In the reading, On Laziness Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, and Ingenuity, the main focus in the reading was on the culture of laziness. And it brings up the point of how we wouldn’t have the great buildings we have today because of the lazy compromises that the architect makes in the design process. And that brought up the question of, how would architecture differ if architects weren’t lazy with the process?
Based off of the same reading, they talk about how the clients need to be compromised with and told to think less ambitious, or just told what they cannot have. Would we have as many architects or functional buildings if we listened to the client all the time or would the compromising of the client’s ideas be inevitable?
The reading 12 Reasons to Get Back Into Shape by R.E. Somol it gets into detail on how interesting shapes are great to have for buildings because how the shapes are interesting and give new life to buildings instead of just having boxes. What would buildings will be if there was only exotic shapes? Or only basic shapes?
Shape is a very important feature of architecture, without shape there wouldn’t be form or function. Shape creates new culture of architecture, it creates a new way of expressing ideas stories and form with as much or as little intensity there is. The natural laziness of the everyday people definitely contributes to the process of creation we have all these ambitions and ideas but don’t have the energy to follow through with anything. That self-compromise is very important to the process and every little thing that is produced. Over the years the shapes and designs have been become more and more simple. The further we go the lazier our designs get but the amount of success that they also receive is phenomenal. But I feel the further we go the less basic we can become so we have to resort back to more interesting and complex shapes which will eliminate the laziness.
1. In “Notes on the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism, R. E. Somol and Sarah Whiting reflect on Eisenman’s analysis of the Dom-ino House by Le Corbusier. Eisenman explains that “the design process itself is being registered rather than the material productive and technical systems”. Based on this example, is the design process a subconscious or conscious design consideration in the mind of an architect?
2. In Neutelings’s essay, “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, & Ingenuity”, he describes the various ways to use laziness to the architect’s advantage. One method of utilizing laziness is to reuse buildings that already exist. How does this relate to the idea of the collage from “The Fold, the Blob, and the Diagram” and the question of whether new designs are truly “new” creations?
3. In “Strategy of the Void” Rem Koolhaas discusses his project, Très Grande Bibliotheque (Very Big Library). In the core of the building, the “major public spaces are defined as absences of building, voids carved out of the information solid”. Why would Koolhaas utilize the emptiness of the void to establish the public programmatic elements of the library? How might the overall experience within those rooms change is the spaces were seen as volumetric blocks rather than “absences of building[s]”?
A critical aspect of the discussion was on the efficiency of laziness in architecture. Laziness brings up the idea of working smarter not harder. The method of creating with less effort, thus being perceived as “lazy”, works not only to design buildings and ideas but also to design an effective process. When put into a time crunch, the designer is forced to come up with innovative ways to meet the requirements of a project. In turn, is subtraction a result of laziness? Subtraction has become a new formula for design, the second step after addition in design. Subtraction in it of itself is innovative, a new way of establishing voids in designs. In the process, the subtraction allows for the original form to be deconstructed and find elements that work to improve the overall design. Subtraction is a new “lazy” design method, but works to establish more complex and intricate designs.
1. In Neutling’s “On Laziness, Recycling Sculptural Mathematics and Ingenuity” he states that while recycling run down buildings , typologies and concepts, and simple mathematical strategies may be “lazy”, it seems to take more effort and require a lot more ingenuity than just starting from scratch. Why is it still considered lazy to do these things if it, at times, takes more effort to think of how to make recycled ideas your own?
2. In “Strategy of the Void” Rem Koolhaas writes about how architecture must focus on its last function “the creation of the symbolic spaces that accommodate the persistent desire for collectivity.” It also says that “the ambition of this project is to rid architecture of responsibilities.” If the goal of architecture is to rid it of its responsibilities, how can architects create spaces that make people feel a certain way?
3. In Somol’s “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape”, shape is said to be criticized by architects while they accept form and mass. Why don’t architects want to use shape if it is explained as this expendable, graphic and adaptable system of design?
Laziness is always seen as a bad quality to have. People want to avoid having lazy designers because they think they won’t do as good of a job. Today there were a lot of different views on laziness and how it works in the world of architecture. Laziness can be a very good thing when redesigning a new building from the remains of an old one. Since the architect is lazy, they’re able to take the concept from the old building and recreate it in a more modern way while keeping the same ideas. In my opinion, lazy people work the most efficiently because they get right to the point. Using ideas that have been used before and slightly modifying them is also smart because they know that the concept has worked in the past, so it will definitely work again. This shouldn’t be considered being lazy, but ingenious. If you already know it worked, why not do it again with your own style? Isn’t this why architects each have their own “thing” they do well?
1. In “Notes around the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism” by R. E. Somol and Sarah Whiting, they discuss the difference between “hot” and “cool” in different disciplines. Hot architecture can be described as preoccupied with creating something unique and different, while cool architecture requires context and a viewer to complete the project. Following this idea, is it better to create hot or cool architecture?
2. According to “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape” by R. E. Somol, what exactly is shape (if not form or geometry)?
3. In W.J. Neutelings “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics & Ingenuity,” the author discusses the use of laziness as a design strategy. Does this method of design create an issue of authorship?
Eisenmann develops a strict process from which to design. As a result, one must know the process to understand the building and its intent. This way of designing is utilized in many architecture schools, because it is a way of generating ideas. This design method alienates the public from fully understanding these buildings, because they might not understand the processes that were so important in creating the final product. While this method is useful in the academic world, it is questionable whether it belongs in the professional world. Buildings are built to be used by a specific client. This means that the viewer is integral in seeing the purpose of a building. With this in mind, one could argue that Eisenmann’s method of requiring people to see his projects only in the way he prescribes is not a successful way to design.
1. How does the concept of digital intricacy (and the blob) differ from graphic expediency (and the logo)? In Green Dots 101, Somol writes “Rather than exaggerate the kit of parts that makes up the whole, turn a single part or component into the whole. Proliferate one thing…” How can this relate? Can a group of logos create a blob?
2. Laziness, according to Neutelings, becomes a driving architectural force, from the world of commissioning and scope of projects beyond build dates to the recycling of topologies and concepts. Do you think that, in the vein of week 1’s overarching question, recycled architecture is due to laziness or due to the inability to make something new?
