entities. There can always be a new way to produce architecture. It is only a matter of understanding and calculating the given ecological, cultural, and social system.
LikeLike
1. In the readings from the previous week, there was the idea that “new” architecture isn’t really new because it is simply a new design based on principles and styles that already exist. In Neuteling’s reading this week, it was said that 66% of what is done to a building is based on a code that the architect has to follow, which only leaves room for 33% of the building to actually truly be designed by the architect. Do you think following code contributes to the reason of not being able to create a new architecture?
2. The interior of a building is usually designed using the constraints of the exterior of the building. The interior (in this case) is created based on the exterior form, rather than having a form for itself. In Somol’s “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape”, he says that with shape, “[the] inside is inconsistent with its exterior treatment (unlike [with] form)”. How is shape different from form?
3. Laziness is known as the quality of being unwilling to work or use energy or effort. It is known as taking the easy way, or the way where more is done for you. In the reading by Neutelings, “On Laziness Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, & Ingenuity”, laziness is mentioned as a good design strategy, and explains five reasons why. However, it is also stated that the one disadvantage to the strategy of laziness is that it requires a lot of effort. If the definition of laziness is to not use a lot of effort, what is meant by this disadvantage? How can it require a lot of effort when its very definition is the opposite?
LikeLike
During the discussion in class the statement that program doesn’t define the form of a building was brought up. It is interesting to see how program and form of a building are always working together, yet not necessarily dependent on one another. When starting a building from the ground up, yes, many architects create form based on what program will be taking place. For example, if the architect is designing a theater, it is likely they will design a building with big open spaces, and the walls of the theater would be designed for good acoustics. However, to prove that program doesn’t necessarily define the form of a building, one can simply look at buildings that were designed as one thing, and then completely used for something else. Example, Lina Bo Bardi’s Sesc Pompeia, was a designed and used as a factory, before Lina re-purposed the building for a community center for the people of Brazil. Once used for production and machinery, now is being used for galleries, exhibitions, plays, sports, eating, etc.
LikeLike
1. Considered the four paths of creation in R.E. Somol’s “Green Dots 101”; figuration, decoration, articulation, and notation, how does Peter Eisenman’s work of the past thirty years instituting grid manipulations produce a discontinuity between the structural grid and makeup of the project in regards to scale, and rendering his use of the grid as seemingly a tool of ornamentation?
2. Within the “Notes on the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism”, Somol and Whiting assimilate the relationship of architecture and philosophy to that of an actor to the character they are portraying. Including even going as far as to mention the most obsessive method actor of them all; Robert De Niro, known for heavy research in preparation of roles in movies including the Godfather, Taxi Driver, and Cape Fear. In this idea of method acting being congruous to method designing, how does the architect of the nineteen-eighties and nineties espouse the notion of providing their own subversive vision?
3. Defined in a multitude of seemingly incongruous terms, R.E. Somol’s “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape” provides an attitude of shape that interests itself in opposing differentiated views on the traditional and current architectural thinking. How does this alignment of theorized shape give way to a liberated architecture more freely communicated through the companions of his twelve terms?
LikeLike
Discussed within the presentations from Reyner Banham’s linkage to Peter Eisenmen’s and his search for originality a question is posed of how the student can strike a new position independent of their teacher’s? Stemming from this question is the idea of the projective and whether there is a theory and design within the current first machine age championed by futurists as form becomes a byproduct of the machine. If form becomes a byproduct of the machine is form always a surprise? Can form be premeditated if produced by the machine? Does this relate to the process of the first architectural education form itself? As abstractions are layered upon one another and continually derived from the previous work does the form itself become a surprise in the same way as the first section and plan generated does? The new position of considering content as standing lower in importance than form creates a material interest parallel to the attention given to color and formal organization.
LikeLike
1. In R. E. Somol’s “12 Reasons to Get Back in Shape,” it defines what shape is through words such as easy, expendable, graphic, adaptable, fit, arbitrary, and intense. Somol says that architects like to do things the hard way, therefore not using shapes because shapes are already designed. Relating back to last week’s presentation, what then is not a taboo for architects but a new idea for their basis of design?
2. In the “Strategy of the Void” it says “Wanting to win a competition is not the same as wanting to do your best possible work.” The author says that juries have a standard and criteria which forces one to want to create and design to meet their ideas in order to win, while individuals have no standards but want to just expand their ideas infinitely. Would you agree with this interpretation? Is there another way to look at this statement?
3. Neutelings explains why laziness is actually useful to architects in his article “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics & Ingenuity.” However, through each point Neutelings mentioned, how far can an architect take laziness to the point where laziness becomes a negative impact?
LikeLike
In the presentation, the students discussed negative space the terms of void and solid. When determining what is negative space, either the void becomes a solid, or the solid becomes the void. This idea does make sense when you study an image or a object. Depending on what you are focusing on, the void or solid is important, thus becoming the meaning of each other. For example, the void inside a building’s volume becomes a solid because of it’s importance as the program holder, while the solid becomes the void as it is less important. Rem Koolhas explains in the “Strategy of the Void” that the void, in which removing something, was once difficult to do but is now fun and easy. The space becomes shaped and defined by what was removed, instead of building up and thinking about it’s boundaries. Creating spaces and designs in terms of void presents an interesting design tool.
LikeLike
1: What does Koolhaas mean when saying “rid architecture of responsibilities it can no longer sustain”?
2: What is this instance of “Index” Somol and Whiting talk about and how is it significant?
3: How does Somol define what’s “teachable” and what is not?
LikeLike
The presentations today all concluded why and how shape can be utilized in architecture. The simplest way to define architecture is the design of buildings or the creation of spaces that express ideas. In the ancient world, architecture was symbolic and dimensions and sun orientation were critically important. Their legacy includes the geometrical shapes comprising the Parthenon, particularly the rectangle and the triangle. I’d argue that in current days, it’s our job and opportunity to take what we already know about shapes and alter it in a new way that hasn’t been done before, creating a new type of spacial quality unseen up to this point in time.
LikeLike
1. In your opinion, does laziness, as it explained by Neutelings, make the architect directly a better designer, or are they simply a happy product of their own shortcomings?
2. By trying to escape preconceived notions of “architecture”, or by trying to strip down the goal, as Koolhaas says, “architecture’s last function will be the creation of the symbolic spaces that accommodate the persistent desire for collectivity,” will architects stray farther from easy architecture?
3. Is productive laziness, when applied to architecture, intrinsic, or does it have to be learned?
LikeLike
Laziness, as we saw today in class, generally has a fowl connotation. Laziness, as is described by the readings this week, does not mean an inability to finish work on time, or to the level that it should be completed by. Put simply, laziness is equivalent to efficiency in terms of the text. As was said in class, there is often the assertion that architecture Is hard and that it takes so much time. This is not inherently false, however it also is assuming that a “lazy” architect is an inefficient, not creative architect. Some of my favorite projects are those that has done something with existing buildings, programs, or ideologies. There is certainly the bad kind of lazy alongside the good kind of lazy, but the distinction has to be made between efficiency and inefficiency.
LikeLike
1. Neuteling claimed that laziness enforces ingenuity within the 33% of space that the architect has the freedom to design. Neuteling emphasized the advantages of laziness includes recycling buildings, typologies, and concepts. How is an architect able to take advantage of his/her laziness to produce an intelligent design if recycling is an option?
2. According to R.E. Somol, shape is “easy” because it is something that is already defined. Then is using shapes a form of lazy architecture according to Neuteling?
3. In Green Dots 101, a logo is a hybrid state of figural decoration by intensifying the incongruence of mass and surface, and condensing them into the monolith of a saturated space. Is there a way for this logo to exist as a hybrid if his previous belief of shape was an easy way out and architects should do things the hard way?
LikeLike
During the presentations it was discussed that laziness in architecture does not have the same connotation we usually prescribe. It is about finding the most efficient strategy in architecture to achieve your goal. Instead of creating new architecture, its recycling materials, typologies, or reusing structure. There is architectural potential within the confinement of existing space or design and this allows architects to force themselves to generate ingenuity. Especially in modern day, where the population is increasing and there is less land to develop in cities, its more beneficial to adopt this lazy strategy to recreate architecture by using the old. Using the old also focuses architects to think about shape and developing new forms. This can create something like a silhouette where it is strong and can become its own much like how iconic skyline or attractions are recognizable by a simple silhouette or shapes.
LikeLike
1. In the “Green Dots 101” written by R. E. Somol, he mentioned the proposal made by Peter Eisenman: The significance of making architecture become legible and refining control of architecture. Especially during the design of “logo” buildings and landscapes, Somol clearly labeled five steps for architects to follow. Do you agree it is necessary for keeping those principles and rules and the same time gain same quality of creativity and decency?
2. Somol noticed the shape is graphic as avoiding the rhetorical excess of geometric form to expressive mass as well as generating a new identity. But Somol has also mentioned in the last reading which it is vital to build architectural principals in order to understand intricacies. So does it mean there are certain rules about figuration and decoration about shapes?
3. Does laziness count as a subconsciousness in the design process or it is a principle architects should follow?
LikeLike
The presentation concluded the importance of considering ‘shape“ in the design of architecture by providing lots of examples about architectural diagrams. The shape of architecture is the main “soul” to a building as a decent shape can increase attractions in the first stage. Detailedly, shape works as an intensive hight concentrated pattern which has been applied on the CCTV tower project in China. It can also get involve into the process of generating extension and projecting to the initial massing in order to create “logo” buildings mentioned by Somol. Based on those twelve reasons for architects to get back into shapes during the design process, the representation of the architecture becomes more easy to be designed based on genuine intentions just as Neuterings has noticed in his book that the laziness helps architects to design “the lazy architect has to peel the skin off the type to be able subsequently to manipulate the model and dress it up again”. Therefore, it is very important to get deep into the shape of architecture since in last week’s reading Deleuze has mentioned ways of sensation in architectural diagrams and drawings.
LikeLike
1. In “Strategy of the Void,” Koolhaas describes his “Very Big Library” as a symbol of all forms of memory, encapsulated in different forms of “technological placenta.” In this instance, is the void interpreted as a symbolic form (failures in memory, etc) or does it represent shape, as championed by R.E. Somol?
2. In R.E. Somol’s “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape,” we are told that in contemporary architecture, shape is either “cool” or “boring”, lacking the capacity to draw a more polorizing opinion. What drove architecture from shape- its connotations, or fear of the cliche? Has shape’s loose adaptability been misconstrued as a negative?
3. Along the lines of misconstrued negatives, Neutlings claims that “laziness” is actually a virtuous quality in architects, despite its connotations, as it “enforces ingenuity.” It is, however, described as “hard work” to be lazy, because essentially, successful laziness in architecture is the ability to not think too hard, and over-complicate things for yourself. Can this be taught, or is it an inherent trait you either immediately master or never quite grasp?
LikeLike
Today’s was a conversation about emptiness- nothing created from something, by way of literally erasing the post product, or directly from the design process: paring down to the simplest thought, with an utter lack of overcomplication: the laziness and subsequent taboo of shape. The interior condition of shape is empty; it is both void and a celebration of void. “Empty” thought, presented in the simplest terms for the general public, is thus a spring board for further speculation- nothing is ever fully prescribed. What is more appealing? The building that is complicated and looks like it was a nightmare to compose, or the building that is simple and looks like it took no time to design. What we seem to want, as designers and as human beings, is the best of both worlds. We want a building that gets our point across beautifully and concisely and without looking tortured, while simultaneously wanting to be acknowledged for the hard work that we’ve done. Who is architecture for? Its designer or its inhabitants? The answer can be a hard kebab to swallow.
LikeLike
1. Consensus, especially on broad stroke design topics, such as shape, is rare in the architectural community. Peter Eisenman’s structural grid is “necessary to maintain continuity”, much like Le Corbusier used his Domino Grid. Contrarily, Somol claimed that shape is “An architectural bastard or no-name clone, shape has no need to point back to its paternity for justification. In a profession prone to confession, shape is never having to say you’re sorry.” In the current architectural vogue, what is shape’s role? Has it become irrelevant, or should it be revisited?
2. “Laziness, one of the seven cardinal sins, is one of an architect’s most useful characteristics.” Neutelings claims that, for a slew of reasons, laziness can help create more effective designs. An architect’s tendency to be lazy in their designs can make them more ingenious in their work, and more efficient in materials and process. What are some ‘lazy’ tendencies in architecture? Are voids, which Koolhaas claims will “rid architecture of responsibility” too lazy, or is that laziness efficient to architecture’s (and society’s) benefit in the end?
3. From Somol and Whiting’s Notes on the Doppler Effect, “A projective architecture does not make a claim for expertise outside the field of architecture nor does it limit its field of expertise to an absolute definition of architecture.” Does architecture need to adapt in order to match our rapidly evolving world (technologically, societally, politically, ecologically) ? What is, i.e., technology’s place in architectural discourse? What changes about the designer’s role in that discourse?
LikeLike
Who is architecture for? One might say that it is for everyone to enjoy, but that would be the same as saying that art is for everyone. In some ways, this is true, but in many ways it is not. Some art is certainly meant for public consumption, as is some architecture. But some aspects of art and architecture do a better job alienating the general public than welcoming it. The academic architecture community is accustomed to an entirely new set of vocabulary, and come from a common ground of understanding. Architects can all too easily fall prey to allowing the complexities and skillfulness of their design overshadow the intent of the building, and of architecture; to be enjoyed by as many people as possible.
So when architects like Eisenmann, Wright, and Rohe begin to specify not only the form of the building but the prescribed ‘correct’ way to enjoy and understand the design, is this practice purely self-indulgent for architects and removed from the wants and needs of the public?
LikeLike
1. Architectural design is based on geometric underlines. Forms emerge from that grid and are considered formal elements, contrary to shapes. Is architecture only considered as such if it’s composed of forms, constricted to a geometric order? Or can architecture retain its properties even when basing its order off of shapes?
2. In “12 Reasons to Get Back in Shape”, shape is considered an adaptive element, one that moves over the contours rather than sit as a rigid form. It seems that shape is becoming increasingly popular in urban architecture so how does that trait manifest in the design? How does today’s architecture adapt to its site rather than reimagine the existing parts?
3. The Very Big Library is described as a solid block of information with its spaces as absences of buildings. In that definition, what is a void’s purpose in architecture if it’s not a hole, but rather, an absence of material? How does this absence affect the order and what can the absence potentially signify?
LikeLike
This week’s readings address the idea of representation, focusing on shape, voids, and methods of design. Somol states that critical architecture must reconcile community with autonomy. In other words, it must reconcile its graphics with its architectural features, such as its geometry for instance. Shape, for example, can be a great aesthetic feature and an important element in the design, but shape doesn’t determine the geometric order. Decoration is just a performative while articulation is natural and authentic. Form is considered to be part of that order as it’s formal and is to be read. However, these factors are more for an architect’s or a designer’s mindset. The presentation mentions how the graphic condenses the project into an image to collect the potential audience while the geometric addresses a specific reader. That reader is the architect, or designer, so the discussion then goes to how we can reconcile views of architecture with both sides. We must think about how we can relate geometry to aesthetics.
LikeLike
1. Koolhaas suggests that, “liberated from its former obligations, architecture’s last function will be the creation of the symbolic spaces that accommodate the persistent desire for activity.” For me, this seems a bit backwards. Shouldn’t this be its first function?
This makes me think of his CCTV tower. He makes such a humongous building that twists and turns and cantilevers, spending a ton of energy ensuring that it stands up and functions. All of this leaves the huge atrium-like void underneath the top portions of the form, which becomes the most symbolic space in the end. It seems to me that he spent so much time designing and designing, when the most powerful space in the end is what he didn’t design, as the region under the building becomes the site for major protests, with the odd form in the background as an icon.
Which should come first? The “former obligations” like square footage and structure, or the symbolic social spaces?