3. Koolhaas talks of the claustrophobia of modernity, saying “If we keep it as flat as the city demands, the thousands that now clog Beaubourg’s escalators would have to be shuttled between the extremities of the site to the five libraries like cultural cattle…What a nightmare.” Brasilia, the capitol of Brazil, is one of the only modern cities designed from the ground up by one architect, and is often likened to this kind of problem. Vast swathes of concrete separate simple, repetitive monuments. What do you believe Koolhaas means by “The claustrophobia of antimodernity,” and how might it apply to today’s integrated-information world of “new equalities?”
The immediate interpretation of Neutelings’ laziness declaration is a literal one—much of architecture is made by means of lazy design, or deadline-pressure push-throughs, or a recycling of thoughts and ideas. His emphasis on the ironic use of “lazy” is sometimes overlooked—he’s not just advocating for passive laziness. After the presentation, I believe that an architect’s relationship to any current style or status quo is not as severed as they may like. Recycled architecture is often accidental, and the influence of modernism, regardless of stance, is by now inescapable in today’s schools. The invention of new modes and methods in design will produce new composts, new blobs and collages, new-new-new. Lazy architecture is in the eye of the beholder as much as the creator. Koolhaas’ comparisons to claustrophobia, cows, and the new flat city go far in asking how modernism, and anti-modernism, could apply to today’s world of “new equalities,” where lazy designing and those aiming to reinvent the wheel exist in the same places.
1. Somol describes or defines the idea of shape in many ways. Do you think you can develop form or massing without shape?
2. Would you agree or disagree with Neutelings statement that “architecture seems to be one of the few disciplines in which new developments seem not to rely on earlier achievements”?
3. We have been taught about the history of architecture and the developments of various styles and design types. Neutelings says the reuse of powerful types in a contemporary version is a more effective approach. Would you consider following these styles as laziness or a necessity to create new architecture?
The process of design and the production of meaningful architecture has always been highly discussed. Last week we questioned whether or not you could actually create new things, as well as the idea of authorship in architecture. Instead of categorizing in terms of style, it has become the norm to refer to something as the architect’s individual style. In most of our course work we learn about the history of architecture and the development of various styles. In the Neutelings reading they talk about the reuse of powerful types being a more effective approach. Laziness is also a debated topic, are following these styles a form of laziness in architecture? Eisenman views the process of developing architecture extremely necessary. It’s important to be able to see the process to create a meaningful design. The opposite is Koolhaas, where the process is not important at all, only the end result. This is the basis of “hot and cold” architecture, where Eisenman represents the “hot” architecture and Koolhaas with the “cold.”
1. R. E. Somol’s “Green Dots 101” emphasizes the importance of graphic representation; does something’s graphic representation necessarily need to correlate to its manifestation in order for the graphic to be as architectural as its manifestation?
2. In “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, & Ingenuity” Neutlings makes the suggestion that laziness can make effective use of the old, and also possibly inspire ingenuity based on specified conditions; is this to say that the current existence of architecture is inherently not benefitting from laziness, or can an architect find ways to be lazy while still designing architecture that is not strictly innovative?
3. Strategy of the Void uses the phrase “simulating invention.” Does all contemporary architecture need to be innovative, or are there instances in which all that is needed is a change in perspective? Are there other ways for architecture to be contemporary if it is not one of these two things?
1. Graphic representation gives a possibility to express a project in abstract terms without the necessity to be realistic. That is not to say that such a format of representation would not be architectural, simply that it could help bring to light important aspects of the project that otherwise may not be understood or seen in the manifestation.
2. It would seem that there are ways to be lazy without creating anything new, all the while still creating, particularly in the cases that involve the repeated and the identical. One example of this is in the instances of neighborhoods in which the majority of the houses in the area have the same floor plan, or one that has been altered slightly to create the illusion of change.
3. It can be supposed that a change in perspective would be innovated once such a connection is made, and for the sake of my argument, I will disregard that as an intersection these questions. One potential outcome to avoiding revelation in any capacity is to, as mentioned by Neutlings, to repurpose something old and implement it in a pre-existing condition in which it has never existed before; the concept of “recycling” an idea in order to give the impression of a new concept without having done anything at all.
1. Based on Green dots 101, and Eisenmann’s theories on the direction of where architecture is going, is the “blob” or the “logo” going to be more critical in years to come?
2. Based on the article on the doppler effect and other modernisms, how is the theory behind”Mitchum architecture” shown in today’s architecture?
3. Based on Rem Koolhaus’s article, how is the void integrated into a building’s creation that causes it to be so important?
1. I think everyone has their opinion on architecture nowadays whether or not they are well informed. I think the public would feel better in having more of a logo frame of mind, where they can find something they recognize easily.
2. Mitchum architecture in the article is described as looking cool and effortless. While architecture is not effortless, one of the major criticisms I personally have is that if something is designed well, most of the time people will not notice. They might say it looks pretty, but otherwise not notice any effects the architecture might have on them. If something is designed poorly, everyone will know right away.
3. Without the void, architecture is nothing but form. The void is what creates the livable, useable space that is the most important part of architecture. Void gives architecture its form so it can have a function.
The presentation was well done and created a clear movement from topic to topic that allowed the viewer, myself, to clearly be able to understand all 5 articles and be able to understand the key points. Additionally, there was a good use of pictures and diagrams, and not overly too much text. We all read the articles that presentation helped me to understand it.
1. In Neuteling’s, On Laziness_Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, & Ingenuity, he addresses the growing presence of laziness, and how taking laziness into consideration when designing is crucial to ensure the longevity of architecture With that in mind what are examples of “laziness” that cause people to be drawn to certain spaces, and how can we implicate those same ideas into our work to create successful designs?
2. Nueteling also talks bout the wave of recycling run down building and how some of which many have been used for one thing but programatically would be better used for another purpose. How is that so, especially when architects place program with such high importance how could an architect design a building which doesn’t efficiently serve its own purpose? Is it because these older buildings were not designed with a debt of organization and program like modern architecture practices today? Maybe architects have a better ability to transform something existing, like a blank canvas?
3. The S,M,L,XL reading is a series of Rem Koolhaas’ diary excerpt which discuses ambition, iteration, and the creative process through the designing of a library for competition. The reading takes place between April and July of 1989 which is a similar time frame we have as architecture students each semester, how can we follow his iterative process and design approach to create similarly successful and also conceptually developed designs in our own work?
1. In the article “Strategy of the Void”, Rem Koolhaas introduced the idea of a big library with voids carved out of the information solid to be as the public space. Is this something different than the current architectural or urban planning order where circulations are more or less formed by functional spaces surrounded?
2. In “Notes around the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism”, I suspect that minimalism is considered as “cool architecture” given the fact that the environment is filled with “high def” objects: when one type of existence becomes familiar, the opposite would switch the criteria and become critical.
3. In “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape”, Somol seems to confuse the concept of “shape” or, in other words, to expand the idea of “shape” to be inclusive to other qualities. IMO, it all depends on the scale and angle you inspect the project. ?
1. It’s similar to the urban environment where we walk around “voids” formed by functional spaces. And Rem Koolhaas manifested this idea in his Seattle Central Library project which is like an extension of the public street.
2. I think “cool” architecture is best defined as something that does not stimulate strong and particular emotions. “Cool” architecture allows flexible interpretation without causing acute discontinuity and unfamiliarity.
3. “Shape” of architecture should be simpler but able to combine with other characteristics to articulate different feelings and characters. “Shape is buoyant” is better defined as “Shape + Buoyancy”
1) While shape is described as “intensive” in “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape”, it can be argued that most of those qualities come from the passive, subjective perspective of the viewer or inhabitant. How can we as architects develop shape so that it can become active or more engaging?
2) Part Two of “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics & Ingenuity” brings up an interesting point in how we think about design: many examples of city-building architecture seem to either ignore the existing context or erase it entirely. Why do you feel that these examples stray away from being “lazy”?
3) “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics & Ingenuity” seems to establish a blurred line of division between efficiency and laziness. In architectural design, is there a point where the two can be considered as two completely separate entities? Do you feel that you identify as efficient or lazy in your undergraduate work?
One of the most interesting parts of today’s symposium for me came from the diversity of interpretations for the differences between architectural “laziness” and “efficiency”. A conscious design that is made with respect to its surroundings is very important to me, so seeing how everyone applied it to their own views on work ethic, time management, and personal beliefs was informative. A great point I’d like to highlight is the fact that “the ground is where both culture and politics are prescribed”.
In order to go towards an architecture that is made for humanity, we must have stronger connections with those that we design for. Stronger emphasis should not only be placed on research and true understanding of these things, but also the architectural traditions and pre-conceived standards that contribute to the misunderstandings that this issue stems from. I personally want to understand more about how concepts such as figure ground and shapes can be used to enhance and give depth to the idea of context. These will help me diversify my work to be as well-rounded as possible.
1. Somol pairs the word “shape”, or at least its place in architecture, to a plethora of negative adjectives. From the reading, “shape” is considered worthless in architectural conversation, but form and mass are considered valuable. From my point of view, I had always thought the “shape” was an over-arching term that encompasses “form” and “mass”. In that regard, what is the how is “shape” such a no-no, when all three terms are related to one another?
2. Koolhaas describes the electronics revolution as something that will eventually “melt all that is solid”. It’s interesting to look at poetically, since we are getting towards the end of the curve with this transition. He then goes in to the concept of the library (in building form) as an allegory for this thesis. Thinking about how a library holds physical books as its central program, and how less people now are reading physical books, I raised myself this question: Could program change based on technological advancements, or just become obsolete? For example, when there are no physical books, would people still go the library? If so, what for?
3. In the reading about laziness, it takes a lot of time to describe the benefits when it comes to being lazy and efficient with architecture. However, just briefly it mentions that diligence and ambition is a dangerous combination in architecture. What makes diligence a bad characteristic?
From the lecture and discussion today, I can understand how “shape” isn’t a desired term in architecture. “Shape” is superficial; it refers to the look of things and doesn’t go into a deeper understanding in terms of architecture.
Program can definitely change, but not easily. Buildings that rely on older technology, which will soon be outdated, will have to adapt or else they will become obsolete. It takes the implementation of innovative strategies and flexibility of program to make this possible. On the other side, this doesn’t mean that everything will survive and remain relevant. In a sense, it would be survival of the fittest.
Diligence could be looked at negatively because since you would try to work and think more, you might overthink things and be prone to mistakes with overthinking.
In conjunction to my point about diligence, you also have to consider if you possess the trait of indecisiveness. A lot of times, having no chance to think will clear out any muddy thoughts and will leave you with a clear one.
1. In “Green Dots 101”, Somol states that the structural grid that was once so prevalent in Eisenman’s work has now become a “thematic trope” in his later works. Are there any similar examples of other architects doing the same?
2. Has “shape” found its way into architecture since Somol gave us twelve reasons to get back into it? Or has architectural progressed in a different direction?
3. In “Notes around the Doppler effect”, Somol discusses Marshall Mcluhan’s labeling of hot and cold media, and calls Architectural criticism hot. Are there any other aspects of architecture that could be labeled hot or cold?
The lecture/ presentation today presented many very interesting ideas regarding shape, form, context, and criticism. However, the one thing I thought about the most after the presentation was the notion of laziness in architecture. The idea of laziness is one that I haven’t often thought of, but the story about OMA’s Casa da Musica, and Falling water were truly eye opening. Not in a way that would encourage me to wait longer and longer to start my work, but rather it showed that even the most experienced designers often work better under pressure. The fact that one of the most well known buildings in architectural history was practically thrown together in one afternoon is inspiring, but it also shows the ability of the most accomplished architects and designers. Right now I may not even be able to make a legible plan in four hours, but in the future, with a greater education and design skills, I may be able to procrastinate as well as Frank Lloyd Wright.
1. In their writing, Somol and Whiting describe the Doppler Effect, both scientifically and in relevance to architecture. They then assert that indexes are traces of the real and that the Doppler effect explains the change in pitch between sounds approaching and moving away. Given this, how can the Doppler effect be modeled within architecture to create indexes, while ensuring that architecture essentially becomes adaptive?