2. Koolhaas asks us, “Is it that bigness alone makes everything easy to the point of automatism?” Does XL architecture lose the importance of sound program or scalar relationships, just because it is fantastically large and there’s enough room to do anything you want? Imagine creating a humongous building using the “methodology of sculptural mathematics” (parametric design) that Neutelings praises as a strategy for laziness, allowing the parameters to run and fill the program of this big building according to your script. Is this the automatism Rem was worried about? Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
3. Somol posits in the “Doppler Effect” effect reading the idea that very critical architecture often stays within the realm of “betweenness” (of history/theory). This is interesting to think about, as we’re all in a school that tries so hard to produce different architecture, critical of norms that our culture sees today. What do you think our chances are to actually build critical architecture, rather than having it stuck in our portfolios and never making it out of the academic circle?
LikeLike
During the discussion today, Prof.’s comments made some connections between some of the stuff I was wondering. It sounds like Rem must have designed the void in the CCTV tower (contrary to my point in Question 1), based on what he learned from OM Ungers in their Green Archipelago project. Here, we see clear evidence of a notion of erasure as a productive action, as they investigate how much of an urban fabric can be removed, but still constitute a city. They begin to design certain vistas connecting certain cultural buildings, which end up being contrary to the city grid. In the CCTV tower we can read the large void underneath the massing in a similar manner, erasing as a productive movement, allowing space on the ground-level for tons of activity. And don’t forget the odd grid facade system! Definitely contrary to the grid we’re used to seeing. (With portions of the grid appearing to be erased away)/
LikeLike
1. R.E. Somol describes Mies’s architecture as being “between the efficient representation of preexisting cultural and the wholly detached autonomy of an abstract formal system” in his paper “Notes on the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism”. He points out Mies’s work as being designed for the place in which the building is, but also made sure to apply his own formal design. Too often do architects focus on one or the other. Is it right for an architect to design whatever and wherever he wants or is it his responsibility to design for the people?
2. In Neutelings paper, “On laziness, recycling, structural mathematics and ingenuity” he mentions in the third point that for architecture new developments do not relay on earlier achievements, but rather the rejection of them. This to me is too the ultimate laziness. Why take a discipline as complex as architecture and ignore everything that was laid out before us to learn from and develop further?
3. In R.E. Somols “12 Reasons to Get Back Into Shape” he describes shape as being “the great taboo” poking fun at architects for choosing to do things the hard way. Going back to the previous question, why do architects intentionally choose to make their lives more difficult by ignoring what they already know? Yes it is good to try new things and explore for yourself, but there has to be an easier way than rejecting all that is known to us.
LikeLike
Architects try too hard to be “great architects”. Sometimes they try too hard to be just architects. They so badly want to be remembered for the things they create. Making their lives more complicated than they need to be by taking basic shapes out of the scenario and rejecting all previous achievements. Architects should not be given the status of “great architect” solely based on the look and process of their design, but rather for what their architecture does for the greater betterment of its people. The conversation that was had about “lazy architecture” being more beneficial was very interesting. How one would take an abandoned structure and turn it into something of use becomes more productive and useful than designing something new right next to it. Yes the new option may be more innovative, but it becomes useless in the setting that it’s in. The architecture should not just compliment the architect, it should compliment its surroundings.This, I found, is something that architects don’t always consider. Great architects design for the place and the people first and then for themselves. If they don’t consider either their eye catcher will likely become an eye-sore.
LikeLike
1. In the “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shapes”, Koolhaas listed 12 merits of shape, and he mentioned in the first paragraph that shape has been considered as hard way in the architectural field, so why architects consider shape as taboo at first place?
2. In the “Strategy of the Void”, while they were designing the storage of the library, the author found that forms and shapes have a certain degree of autonomy and uncertainty, so how do we apply these features while we are designing?
3. At the last paragraph of “Green Dots 101”, Somol makes a conclusion that: “All of this is to say there’s nothing scientifically or technically true about Green Dots or the general performative category of the logo.” Then, is the “5 step for how to do logo buildings” practicable?
LikeLike
The shape of the building refers to the internal and external shapes of the building, and it always connects with form and space, material and structure, site and environment. The different components of the different buildings have different functions. The architectural shape and form are not mainly reflected by the internal space structure and the external form to give people a sense of spiritual beauty. The form of architectural design determines the shape of the building. The function of the building is also mainly reflected by the architectural shape and form. As the level of people’s life and technique increases, the shape and form of the building are more and more diverse.
LikeLike
1.) In the reading “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, a Ingenuity” it proposes many advantages about being lazy is on of the most useful characteristics in an architect; they try to find easy solutions to make their life a bit easier. In conclusion it has been proven that the projects were successful with the help of laziness, but it requires a lot of effort. What if we didn’t recycle and take less effort to make building? will it still be as successful if laziness was not involved?
2.) There are many ways to express architecture. In “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape,” it expressed architecture in those 12 terms, when architecture can be expressed in different ways, why was it narrowed down to those 12 terms?
3.) Since voids are shaped accordingly to their own logic, independent of each other, and do not have to be built. How are voids shaped according to their logic?
LikeLike
From today’s lecture and group presentation, It has come to a term that being lazy is not so bad, in fact, it can be useful when coming up with architectural design. In today’s world, we are using up a lot of energy to build new buildings from bottom to top. With the advantage of recycling, the amount of energy would be reduced by renovating old projects or use different materials. Most importantly, it would help reduce the cost of the construction. Being lazy is not a bad thing; it does not mean that people who are lazy are not hardworking or dedicated, it is only working smarter.
LikeLike
1. In the article “S,M,L,XL-compresse”, Koolhass made an intriguing argument about the shape of space. He blurs the definition of one single construction element like floor and thus form a “formless architecture”. He said “Room loops the loop”. Traditionally, we considered every independent component of a building as individuals that connected together so that it has such a conventional form. Will the new “formless architecture” rebuild the way we live, and will we see the world in a different scale? Is the “deduction” of architecture also going to reverse anything?
2. In the reading “ Green dots 101”, Somol generated a list of characteristics of what is called “logo architecture”. Personally speaking, I found this to be very interesting for the reason that it almost fits every modern architecture nowadays. At the meantime, a question emerges: with these strategies, how do we perceive the changes in the future? will it be more concentrate on the shape/logo or will be more formless like Koolhass suggested?
3. Like what Somol and Whiting suggest in “Notes on the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism”, under the big circumstance like politics, economics, architecture has always been more or less transformed from its original design. But, what is the real purpose of architecture? Does it means to serve the social, political, or economic field or does it stand for itself? If it stand for itself, what is the meaning of making different types of architecture?
LikeLike
Is architecture more reflective or more prospective? From, today’s presentation, we are acknowledged of the potentiality of the “laziness” in architecture. For example, Koolhaas might did made some references to the Green Archipelago when designing the CCTV building. Being inspired by other’s work, in fact, is a clever starpoint rather than an unoriginal criticism. Sometimes, we tried our best to prevent our works from looking like someone else’s former projects to avoid plagiarism. But Paul Gauguin said “Art is either plagiarism or revolution”, and it also fits in the field of architectural design. We must put ourselves forward to more possible uncertainties, in the meantime, be respect to the previous works. And according to my third question, I was questioning the real meaning of architecture. I think I know the answer from one perspective understanding the discussion of the “shape” in today’s presentation. For me, architecture is a language, or a method, that tell stories in the physical and visual way. It could be considered as a kind of technical art that embodies social/political/economic/etc. demands in this world.
LikeLike
1. From the reading Green Dots, R.E. Somol mentions that “emphasizing message or content over formal medium, decoration and figuration embrace the conventional and arbitrary as a way to take pleasure in the ersatz and artifice.” through the history, they were many eras that focused on the importance of decoration and figuration, so what’s the difference among those focuses? What make this are’s focus stand out?
2. In the reading Green Dots, the term “architectural logo” is mentioned multiple times; how should we understand the term “logo”, what differs “logo” from “language”?
3. Rem Koolhaas mentions that the voids are not to be “built”, so what characteristics should come along with the voids, since the other programs have their unique logic (or say their “forms of memory”)?