2. Architects and historians have a long-standing disagreement between the use of the terms form and shape. Understanding Rem Koolhaas’ assertion of the term ‘shape,’ what are modern examples of architecture that are representative of the word, as opposed to being form-based constructions?
3. Establishing a graphics protocol for architecture to be read diagrammatically and seamlessly is incredibly important, as one might recognize in OMA’s use of ‘Green Dots’ in their Tree City Project. However, could the logo, as Somol asserts instead become an indicator of an architect’s work as opposed to a diagrammatic tool, or must it always have a function legibly?
For many, the issue of architecture has become one of commodity, hence allowing for architecture to become more readily understood, and accessible to the general population. However, for many architects, the discourse has become almost too readily understood. One of the means through which architecture has become much more accessible is through the architect’s efficient use of laziness. Instead of design buildings to the point of excess, for many, architecture has become more simple- minimal, almost. The operation of subtraction has become critical architecture, drawing it back to its original state of zero-ness; helping architects to efficiently create “new architecture.” However, despite the operations carried out by architects to create “new” architecture, architects are essentially limited in their creations due to buildings codes and constraints of form. While we can take architecture and alter the function of a building, the original form riddles the preconceived notions that decrease the perceptions of originality, rendering the building static.
As I read, Laziness Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, and Ingenuity, I noticed the attention that the author had drawn toward the overall idea of “laziness” in the architectural world. This brought up many questions that I was uncertain about. One being; if a large majority of today’s architects were lazy in their work, would that take a toll on the production of our current cities, and hold us back going into the future?
From reading, 12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape, the author, R.E. Somol, put the shapes of our world’s architecture into a perspective. This perspective was that having exotic and abstract shapes would be beneficial to new architecture, and that it would open the door to even more interesting shapes that could be later used. My question is, would it be possible to open up a new era of architecture, and if this was possible would the minds of the everyday people be able to adapt to such a drastic change in the way we view our world today?
The reading, Green Dots 101, puts a focus on how the “logo” is a direction in which architecture is going today. Will this “logo” be the right conception of architecture we need in order to create new and advanced architecture that will benefit us in the long run?
1. In Rem Koolhaas’s entries following his way through the Very Big Library Competition, he expresses his thoughts and criticisms of what has come from modern architecture. He seems worn out and tired of the constant pressure on architects from people to create something new and interesting. He even questions why he should be doing it and not them, and therefore creates voids as public areas for them to invent their own “eureka” moments. How much creativity and inventiveness should be tasked to the architect versus the inhabitants/visitors? Is it through voids and vagueness that the most creative and innovative spaces evolve?
2. In “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape” R.E. Somol said “architecture doesn’t have to hurt.” This statement stood out to me the most in the entire article because I find it applicable to studios we are taking now in school. Has architecture become too critical that we tend to gravitate to overly complex projects out of fear? If so, is there a way to get away from this “pseudo intellectual” and seemingly pretentious way of creativity?
3. On the subject of laziness as a tool in architecture, the question of how buildings should be built is prompted. If we want to be able to reuse buildings for different functions in an ecological effort to stop building an excessive amount of buildings that will inevitably become abandoned, how much thought should be put into the function of a building in its design? Should more focus go on the transformative properties (spatially and material-wise) of a building that would make it viable for reuse?
Mentioned in the Neutelings, how can people believe that taking advantages of laziness will always gain a persuasive result? What will be the core design idea if architects only utilize those lazy methodology?
During the accommodation for collectivity supposed by Koolhaas, every small consideration happens in a project, that other people who are not architects cannot discover, emphasizes the meaning of architecture. Could we arbitrarily define this as our last function?
The redefinition of hat and cool arose in the Somol and Whiting pointed out the interaction between architecture and human. Could the ignorance of real temperature also influence this interaction and also the distinction of hot or cool?
Mentioned by Michel Foucault, Unities forming a number of autonomous, but not independent governed by rules, but in perceptual transformation. Whatever shaping the form based on the rules established by cause and effects, or structuring the space from cold to hot generated by interaction between social activity and architecture, the projective architecture reads as scenario of a spatial composition.
1. In R.E. Somol’s “Green Dots 101”, the author writes about digital intricacy in design saying, “If intricacy was concerned with introducing the non-linear, with turning the geometric inside-out, one aspect of the expediency program is to make extensive references intensive..” Does intensive intricacy single out and focus on one reference or does it seek to intensify extensive references?
2. In Neuteling’s On Laziness Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, and Ingenuity, it is obvious that laziness is not implied to mean non-productivity in the action of design on an individual’s scale, but what adverse effects does the concept of laziness enforcing ingenuity have on a society built by these individuals?
3. In the third way of taking advantage of laziness (recycling typologies), style is an architectural taboo. If recycled concepts are reformed to fit the “new” style, how does style change if the concepts don’t? Is advancement just an aesthetic?
Architectural forms do not need to be complicated and are still effective in a design with simple shapes. I think the explanation of shape in architecture is based heavily on the language of design. Somol discusses architecture using laziness as a way of defining “new” architecture. Essentially Somol is referring to the use of recycled ideas, concepts, and forms to create “new” architecture. However we need to be careful with the way we define things. One might say that if architecture is recycled forms and concepts, then current buildings are not “new”. Concepts and forms are recycled, but they react to modern technologies/site and urban contexts. Program of current buildings are absolutely new, however there are also new limitations brought about by the way a building interacts with its site and embedded technologies. Therefore often the most effective forms for complex building logics are derived from the simplest shapes. Louis Sullivan’s “form follows function” is becoming more embraced in the practice of architecture. The newness of architecture is not its shape necessarily, but its purpose and its place in a society.
1. Is there a teachable difference between that with order and that without? If so, how do we begin to explain the different types of suborders that make up that object and begin to distinguish it from another architectural form?
2. If laziness is innate characteristic for architects, and one of the way to take advantage of that is recycle buildings, concepts and things that have been done before, how does an architecture surpass the struggle of trying to create an ingenuity different from the others? is there even such a thing as a new idea?
3. Following with the question of new ideas, Somo writes “Why not get back in shape”, suggesting that we focus on shape and form and its arbitrary and coll qualities. Is there any value in shape as a single space? or do we value programmatic organization over “intensive” and “protective” spatial conditions?
This week we focused on shape and form and how shape is the form itself, along with the concept of laziness.This brought up a lot of questions for me that were related to this, because we always focus so much on program and circulation in design, but in reality the content of it does not matter without the form. With form and shape, arises a new ‘issue’ of character, and how character speaks on a building. Are there any building devoid of character? devoid of form?
Another part of the presentation that was interesting to me was the focus on laziness and the different interpretations of laziness. not because of the way we procrastinator but because of the impacts in has had in architecture. this notion of recycling ideas, shapes and forms is lazy, but as proposed before, is there even such a thing as a new idea (if we are all lazy)?
1. “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape” is a poster like an article by R.E. Somol. In this article, Somol claims that shape is expendable — “Having officially refused all claims to shapes, architectural culture nevertheless retains its right to two related properties: form and mass”. Why form and mass are acceptable in architecture design while the shape is regarded as illicit?
2. The Doppler effect is the change in frequency or wavelength of a wave in relation to an observer who is moving relative to the wave source. In the book of “Notes around the Doppler Effect and other Moods”, Robert Somol and Sarah Whiting claim that the influence of early modernism architects to recent architects is like the Doppler effect. However, many early architects only left fantasy like their theories and parti sketches. How this work contributes to the physical development of architectures today?
3. Peter Eisenman question the “very existence of green dots at all as a legitimate architectural project” in the article “Gree Dot 101” by R. Somol. Why the legality of green dots is doubted by Peter Eisenman? Why he agrees that the relationship between geometry and a building project is critically represented or described, the one between graphics and representation or projection?
In the week 2 symposium, we extracted a number of interesting theories and concepts in several readings like “On Laziness Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, & Ingenuity” and “12 Reasons”.
One discussion arouses my attention is the interpretations of “laziness” and “efficiency” in architecture. Neutelings wrote, “laziness as a design strategy is anything but lazy”. As a matter of fact, laziness promotes the outburst of creation, the perfection of design, and the evolution in architecture. The idea of laziness should associate with the idea of efficiency cause it leads to the concept of the module, the prevalent of the parti in architecture.
Another seminar about “shape” attracts me as well. The shape is endowed with various characteristics in the presentation such as illicit, adaptable, arbitrary and buoyant, etc. Shape in architecture could be interpreted as anything as architects intended. It is unique in architectural design since shape in architecture cannot be divorced from construction. It has to be a decoration or a highlighting element instead of an arbitrary component appears in fine art.
1) In “12 Reasons to Get Back in Shape,” the author discusses the concept of the shape being indefinite and potentially infinite. Is it possible for this sort of belief to be carried over into architecture in that architecture is truly never finite?
2) In Koolhass’ reading, he states that all architecture is a byproduct of the influence of social and cultural economics. Is this a fair statement to architecture as a whole or do you believe that in some circumstances, it is actually the architecture that could be what shapes the social and cultural economics of an area?
3) Neutelings relates laziness to being a better architect. However, do you believe laziness directly makes the architect naturally “better” or is it that this laziness simply makes the architect “happier” thus leading to better designs?
One important thing I pulled from today’s presentation was how everyone had a different interpretation of “laziness” in architecture. I found it very interesting that the term “lazy” actually results in the resource of time, money, and energy which is a much more positive connotation than the world “lazy” is typically interpreted. This sort of opposing connotation that comes with the term laziness in architecture, is also directed related to shapes in architecture. Through the presentation I also found it very intriguing that there were a variety of different characterizations of shapes in architecture whether they be meaningful or irrational.
1.In the article, “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, & Ingenuity”, the most important focus describes how laziness would affect architect to create buildings. Because many architects always try to reuse some buildings that already exist. Would there be more new architecture or functional buildings if architects are not lazy?
2.Also, about the question from last one, architects are affected by their laziness so that they always reuse the some things to create new building. Is this a good thing that architects start to not lazy and design new concept every time when there is a new project?
3.According to the article “12 Reasons to Get Back in Shape” by R.E. Somol, he talks about that shapes are simply cool or boring but also talks about shape is adaptable at the same time. Is there any possibility that let shape become something go from boring into something very interesting?
According to the presentation, laziness is good for architect to save the old style and then renovating new style based on the old one. The lazy has to peel the skin off the type to be able subsequently to manipulate the model and dress it up again. If architects create new concept of how to build their own style buildings, they could not make those new concepts into some deep level considerations. The reason for this is that architectural design is a very long process so that architect is not able to attain their goal in a very short period. The best way to solve this problem is to keep the old style but also start to do something new which is based on the previous design concept. In this case, architects are able to make something that is in a very deep level understanding from the previous design concept, and also it become a brand new way to build what they pursue.
Shape itself has a lot of variety. For example, shape is expandable and graphic. Also, people always consider about how to make a balance between shape and function. Obviously, they can work together in the same building. Take voids as an example, voids in the architecture are like negative space. They are not just negative space but also can be space for the whole architecture. In this case, voids could become solids and solids could become voids at some level.
1) Hays Describes the Barcelona Pavilion as an event with temporal duration, whose actual existence is continually being produced,” or whose meaning is continually being decided. is this an attribute of fantastic architecture, or simply an attribute of architecture itself?
2) According to Neutelings, the concept of appealing to human laziness provides a whole array of different beneficial applications for architecture. while this argument seems valid, its primary flaw is that successfully executing that concept requires a lot of work. is there any such concept in architecture that can be easily executed, or by nature, is the role of the architect inherently difficult?
3) Koolhas describes the strategy of the void in his library plan. by nature, isn’t all architecture about strategically defining experiential voids? how is his interpretation of this different than others? why is it significant?
1. In the article Green Dots 101, the author lists of a series of operations in recent projects which provided cues for how
to do logo buildings and landscapes. What does he mean by “it should be surprising but fast, allowing no time for the quotation, irony, or delay of formal and informal reading protocols”? How can a still object be described as fast?