LikeLike
This week’s topic is about voids and shapes, in architectural terms they all having similar but different meanings; they are all about space, but one is commonly related to emptiness, and the other one is commonly related to things that are built (existing things). Shapes are important features to architecture, but they are not speaking for the architecture. The logic and language of architecture is from its spatial organization, geometrical formation, and living logic. Voids are not spaces that left blank, they are as designed as those are built; when leaning an architecture, and the voids should not be ignored because they are designed also for the readers. For us, learn to read the voids are as important as read the massing, the achievement in aesthetic is to let people understand and enjoy by telling the story through the spaces and voids. Projective architecture is a trend for nowadays field, and it is achieved by series study between shape and void; without the understanding and conscious of those terms, a building will lose its balance in the content of space.
LikeLike
1. In “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape,” R.E. Somol states that “shape must float” due to its tendencies of seeming hollow and its contrast to form and mass. While form exists in drawings or computers and mass allows the limitation of gravitational pull, shape does neither. How can shape compare and be alike form and mass rather than differ from it? How can architecture allow the existence of all 3, but none at the same time?
2. W.J. Neutelings’ “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, and Ingenuity,” explains seven ways to take advantage of laziness in terms of architecture. One of the ways is how “compulsory laziness enforces ingenuity.” In this way, Neutelings describes how large buildings are often already told how to be made by books of guidelines, where most of the building has to follow these laws and only a small area can be free for the architect to create. Wouldn’t the freedom that the architect has be the hardest part in the integration with loads of specifications?
3. In “Strategy of the Void,” Rem Koolhaas describes the voids in The Very Big Library as “absences of building” as they do not have to be built, but are rather shaped by the logic of the surrounding. Can the presence of the void shape the surrounding rather than the other way around? Can voids dictate the whole premise of certain projects?
LikeLike
This week’s lecture focused on the idea of shapes, voids, and laziness in architecture. There were a lot of ideas that were projected that brought up interesting points. One of them is about voids in architecture. From past classes and this lecture, I realized that voids aren’t exactly just empty spaces. Although, it means just an empty space, these moments in architecture can define a creation. These “empty spaces” can direct a lot of the ideas being certain architecture pieces. I was once told that spaces don’t exactly need a program nor a reason to be there but can be a driving force in a project or just a moment for people to find. Another idea that was brought up is the idea that laziness is an advantage in architecture. Although I found most of the points to be valid, I also found myself disagreeing with others. For example, I don’t believe “recycling” projects is lazy unless it’s a very close copy. I think most projects come as inspiration from others and to me, this isn’t laziness, it’s just inspired.
LikeLike
1.According to Strategy of the Void, Koolhaas mentions that the Very Big Library is interpreted as a solid block of information and the public spaces are absent of building. Does it means the public spaces are voids and do not have to be built? How can spaces be shaped if they are void? What’s their own logic?
2. According to Notes on the Doppler effect and Other Moods of Modernism, what does instruments of metropolitan plasticity mean?
3. In 12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape, Somol mentions that architecture doesn’t have to hurt. What does it mean? Does it indicate architects prevent themselves from shape so as to do something complex while encountering with great pain due to lack of simplicity?
LikeLike
From this lecture, I learned that laziness can bring benefits to architecture design. We architects can improve the overall quality of buildings with innovation, taking advantage of information around. One way to get out of commission is to recycle a previous building instead of building a new one. Sculptural mathematics can guide programmatic structure. It is the continuous state of laziness leads to ingenuity. For instance, a combination all circulation into one central hole.
Shape, which is simple, is always illicit in architecture field. However, shape extending outward beyond something else make shapes projective
To think of whether function or shape first, we need to keep in mind that void is unavoidable. It is solid that reflects information while living void makes space to create function.
Green dots overcome the relentless tendency toward criticality of shapes. They are unteachable and can only be performed.
Speaking of Representation as Graphic, the latter one have no issue with arbitrariness while representation is descriptions. Graphic expediency collects audience and geometric intricacy create an audience that does not exist.
To sum up, Projective architecture can be a new way of architecture. We architects should learn the process and promote innovation and explorations.
LikeLike
1. In Somol and Whiting’s article, “Notes on the Doppler”, an interesting point is brought up, “The skyscraper-machine allows the projection infinitely upward of virtual worlds within this world.” While I understand building a skyscraper allows for creativity on many levels. Wouldn’t the laws of physics so greatly limit the building that it no longer becomes a projection of out imagination?
2. In Neutelings article on laziness, in the first sentence he states that laziness is one of the most useful characteristics to architects. While he defends his points in the next paragraphs, saying how compensating for laziness produces the best results. that means that it is not in fact laziness that is the useful trait, but the compensating that is the better trait. If laziness is as important as Neutelings says it is then why is it that architects don’t always just take the easy route and create the most simple buildings possible? There are many buildings out there that require much thinking and planning in order to build.
3. ? Shape is generally thought of to be a 2-dimensional concept. However Somol gives characteristics used to describe 3-dimensional objects like buoyant, adaptable, and fit in his “12 reasons to be in shape” article to describe shape. Shape is used in almost everyday design functions. Over time it has come to have may different meanings, but every building must have some sort of a shape at some point in the design process. Why would shape become the great taboo for architects if it is so commonly used?
LikeLike
With the beginning of the minimalist movement, the content of the work started to matter less and the meaning behind the work started to matter more. For example the decorated duck building. The easy to recognize shape of the silhouette became a graphic icon, and that meaning was much more important than how the building looked. Additionally not just the shape is important but the void also contains meaning. In studio, the professor has told me, don’t just keep adding on, remember you can take away too. At the time I didn’t really understand the value of void, I thought that I had to keep adding on and keep making the building more and more impressive. Void can complement the shape of the building to give more meaning. It can just as important if not more important than the physical building, providing additional meaning that needs to be inferred and not just seen.
LikeLike
1. R. E. Somol’s talks a lot about shape and how it is perceived as simple and arbitrary in architecture. He feels that architects attempt to challenge themselves by straying away from shapes in their designs to increase complexity or difficulty. Why is it that we learn to avoid shapes as opposed to embracing them? Can we not be innovative with shapes as a basis of design?
2. Neutelings claims that “laziness” is a good quality to have as an architect. Although it may sound counter-intuitive, laziness is actually beneficial for creativity. If one thinks or works too hard, they tend to over-analyze and overthink things. Laziness enforces ingenuity and freedom. Although there are many benefits to being lazy, is there a line where laziness starts becoming a bad thing?
3. Rem Koolhaas talks about how voids are not to be “built” and “rid architecture of responsibility”. What is a void, how are they shaped and what do they represent?
LikeLike
Although counterintuitive, architects strive to create new innovative designs in an ironically “lazy” approach. The simplest, most basic forms and shapes are the hardest to perfect and master in architecture. As shapes and forms amass in a design, the building’s meaning continually changes. There is a very fine line in finding a balance between efficient simplicity and overdesigning. Laziness correlates to efficiency and radical, innovative design. Instead of finding “new” forms or “new” ways to overthink design, one can simply go back to the most basic shapes and voids as a basis of design. The benefits of laziness do not only fall in the design category, but also can help create a future of sustainability. The idea of recycling and reusing materials and premade shapes comes to mind. For example homes made from old shipping containers or water bottles. Instead of trying to design from scratch, it is also important to take inspiration from everyday objects and shapes.
LikeLike
1. W.J. Neutelings in On Laziness Recycling Sculptural Mathematics & Ingenuity elaborates on how “laziness” of an architect brings forth a certain strength in their ability to design as they will begin to reuse and recycle existing concepts, forms and massings to create their project, thereby creating a cohesive architectural concept. How does this concept of repossessing the old and calling it the new impact the creation of inspirational architecture that drives the community to evolve rather than renovate?
2. Rem Khoolas in Strategy of the Void examines his though process in designing the Tres Grande Bibliotheque in Paris, France. He begins with explaining his position on the proposal; having a strong negative feeling toward the entire concept. As he continues to describe his process of design, no longer commenting on the project proposal, the reader will notice that his design is a direct physical embodiment of his social commentary. Is the future of architecture settled in satire and commentary? Should architects begin to interpret design proposals as being nothing more than a statement to be ridiculed through their design?