2. The forth step of developing logo buildings and landscapes mentioned using saturated single color. Why cannot use multiple and pastel colors? Many Japanese architecture were painted with pastel colors. They, in my opinion, do consider as logo buildings.
3. Based on Rem Koolhaas’s article S,M,L,XL, how was the project and concept being developed this successfully within a short period of time?
The presentation mentioned recycling building which was really interesting to me. Nowadays, “going green” has become a popular topic in the world, and recycling building are at the forefront of the green revolution. Most common building materials, such as concrete, bricks and plastics have recyclable alternatives. In addition to recycling building materials, another way for a sustainable design is the use of site provided materials. As the process of recycling materials continues to increase as a fashionable and sustainable statement, we are proposing a futuristic method that pushes the boundaries of how we think and build in the architectural world.
1. In green dots 101, Peter Eisenman’s conceptual markings and notations of design process have been invariably registered through manipulations of the structural grid. How did this reached an extreme in his Cultural Center for Santiago de Compostela?
2. The Domo-ino is one of the first modernist and critical gestures in architecture. In Eisenman’s discussion of Dem-ino, how is it the design process itself that is being registered rather than the material productive and technical systems or specific context discussed by Hays.
3. . In attempting to deal critically with contemporary spectacle culture, Eisenman seems to be arguing for a loosening of form and indexicality into figure. How do you explain “the non-passive passive” that Eisenman exhibited and experienced?
A discussion of the shape shows that the edges themselves are not very hard or sharp, but their purpose in the larger shape determines the ultimate severity. Buildings are usually designed to complete the service, but the way in which the architect explains the concept and the purpose of the structure determines the characteristics behind the form. The benefits of laziness in architecture are discussed because it can say no to the project and can simply reuse the building. Eisenman believes that the process of developing buildings is very necessary. It’s important to be able to see the process of creating meaningful designs. The shape in the building can be interpreted as the architect’s intention. It is unique in architectural design because the shape in the building cannot be separated from the building.
1| As is asserted by R.E. Somol and Sarah Whiting in Green Dots 101, architecture attempts to obligate a performative practice, an action which establishes the construction of another world, to a constative, or rather falsifiable, evaluation. Due to this obligation, could architecture be more thoroughly evaluated upon the means of its creative endeavor? Essentially, rather than evaluating the preconceived functional traits of an architectural work, would it be more productive to evaluate it by its characteristics which separate it from previously existing works?
2| In an attempt to argue for a more efficient architecture, dutch architect W. J. Neutelings insists that an application of laziness, “the reuse of powerful types in a contemporary version is a more effective and less wearying approach” to architecture. To excavate this idea further, is the optimization of past typologies , rather than the tactless reuse of, the most practical and efficient road to a fully developed contemporary design?
3| R. E. Somol argues against the relatively recent rejection of shape as a legitimate architectural concern, reasoning that “shape never appears as a definitive object itself, but at most is the residual for other objects”. Can shape, rather than form or mass, thus allow for a more conceptually complete architecture, being free to ingest the possible myriad conclusions of the characters who inhabit it, rather than attempting to address them?
“Laziness as a design strategy is anything but lazy” – rather it can act as the total optimization of available architectural means; time, money, resources. Laziness is a form of efficiency wherein the architect emerges as the operator of an apparent figural and functional machine. The architect directs decisions shaped by the constraints, or more appropriately the rules and regulations, both social and economical, of the site. The site then, exists beyond its physical, geographical location and reaches into the creative ability, or lack thereof emergent within the mind of the designer. Laziness associates with a particular social stigma wherein those who are lazy are not hardworking, undesirable; however, acting as a conceptually creative tool, laziness is the driving force behind architecture which separates it from other forms of creative expression. Laziness conforms an otherwise nonsensical, over-indulgent and possibly wasteful art form to not only the needs of the client, but also the needs of future generations within an ever-degrading natural environment.
1.) In R.E. Somol’s “Green Dots 101,” it seems as though the teaching of green dots as opposed to the doing/creating is thought of as completely impossible, and even the question of its teaching is, for some reason, illogical, but could those green dots actually be a representation of architecture? Is Somol really asking whether or not architecture can be taught, or if it is simply learned by doing?
2) In Somol and Whiting’s “Notes on the Doppler Effect and other moods of Modernism,” a fear of literalism is compared to disciplinarity, but could this idea be just as significant as Eisenman and Hays’ work , and could their work be “literal” in that is it some configuration of their past teachers’ work, only slightly iterated to become their own? If their work is just an iteration of what they had been taught, would that not mean their work is just as literal as the work it had been based off of?
3) In Koolhaas’s “12 Reasons to Get Back in Shape,” shape is illustrated as something completely versatile, something architects should be experimenting with, so why does most architecture seem to remain less experimental with shapes? Are architects afraid to expand their work beyond what it has remained for years, beyond their 90 degree angles?
Shapes can be completely versatile, capable of creating endless variations of themselves. It seems as though architects are afraid of straying from their typical designs and forms, leaving architecture to be of a repetitive nature, with little to no exploration of different sorts of shapes besides what is classified as the norm. It is possible to warrant this fear of experimentation with forms as laziness among designers, opening another point of how laziness has become another norm in the architectural field. It seems as though the lack of striation from simple forms such as a cube has become ideal, seemingly creating a sort of comfort or relief compared to other shapes that could potentially appeal to a more exciting or creative sort of project. Laziness has led to the exhibition of repetitive angles and massings, leaving room for discovery of possibilities with virtually any other sorts of shapes and forms.
1. R.E. Somol, in 12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape, writes that architects often view shape as taboo. However, he goes on to say that shape is many things. So how are architects able to avoid shape even though it takes on so many different roles?
2. What is the difference between shape and form? And how does one differentiate between the two?
3. In Green Dots 101, Peter Eisenman asks how you teach green dots, but he isn’t asking how to teach the shape as it is, he is asking whether the mere existence green dots is a legitimate architectural project. What transforms a shape into an architectural idea?
Laziness is often seen as a bad trait to have, however that isn’t always the case. Laziness, in many cases, is good. It saves time, money, and often leads to many ingenious developments. This week’s presentation was largely about what is perceived about certain traits or objects versus the reality of them. Often people see things as being one way, or only having one trait or purpose, when in reality, they are much more complex or have greater implications than what is originally portrayed. Shape and laziness are two of the main ideas of this presentation because they are viewed in a negative light many times. The stigma behind these two in relation to architecture is very negative. Shape is many things, however, for being so versatile and useful, many architects don’t like it, and try to avoid it. It is often seen as the lazy way out, but lazy isn’t a bad thing either.
1. In “12 Reasons to Get Back Into Shape” by Somol, he uses 12 keywords to describe what shape is in architecture. One of them is empty. If like he says shape is empty and often neglected in architecture, why would we always asked the question should shape (form) follows function?
2. “On Laziness Recycling Sculptural Mathematics & Ingenuity” by Neutelings suggests that laziness is one of the most important aspect in architecture, laziness combined with ambition is the key of a successful and balanced wok. However, no matter how successful it might be as a method, it still requires a lot of effort to achieve the goal. So does Laziness actually exists in architecture? Or is it a metaphoric way to say diligence is not always necessary in architecture?
3. In Rem Koolhaas’s “Strategy of the Void”, he says that “because something is void it does not have to be’built’, individual libraries can be shaped strictly according to their own logic, independent…of the external envelope.” But without external envelope to define the void wouldn’t void just become an empty space with nothing in or around it?
The presentation summarizes the readings very well and explains the concepts clearly. Some ideas they talked about that caught my interest were the “unavoidable void” and “the Doppler effect and other moods of modernism”. One question they mentioned was classic function or shape first? Their understanding of the question according to the readings lead to an interesting answer—Solid cube being carved out is no different than shapes being filled in. So function and shape are inseparable, without one the other would not have meanings. Voids are solids, and solids are voids. The combination of Doppler effect and modernism makes an unusual but intriguing concept. To summarize the whole concept in one sentence is that change is nature, and this is what projective architecture is about. Architecture is the relationship between moving entities and things are always moving forward, which in conclusion, projective architecture might be a new way of architecture.
1. In Green Dots 101 the author talks about creating a shape without reference but how is this done when everything done especially in architecture where most actions have some motive behind them.
2. In 12 Reasons to Get Back in Shape the author writes about surface area and shape being two connected things that affect each other in equal ways but then he talks about the possibility of one growing more rapidly then the other. What methods cause this more rapid growth in one area and not the other when these things are linked indefinitely.
3. In Notes around the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism the author writes about the differences between “hot” and “cold” architecture but which one or what mixture of both create the most iconic types of architecture.
1. Hays states that “Mies’s architecture situates itself between ‘the efficient representation of preexisting cultural values and the wholly detached autonomy of an abstract formal system’”. How do we balance the abstract organization of a design with the connection to its current surroundings?
2. Deleuze and Guattari believe diagrams and abstract systems “[do not] function to represent, even something real, but rather construct a real that is yet to come, a new type of reality”. What are diagrams used for in relation to structures?
3. Shape is described as an intention, a visual, and skill, among other narratives. How is shape truly categorized?
1. From Rem Koolhaas’ S,M,L,XL – Rem’s diary seems to be closely tied into the diagrams shown. It seems as though he tries to relieve some of the pressures of competition work through both the act of writing and the act of diagramming. What does the diagram gain from being informed by the diary? How can the disenchanted feeling that comes across in the writing come across in the diagrams without being counterproductive to the project?
2. From 12 Reasons to get back into shape – Shape is very important to architecture, and obviously a very complicated topic as Somol is able to assign so many adjectives to it. Do we inherently overthink shape in architecture because of the importance that assign to it?
3. A part of Neuteling’s thesis is that the discipline of architecture succeeds by dejecting earlier ideas. Is it important to deject ideas of the architectural lifestyle to allow architects more creative and personal freedoms from their work?
One approach to modern architectural theory has been very process oriented. Peter Eisenman has pioneered his style of architectural process and many people that studied under him have adopted this process. The process has pervaded modern architecture practice. Although this branch of theory has been successful, other contemporaries have rejected this idea altogether. One notable architect to do so has been Rem Koolhaas. While Rem’s approach is also process oriented, it tends to play off of programmatic analysis that is as old as architecture has been a practice. Koolhaas tends to take topics in discourse and activate them in counterintuitive ways. He tends to find great success in these classic ideas. Koolhaas tries to undermine discourse to create successful building. His focus on discourse often leads to iconic forms that aren’t tied into context beyond their size. He tends to plan the buildings based upon the functionality and accessibility of program. Again and again, he proves that the success of a building’s program is not related to the form of it.
1. Representation matters. Many of the readings are beginning to present architectural ideas and concepts in new ways that have never before been seen. How does these new ways of representing architecture inform architecture in new ways? Moreover, how will these new ways of representation inform architecture in the 21st century?
2. In Somol’s’ “Green Dots” text, he talks about the teaching of green dots, not in a classical way, but in a new way. He breaks down the idea that “those that can do, and those that can’t, teach” by teaching a new way of doing. How does this new idea of teaching transform the way we think about architectural education? Also, how would this bring architecture and our perception of it further into the 21st century and the future?
3. Neutlings preaches the concept of laziness as a newfound way of coming up with informed design. He uses this concept to give name to ideas in architecture (recycling, etc). While it is novel to call this ideas “laziness”, at what point can we still call these concepts “laziness”, and not a product of informed urban design? Where do we draw the line between selfishness and selflessness?
In the presentation, we looked at how various ideas can inform shape and design in architecture. Eisenman had one way of thinking, while Hejduk had another style of thought. These two styles, and many others, have informed the way we process and create architecture. In so doing, we can come up with radical ways on how to create, or even how architecture can be taught. The concept of teaching a style of architecture that “does” radicalizes the field, allowing anyone to create anything they want, so long as it’s in the name of “doing architecture.” With this, shape and projection are up to the architect, and how one so chooses to present or project their design to the world is entirely up to them, and we as the viewer are at the mercy of how architecture is delivered to us.
1. In the Strategy of the Void, “architecture’s last function will be the creation of the symbolic spaces that accommodate the persistent desire for collectivity”, how will architecture accomplish this goal?