3. R.E. Somol in 12 Reasons to Get back into Shape delineates the importance of shape in architecture and how architects have strayed from the path of using shape in their projects as the leading influence in their design. Is shape and massing so different that they need to be emphasized as two separates? Though massing is more closely related to program and form than it is to shape, couldn’t one argue that form influenced by program further influences massing and then works back into modifying program and their spacial existence? Is architecture constantly retrospective, if so, can these three elements be considered so disconnected from each other?
LikeLike
The mid-20th century saw the formation of existentialism in architecture. Rem Khoolas, R.E. Somol, and W.J. Neutelings all express their distaste for the “modern”, for in their eyes, the modern is too forceful in their attempt. They instead propose that architecture and subsequent works should be influenced by their process of creation and by the creator’s perspective on the project. Rem Khoolas implores the creator to use a satirical perspective on the creation of something new and to effectively make a statement about how impractical the proposed project is. R.E. Somol argues that shape is a provocative tool that can be used to create the response to architecture that Khoolas desires out of modern architects. These two concepts are brought together by Neutelings who remarks on how (un)lazy architects are, and how this laziness ends up being an important tool that essentially brings a project to cohesion with its context. Though these three designers may not come to a universal agreement, their three commentaries bring to light how modern architecture sees itself in the 20th and 21st century: a tool for making social and political commentary that is recognized by very few for what it is and is recognized by many for their overall aesthetics and form.
LikeLike
Q1: The traditional definition of an architect is “a person who designs buildings and in many cases also supervises their construction.” According to Somol and Whiting, however, architects engage other topics “as experts on design and how design may affect [them].” Considering how the responsibilities of an architect go beyond the completion of a building, is it time to revisit the definition of what they are?
Q2: According to the essay “Green Dots 101”, “articulation and notation is technical and scientific… decoration and figuration may be viewed as political” Based on the steps it takes to do logo buildings discussed later in the text, it seems as though this architecture is only scientific in nature. Are there any examples of projects that bridge the gap between the technical and political?
Q3: Within the discipline of architecture, “new developments seem not to rely on earlier achievements, but rather their rejection.” From the conversations of last class, in order to be classified as new, architecture must go beyond old projects, in an attempt to create new rules and design criteria. Is Neutelings describing new architecture or merely a re-invention of the old?
LikeLike
One of the main themes for this week’s topic of Projective and Shape is the idea of change. In the case of architecture, change is vital in the way the discipline moves forward. Without any form of change to what has been done before, there can be no progression into the new. And even in some cases, there can be a change from the new, back to the old, with additional revisions. Architects are constantly drawing on references from the past and the present to propose a future scheme. The process of changing design often times related to the changing of focus or of the problem. For the Projective, there was a change in the focus of hot architecture, like Eisenman, to cool architecture, more similar to Hejduk. In the case of Shape, Somol argues that shape follows more closely with Hejduk as its vagueness is inherently “cool.” Change doesn’t necessarily mean the new is better than the old, but it is a key way to push development further.
LikeLike
1. In the writings of Somol’s and Whiting’s “Notes Around The Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism”, is raises a question of what architecture is. Is it a product that comes out of culture? Is it an autonomous entity? Or is critical to the both?
2. In Rem Koolhaas’ “S,M,L,XL”, he says “Since they are voids- they do not have to be ‘built’- individual libraries can be shaped strictly according to their own logic, independent of each other, of the external envelope of the usual difficulties of architecture, even gravity.” Are voids be considered a form of architecture or just a space that has been created?
3. Neutelings says that laziness “is one of an architect’s most useful characteristics.” Because it creates a “pleasing balance” to create “happy results”. However being lazy require more energy to complete a task in the long run?
LikeLike
When creating architecture we need to consider the environment, the designer and the building itself. The architecture is never static. Projectile architecture considers multiple aspects of designing, i.e, material, program, environment, technology and many more. The more constraints the architect faces, the more the design is being shaped.
The void can be created or it could have been a creation of other objects. Either way the void has an important part of any architecture. Even choosing to not give it a program or meaning is giving is a purpose for existing. “The void suggests both absence and presence.”
Laziness can create some beautiful works such as Fallingwater by Frank Lloyd Wright. But a point was brought up in class, where the architect might want to look back it his work but have no time to. When in a rush mistakes might be made or details forgotten. It is when we look back at our work and critique the mishaps, that the design is superior. I also think that being lazy might cause a person to use more energy because they have to work faster due to the loss of time.
LikeLike
1. In “Green Dots 101,” the author proposes that articulation and notation tend to be constative descriptions, while decoration and figuration operate more as performatives. This is an interesting distinction and I would want to further examine the ways in which the language we use in description of form and that which constitutes the “whole” of a work of architecture and alters its very function. Do such subtleties impact the nature of that which we filter our design methods through as well as our perceptions of said design?
2. The residual nature of shape was touched upon by Somol in “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape”. Specifically, how shape is differentiated from massing and form; massing constitutive of lack of hollowness and form consistent both internally and externally. Shape allows for the internal nature to be exposed; becoming a resolution for the exterior wrap. Shape becomes almost intangible in the way smol described-a mere function of its impacts and something discarded by architects. But is it really so intangible or is it instead the absence of its physical nature which in fact provides the vital connective tissue between massing and form?
3. The application of laziness as a design methodology, according to Neutelings, is a highly effective tool. I think the spontaneous aspect is one not fully addressed by the author but is important to note as the reliance on design matter which references precedent ideas can often, in its adaption to present conditions, provide for permutations not otherwise considered. Is the juxapositional quality of the balance between stability (layers of rationality) and spontaneity that it appears laziness may produce successful in furthering the forefront of innovative design or is it something reserved for that which is less demanding/ambitious within the conceptual realm?
LikeLike
A major topic discussed in the lecture was “laziness” and how we as architects understand this characteristic and the provocative nature of it being described as a positive certainly challenges what usually has a negative connotation. Certainly, laziness as a manner of oversight and/or lack of ambition becomes detrimental to a work of design but it is the unexpected innovative repercussions that can in fact provide for something that functions not only efficiently but creates discourse for new design methods. This ties into a strong point made in the discussion of whether design need always be radical and “new” and that this can in fact lead to less successful works. Sometimes it is better to take a step back and integrate such notions of laziness and referenced designs. And doing so not only for new works but in the development of that which already exists in order to drive adaptation that often is lacking in modern day projects set to last only 30 years.
LikeLike
1 In ‘12 reasons to get back into shape’ Somol points out that the definition of shape is easy, expendable, graphic, adaptable, empty and cool etc. Shape is an essential element in the architecture world. How does we relates shape to painting and architecture design in contemporary world?
2 In ‘Green Dot’ Somol mentioned four ways of creation—-figuration, notation, articulation and decoration. How does Eisemen’s work relate to modern architecture?
3 In ‘On Laziness_ Sculptural Mathematics and Ingenuity’ Neutlings claims that laziness is one of architect’s characteristics. Laziness is somehow helpful to architect as architect creates something new in the design. Is there a way to apply this tendency as a design method in the architecture at certain degree?
LikeLike
This week presentation’s topic is about recycling, typology and concepts. The topics implicitly indicate the laziness is a different term under conceal. Laziness actually represents authenticity, reservation and speedy. It is beneficial for architect to bring laziness into their design. Architects should treat it as a methodology when they are designing. If there is an old project needed replacement or designing a new project from the start, laziness will be helpful for architect to process their design in a smart way. Laziness is not an absolute representation of quickest solution but rather represents a highly efficient mean in terms of recycling of material, structure and design. Using laziness is more like simplifying the design with clear and strong concept rather than intense design of the space or detail that conflict the reality and culture.
LikeLike
1. In, On Laziness, by W.J. Neutelings, he explains the hidden successes of laziness, and how instead of avoiding and discriminating against such flaws, one can use them to their benefit. Admittedly this is an incredibly fine line to navigate but it begs the question of applicability in the demographics of today’s building environment. Is this laziness a quality that architects need to possess more of in an attempt to refine their aspirations for the divine pursuit, or it this just an excuse to those who don’t share the same determination as others. Is there a definitive proportion of laziness relative to the design and production?
2. Shape is regarded as this indistinct form, one where it shares a duality of compositions, being both hallow/empty yet whole, or rhetorical and philosophical yet real. It is said that shape has become taboo, but typically that which is taboo is something defined and universally understood, and thus universally disdained. How could shape, something without much definition, and littered with esoteric heterogeneity be taboo? Is this abrasiveness due to the fact that we understand its intrinsic nature and dislike that core, or is it that we can’t decipher it, and so we choose be distant from that which we can’t understand?
3. With the contexts of Neutelings and Somol/Whiting writings, the word shape has many definitions and yet with all of those characterizations, it has only desisted our efforts to understand the arcane. Have architects, designers, artists become the sole reason why shape has lost its meaning? Has the hyper-critical nature of such analyses rendered the meaning of shape to nothing? The notion of overthinking is applicable in this instance where it is seen with the constant determined efforts to interrogate. Is the more pressing void, one of space and design, or of our minds?
LikeLike
The discussion of laziness as it relates to architecture was interesting to listen to, given the various perspectives on the context of laziness. Although the term is often pejorative in nature, there are some clever uses of it that can yield incredible results. The example of Frank Lloyd Wright procrastinating for weeks, and then developing one of the most famous American houses in history was not only humorous, but a testament of how to use laziness as a tool. Admittedly Wright was an expert of design and residential form, but perhaps laziness can give your mind enough time to breathe, and to reassess the design in a way that was hidden before. Too often do people get wound up with production and deadlines, that they don’t give themselves a moment of air, whether physical or philosophical. These moments of solitude could give you the very answers you’ve been struggling to conquer. But in all honestly, things of this nature only work in moderation, it’s just a matter of calibration. Now this is the literal interpretation of laziness, there is the more architectural and design oriented questions, and how one designs smarter through restoration, but the lesson is all the same. Laziness through subtraction and rehabilitation as opposed to new construction and wasteful design, can be more appropriate remedies to new problems. Its a matter of context and suitability.
LikeLike
1) In “Green Dots 101” Somol discusses the “teachability” of design procedures (like Green Dots) and raises the question of why does Architectural theory have to be formulaic with set concepts or rules that qualify it as “Architecture”. The question is not how to teach these “Green Dots”, but rather why they were given authority to become concepts of Architectural projects in the first place?
2) “Twelve Reasons to Get Back into Shape” mentions how Architects commonly reject and criticize the simple and straight forward. Are architects simply being cynical when they do this and is the pressure to have complicated ideas a result of a hypocritical mindset in the profession?
3) Neutelings’ article “On Laziness” discusses how laziness is commonly a useful tool in Architecture. Omission of certain standard practices (i.e. drawing, design concept trends) allows for a more interesting conversation or dialogue, so the question is what is truly important when making a design proposal (how do you do it, who gets to decide) and how do you maximize your point by using minimum effort?
LikeLike
1. Rem Koolhaas`s earliest work explores the diagram as a symbolic form to create voids space more logical by shaping them to be inhabit by creating their own logic with a symbolic of discontinuous form. Why Shifting the voids space became a new strategy to explore a new architecture horizontal?
2. 12 reasons to get back into shape, R. E. Somol argues for an idea of “shape” in architecture. The term shape is a term that is related to form and mass, but distinct from them in critically important ways. Why a shape doesn’t require special pleading?
3. In Neutelings article on laziness, Neutelings goes over laziness as one the most useful method in architecture, which I disagreed because the laziness wont pursuit integrated in a project, however it pursuits simplification. Why laziness is one the most useful method in architecture?
LikeLike
One of the main themes for this week’s topic of Projective and Shape is the idea of change or explore a new architecture horizontal. The changes in architectural are crucial for diverse reasons as new diagram forms, graphic styles or translate a building shape into a logo. For example, Rem Koolhaas explores innovate change through diagram as a symbolic form to create voids space more logical by shaping them to be inhabit by creating their own logic with a symbolic of discontinuous form. Another main theme for this week was laziness, how laziness became one the method in architecture, which I disagreed because the laziness wont pursuit integrated in a project. But laziness pursuits less effort which a lot of people do not like to put effort in a project and pursuing laziness you won’t be able to maximum and archive your points or thought through a design proposal because during a design proposal is truly important to dialogue or discusses with your colleagues
LikeLike
1. Neutelings discusses the various ways that laziness can help us improve our designs. He states that one way to utilize laziness is through recycling buildings rather than building new ones in their place. Why is such a strategy, that is so helpful to the environment, perceived in such a negative way through the word “laziness”? Shouldn’t we be describing these strategies with a term that is viewed as more positive than negative?
2. How can we produce a shape in architecture that does not appear empty and is more than just an exterior condition?
3. Rem Koolhaas discusses how they are only dealing with quantities rather than aesthetics in “S,M,L,XL”. In what ways are theses voids merely dealing with quantity and not aesthetics at all? Don’t we all, to some extent, think about the beauty of our designs subconsciously?
LikeLike
This week’s lecture and presentation explored the ideas of the void in architecture along with the ways in which our laziness as designers can be beneficial. The negative spaces in our designs can end up being the most thought out spaces even though they are not built but rather subtracted from the form itself. Our most innovative designs are typically ones which are both visually pleasing to us and also are sustainable. The sustainability that we strive for can be achieved through reusing buildings rather than tearing them down and building once more. This strategy of reusing a building is just one of the ways Neutelings describes the benefits of laziness in the field of architecture. While this method may appear to be the easier way out, it certainly should not be categorized with such a negative term like lazy.
LikeLike
1. Is laziness actually one of an architect’s most useful characteristics? Let’s say one decides to partake in this idea of laziness, where do they draw the line and how far will they take this idea in their professional career before it affects the public wellbeing?
2. In “Strategy of the Void” The Very Big Library is defined as a solid block of information with the major public spaces are defined as absences of building. But it goes on to say “Since they are voids – they do not have to be built” – individual libraries can be shaped strictly according to their logic, independent of each other…” Usually, when one thinks of a major public space it’s a focal point within the building where the public would circulate through and or gather around to look down upon such an immersive space. But with the individual libraries being independent of each other does that mean the voids are enclosed or can the libraries still interact with each other? Is one better than the other meaning should the voids have their own individuality or should they somehow be intertwined with each other?
3. When it comes to shape in architecture should one allow it to control their design or should it be there just to strengthen the design? Another question that arises is should we design from the inside out or from the outside in and is there a right or wrong or is one better than the other?
LikeLike
1. The Doppler Effect described by Somol and Whiting measures the interactions between waves to project future conditions at localized points. This related to what is described as a ‘projective’ architecture where it is not derived from a single articulation of form or program, but is generated by the surrounding culture and design. If culture, technology, market forces, etc. are constantly changing, then too would the architecture have to be rapidly reinventing itself? Is there any way that a once critical form of architecture can evolve into a projective?
2. In R.E. Somol’s 12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape, he discusses shape as being, “Easy”, “Empty”, and “Arbitrary”. In this way, shape is becoming a representation of architecture rather than a constructed form. If shapes are originally derived from nature and begin to take on more complex constructions, then is shape truly considered “cool” and conceptually vacant? How then can architects begin to completely restrain from conceptualizing a building in order for it to take on its own identity? Would there be no constraints?
3. Within On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics and Ingenuity, Neutelings attests that laziness allows the architect to have more freedom, which leads to ingenuity. While this may appear lazy, the amount of thought and innovative ideas generates “a lot of effort” which equates the work avoided in the first place. Is laziness then still the more efficient method for design? Hard work is something that can be achieved over time, but is everyone able to take on this mentality of laziness?
LikeLike
Eisenmen was set on prescribing a process for design, but in moving away from a laborious process, design aligns itself more closely to the perception of laziness. There is a negative connotation of laziness, which associates it with a more apathetic attitude. The panel discussed procrastination or attempting to do less work to accomplish the same outcome, both of which might derive from a lack of initial concern. However, laziness can also correlate with the idea of working smart, not hard and maintaining efficiency. Step 3 of Neuteling’s essay asserts that architects should reuse historical typologies and concepts in a “contemporary vision”. This relates back to Reyner Banham and the idea of intentionally misreading history in order to develop a new lineage of thought. Being able to find this potential in historical buildings and reinvent them in some way is essential to obtaining sustainability. This might be lazy in the sense that a new building is not being generated, but if the amount of thought and concern for the architecture and surrounding community is present in the design then I think it is equally as effective as the more laborious process such as with Eisenmen.
LikeLike
1. Somol talks about all these different categories that a shape can fall into but how can a shape become a building?
2. Somol also talks about how it seems like architects are trying too hard to create and using the word shape as a something no one uses. How can architects methodically use shapes and not be afraid of them?
3. Eisenman discusses how a piece of architecture should show its conceptual construction and have it become legible to those who seek it. Should the reasoning for things within a building be legible or should they be up for interpretation?
LikeLike
1. A shape can become a building by using all the different categories they can fall into. A shape can account for the emptiness found in buildings, the coolness someone can find in a building, and the hollowness an area could have.
2.Architects should use shapes and not be afraid of them because even the most simple of shapes can create the most interesting forms. They should be able to use more shapes than just the square and the circle to drive their idea.
3. I think there should be a visible concept present in the architecture, however I think the building should be up for the audience’s interpretation. The concept should be clear but not explicitly written out. I think the architect should have his own meaning for things that maybe people never know of but people could walk into a building and notice that some things look like they go together or that there might be a bigger meaning behind something.
LikeLike
1. In Rem Koolhaas’s Strategy of the Void, he makes the remark “…is ‘fuck context’ becoming a theme?” in reference to the increasing number of designs that compose of the “‘neatness’ of the new architectural landscape”. If the “neatness” he is referring to is the standalone building that has been built in a different style to those within its context, then can buildings of differing styles still respond to each other within the same context?
2. Carl Andre states “a shape is a hole in a thing it is not”. The power of the shape is that it is nothing and everything at once. It is both structure and void at the same time. How can something so trivial also be something of such great importance?
3. In Green Dots 101, R. E. Somol states “those who can, do, and those who can’t, teach.”, although many of the greatest teachers were the ones who “do”. How has this concept of “doing” or “teaching” changed over time?
LikeLike
The question on “laziness” was interesting in how it is interpreted in discussion. At first glance it seemed as though laziness was taken literally in the sense that people were supporting doing less work. It was believed that by waiting until the last minute, one would not overthink the work and therefore be more productive. But the idea of laziness was not to be taken directly. The purpose of this question is to consider the elimination of extra work in accordance with the population at large. If people began to start designing less buildings from scratch, and dedicate more time to bettering those already built, it both simplifies the workload of the designer (laziness) and improves the lives of those whose interact with those places. The laziness mention is then known not as the amount of work done, but as the simplicity in which it is done.
LikeLike
1) Rem Koolhaas refers to his library as “formless architecture” but it clearly has a form and a set of formal ideas that surround it. The idea of voids and subtracting from the building create their own form, why does he call it formless?
) In 12 reasons to get in shape R. E. Somol talks about how using shape is now seen as the easy way out. He wants to bring shape back, “architecture doesn’t have to hurt.” As architecture progresses it gets more and more complex, is there something to be said about the simplicity of shape? Why do we strive to continue to out do ourselves as architects by achieving harder and more complex architectural feats?
3) “Eisenman’s problem is not really with the dubious ability to teach green dots, but with the very existence of green dots at all.” Says Somol in Green dots 101. We are taught a lot of abstract ideas as architecture students, is it our job to discern whether or not they actually exist in the real world?
LikeLike
Shape has become taboo for architects because it can be seen as basic. The idea of architecture is changing and evolving and for some using shapes just doesn’t cut it anymore. However, shapes can become great architecture if they have formal ideas. In Rem Koolhaas’ library he uses shapes by creating voids in the building which has a bounding box of another shape. The idea of a simple shape can be transformed into something vastly different. The shape is ambiguous, anything can be created from it. The ambiguity in shapes allows the transformation from boring to amazing architecture. An interesting point made by Neutelings and mentioned in the presentation that stood out to me was that laziness can be a good thing, especially in architects. “work smarter, not harder” might be a better way to phrase it. In our world today we need people that can work with recycled materials or reuse and repurpose materials and buildings. It is up to architects to see the potential in reusing and recycling, especially when a lot of people don’t recognize the urgency of climate change. To help our Earth we have to be lazy in the sense that we can’t keep getting materials that aren’t renewable or knocking down old buildings to make new ones. Be lazy and work with what’s already there.
LikeLike
1. Many architects seem to be searching for this new approach in architecture. Somol and Whiting name their idea as “the now dominant paradigm,” by linking critical architecture with projective architecture. What aspects of their concept would you use and what aspects wouldn’t you implement?
2. Freya Stark stated: “A part of all art is to make silence speak. The things left out in painting, the note withheld in music, the void in architecture – all are as necessary and as active as the utterance itself.” In your opinion, how do voids in architecture speak to you?
3. From the 12 key words, argued by Somol in reference to the philosophy of “shape” in architecture, which words do you believe are more integral to his stance? Which words do you believe could use more rigor in its explanation?
LikeLike
In conflicting manner, architects strive to create these new and innovative designs but they also strive to take the “laziest” approach possible. Designing new and innovative is perceived with rose colored lenses and isn’t necessarily the best approach. Meanwhile, laziness tends to have this negative connotation surrounding it, but it’s really all about finding the most efficient way to accomplish a task in the most time effective manner. Like all things in architecture it boils down to finding a balance. Neither method is better than the other, it just seems like some methods are more neglected than others. In the articles and during seminar attention is brought to the importance of this balance. The solution for every situation isn’t to always knock down what is currently present and rebuilding something new. Sometimes using spaces and voids you can re-purpose a currently existing space, which could also accomplish your goal while approaching design in a more efficient manner. Laziness leads to ingenuity, which can stem from creating within something already created.
LikeLike
1. As architects, it is ingrained in us to always create something new. Is it also our responsibility to try to reuse and recycle buildings, so as not to create architectural waste? And does it require the same design skills to reuse a building as it does to create a new one?
2. In the Koolhass reading, it talks about how the world was beginning to experience an electronic revolution while he was doing a project to design a large library. Can architectural design reverse or influence the course of a revolution – social, political, or economic? If so, how?
3. Why is it necessary to explicitly distinguish shape and form? There are characteristics shared by both, so why must they be studies as autonomous beings?
LikeLike
One of the more interesting parts of the lecture was the discussion on ambiguity. The theory behind ‘green dots’ is about overcoming the criticality of shape, and ambiguity is the perfect answer to that. The use of ambiguity also allows for greater ease of accessibility. It makes the architecture a pleasant, but more importantly, understandable experience for everyone. I think this happens because ambiguous shapes tend to be relatively simple, or at least the look as if they could have been easy to come up with. This is important because lack of detail tends to lead to the ability to capture a larger audience. Sometimes it is possible for architects and designers to overthink and do too much in their designs. However, this often leads to their design being alienated by the public and the community it was created for because they do not understand it. If an architect’s design is only understood by other architects, then it is not a successful, or accessible, design. This is not to say that trained architects won’t find a deeper meaning within buildings, it just means that buildings, and architecture in general, needs to operate on multiple levels. A level that is understandable to all/most, and a level that speaks to the higher ideas of architecture.
LikeLike
1. In 12 Reasons to Get Back Into Shape, it implies rules for what a shape should be, such as buoyant, adaptive, and low resolution. Along with these statements, it says shape should be arbitrary and expendable, but do these characteristics not clash if such rules are imposed?
2. In On Laziness, it says that architects are able to have full creativity and ingenuity when unbound by programmatic details. Whilst being true, it is only a small percentage of freedom that they have. With that being said, how can architects think creatively and “outside the box” whilst being tied down to a list of specific programs?
3. In Green Dots, it is mentioned that newer, more expensive modeling programs are hindering architects’ ability to be inventive. Is this true? And if it is, how can we start incorporating older techniques of modeling into this new, tech-savvy design style we live?
LikeLike
The panel brought up a thought provoking question of “does laziness actually create ingenuity and increase efficiency?”. It is important to realize that the word laziness is being used ironically and also as a general concept. For example, the Very Big Library by OMA, mentioned by James during the lecture, is intriguing in that they were able to revisit the typical cube and make quite revolutionary. OMA uses their “laziness” to redefine shape in architecture. It is lazy due to the typical geometry of the building, a cube, but it is radical in their use of excavation and removal of mass to create new shapes, on the interior. Another view of “laziness” that was brought up was the recycling of old buildings, which is very environmentally and economically friendly. However, the anthesis would be that there is not a lot of room to create truly new designs, which brings up the question of how can we decrease our ecological footprint while also creating new architecture?
LikeLike
1. In the article “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape” shape is said to be criticized by architects while they accept form and mass. If shape is being explained as this adaptable medium why shouldn’t architects claim it?
2. In “Strategy of the Void” the author writes about how architecture must focus on its last function “the creation of the symbolic spaces that accommodate the persistent desire for collectivity.” Can the human desire for collectivity be the only factor to lead to the creation of space?
3. In ” Laziness Recycling Sculptural Mathematics and Ingenuity” the author writes about how recycling old buildings, typologies, concepts, and strategies is considered lazy. Would you consider it lazy seeing that with this process you are able to gain the notions of the previous design and keep improving upon it leading to a more developed and innovative product?
LikeLike
Your first thought when you hear the adjective lazy is usually negative. However, when you apply the term to architecture (or just your thought processes in general) you can see how it positively impacts one’s processes. What is identified as laziness isn’t always defined by an unwillingness to work. To think completely outside of the box and be able to come up with unthought of designs and ideas within architecture can be very difficult. By using this “lazy” process of thought it enables you to excel in other ways and create a more effective, logical, and beneficial outcome. By revisiting things people are able to redefine and repurpose them increasing the new while bringing up, unseen before, resolutions and issues. The laziness approach creates a more efficient way of bringing about innovation and ingenuity.
LikeLike
1.R.E. Somol’s “Green Dots” discusses the simplicity the green dots concept, which is inherently similar to the ideas of the ‘ink blots’ discussed in the previous lecture. Eisenman questions the understanding of the green dots concept, saying that the “real problem isn’t that teaching green dots is too confusing or complicated, but that it’s too easy”. How is simplicity in architecture misunderstood or forgotten in the world of design?
2. Two common themes mentioned, particularly in “12 Reasons” and “Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism”, are mobility and cyclical production. How is the existence of the architecture affected by its ability to change? Should architecture be designed to remain structured for its lifecycle or adapt with its changing environment?
3. In “12 reasons”, the concept that, “Form is essential…it is made fit for a purpose, contingent…whereas shape adapts”. Are the two concepts entirely distinct or are they capable of working together in combination and how does this apply to the architecture of design?
LikeLike
This lecture has clarified the concept of simplicity in terms of design and architecture. While laziness is often considered a synonym with simplicity, the term to me means efficiency and ability to change over time. Another major topic discussed throughout the class and the readings was the focus on inconsistent entities that are constantly in a state of change and motion. The two concepts, simplicity and adaptability coincide with one another. Does simplicity mean complexity in its meaning rather than complexity in its form? Form and shape play a major role in this concept.
LikeLike
1. Within the reading “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, a Ingenuity,” It is stated that many forms of architecture is created using mathematical equations. This can be seen with ancient Greek architecture, where the pillars are made with specific dimensions that could be used to design the rest of a temple. My question is: Is it possible for a building to be seen as well-planned without following a pattern as a base of design?
2. In the Reading “Strategy of the Void,” there are many examples to how crucial including void is to architecture. Many buildings have different amounts of void within them, each one given the amount needed to punctuate the building’s design. Is it possible, however, for there to be a building that uses as little void as possible while still being viable?
3. The “12 reasons to Get Back into Shape” reading talks about the different ways shape helps to create architecture. There is one thing I don’t understand when it comes the reading. It is implied that it is possible that shape is not integral to architecture. How can shape be used to design architecture?
LikeLike
Within architecture, form and shape are the cores of design. There are many ways to look at how we can shape a building. In one form, there is iconicity, where the building can be set to follow the shape of a common object or symbol. This has resulted in both amazing buildings, as well as less than spectacular designs. Another style of designing form is through a change of prioritization. Instead of focusing the form and then inserting the required machinery inside, some architects focuses the placement of the machine and forms the shape to what is needed. This can create very unique buildings that can provide an industrial or futuristic design.
It is stated that a lazy man will find the easiest way to complete their job. This holds true for most architects. One method that they have used for thousands of years is the method of basing the designs and measurements off of mathematical equations. This idea goes back to even the ancient Greek civilizations, where the temples would be based off of the Pythagorean Theorem, fitted into the pillars as the plan to the rest of the building, rather than building a unique temple each time. Even though laziness may seem like a bad habit, when it comes to architecture, it can lead to amazing ideas.
LikeLike
1. In the “12 reason to get back in shape” reading by Somol, he cites many reason why the Shape in its simplest form has been rejected because of it’s implicit simplicity. There is a paradox in Architecture in that we reject the simple often citing it to be taboo, too easy, or generic, but in a similar way we design with conventions that have been laid out before us. How do you feel Rule-of-Thumbs guide architectural practice and do you see this convention of design as productive or a burden?
2. A step back to “Green Dots”; Becoming critical of design and reasoning and pulling back the curtain to a simple theory, Green Dots. This is provocative in nature but is one of the true architectural challenges for architects who’ve come before us. Green Dots could mean everything and nothing. I feel often we skip past the Green Dots and go straight to convention of design, burdened by our fancy tools and programs. Do you feel that we don’t think enough about the “Green Dots” in our architecture here at school?
3. We’ve talked quite extensively regarding Indexes and the forces that play a part in our lives. One of the main Indexes I see in society is Power. Political or monetary power, both of which have driven the field of Architecture to what it is today and in some ways is why the field exists today. Do you feel Architecture in service of the index of power does justice to our intentions as architects? or is it just the means for realization of our vision?
LikeLike
1-“Form is essential, whereas shape adapts, it is made fit for a purpose, contingent” (12 reasons to get back into shape SOMOL). If the saying is true and form follows function, and the architecture will be based on the function it houses, how does shape effect architecture. Or is it an architectural idea that shapes space?
2-If a diagram is a representation of the virtual and the index is a representational trace of the real, how can the index become a physical diagram to connect the virtual idea and the augmented reality the index creates? Is this how an architectural diagram is expressed physically?
3-How can we as architects take old building and recycle then whist still creating new architecture? Will this laziness continue a loop of repetitiveness in architecture or can we recycle buildings in a way that is economical and ecological whist still creating new ideas and new forms of architecture for the future.
LikeLike
Shape and form must be balanced in architecture. Can shape be the same factor for understanding architecture that form is? It can be, because once shape is implemented into a building design it is given a particular meaning. Shape is what gives personality and character to a building whereas, form is what describes the greater function and program. Yet the success for a program is not only limited to form. The shapes that are in a space ( like voids for negative space) introduce new opportunities for what program may be housed there.
The discussion of laziness is an interesting one as well and an important factor in architecture. Although laziness has a negative connotation to it, in architecture it is surprisingly positive. It becomes a form of efficiency in building. Unlike the usual connotation of the word, it actually provides a new force of creative expression. It take something already designed, created and built and augmenting it into something radical and new takes more effort than would be thought. Yet at the same time the exiting construction does allow for laziness to ensue; the thing is already built, how do we now change it to give it new meaning, new life and to create a new movement of architecture. There were the modernists, the futurists, will this form of building become the re-cyclists movement?
LikeLike