2. In Green Dots, “Without trying to reduce too quickly the recent architectural noise that has ironically accompanied a new-found desire for communication – that is, the proliferation of discussions about ornament, monuments, the figure, the iconic, blobs, shapes”, how does this play into the argument of modern architecture?
3. In 12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape, what is the overall argument for shape? Is shape everything in architecture, or is it too much?
What is laziness in architecture? Does it equate to efficiency or are they completely different things? Laziness in architecture can be understood in two ways. It can be thought of as recycling other building typologies, sort of like a catalog of drawing conventions to choose from. It can also be thought of as renovating existing buildings. The latter renovating option I would consider to be very efficient and beneficial to the adjacent community. Being able to rejuvenate an abandoned building and bring life back into it is a great thing to do. On the other hand recycling existing building typologies is also an efficient way to architect. It allows for a no fuss design process in that all that needs to be done is a weaving of building elements being strung together into a cohesive design scheme. The other understanding is to actually be lazy and design things with no effort or efficiency. This will always have a negative impact on all the inhabitants and adjacent community.
1. If laziness is a successful method of trying to figure out a method of efficiency, is it possible that people with this trait have the ability to achieve more than a person who is overzealous with their approach to efficiency?
2. In Somols “12 Reasons to Get Back Into Shape,” if shape is supposedly arbitrary, then how would one go about designing the supposedly necessary relationship between interior and exterior that have undergone many different revitalizations over the years?
3. Extending upon the previous question, according to Rem Koolhaas, shape of the negative space in his Very Big Library is an important part of the identity of his project. Would shape still be argued as being arbitrary in a conversation discussing Koolhaas’ intentions with the library?
In the presentation, shape is presented as being characterized by many different meaningful facets when discussing the exact identity of the idea. Shape in architecture can be as meaningful or as arbitrary as the architect intends to make it. Some architects think that the process of introducing different shapes and forms into a work can risk facing the fact that an operation of removing or adding shape is completely arbitrary and meaningless, muddying the clarity and effectiveness of the intention in the presentation of the building. While this may be true to an extent, shape is a unique component in architecture in that it can’t be completely arbitrary to the design of a building in its final constructed form. When architects think about a void or solid shape being arbitrary, they think that the shape could be formed differently, placed differently, or removed all together without changing the nature of the building as a whole. However, the second that the design of the building is finalized and constructed, such a shape gains meaning that it didn’t necessarily have in the earlier, more conceptual stages of a project. That shape, in construction, becomes essentially a necessary part of the identity of the building, whether it’s immediately relevant to the conceptual design intent or not. People who inhabit and view the building will recognize that shape as being part of the permanent identity of the building, contributing to the profile of which people who utilize it so that they begin to recognize and identify that shape as being strictly tied to that building. Through this idea, shape as a facet of architecture can be arbitrary until that architecture is constructed. Past the point of construction, shape can’t be arbitrary, as it becomes a permanent aspect of the architectural profile of that building that people will use as a tool of identification.
1. In R. E. Somol and Sarah Whiting’s “Notes around the Doppler Effect and other Moods of Modernism”, they state that critical architecture operates between the extremes of conciliatory commodity and negative commentary, as well as being in a position as a cultural product and a discrete autonomous discipline. What is the role of critical architecture?
2. R. E. Somol’s “12 Reasons to Get Back in Shape” states twelve different characteristics that define the idea of shape, ranging from arbitrary, intensive, to empty. Do you agree with all these definitions and classifications? What do you think shape is and what word would you use to characterize it?
3. W. J. Neutelings’ “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics & Ingenuity” delineates how to take advantage of “laziness” to eradicate commision, recycle buildings, typologies, and concepts, utilize sculptural mathematics, and to enforce ingenuity. Really, this “laziness” is efficiency and cleverness. However, what potential shortcomings could there be if architects were only to recycle buildings and typologies? What would the future of design look like if architects were “lazy”?
One topic of discussion for this week’s readings was on recycling buildings, typologies, and concepts, masked under the term “laziness”. In actuality, this “laziness” is a cover up for ingenuity, efficiency, and conservation. Rather than construct an entirely new building, an alternative would be to reuse material, if not reuse the building itself. Furthermore, instead of creating new developments, which are often in response to rejections of prior developments, another method would be to reuse power types in a contemporary way, as that would be more effective and much easier. There’s a saying that you should work smart rather than work hard. Of course you should still work hard, but ingenuity and efficiency can produce equal if not better results, while saving a lot of resources and time. Following previous methodologies that were successful can give the architect room to explore and be creative after establishing a simple mathematical organization of the program.
1. In “Notes on the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism”, Somol discusses the “betweenness” of architecture and its tendency to be situated between a cultural product and an autonomous discipline. Architecture often also lies between history/culture. This realization brings about the question, what is the architect’s responsibility? Is an architect always stuck between wanting to design for his own needs to be met ( personal accomplishment, projects that will help portfolio, etc.) and having to design for the client? However, is this necessarily negative to be considering both sides – designing for both yourself, and the social responsibility of designing to help others?
2. “12 Reasons” describes the inherent qualities of “shape”, being illicit, adaptable, arbitrary, etc. By the end of the reading Somol seems to make the claim that Shape has no need for justification: “Shape is never having to say you’re sorry.” Thus, what role does shape actually have in architecture? Is it simply the result of a series of decisions made when forming the scale and form? And what is the clear distinction between shape and form, considering both define objects situated in space?
3. Logos function as graphic representations of something at a large scale as described in “Green Dots”. Logos condense ideas, seemingly stripping away ornamentation and representing the simple forms and concepts with clarity. Is this process of taking control of ideas and making them clear an efficient way of making architecture? Or, does this process result in an architecture that is limited in creativity?
The presentation helped me to understand better the concept of “laziness” being a tool for efficiency. In my own studies, I have always viewed laziness as a negative trait, a quality that enables minimum effort and time to be spent doing something. However, the presentation’s examples of architects that used “laziness” to their advantage really helped me to think about how I can better spend my time and be more efficient with the time that I have. Instead of spending hours to create a volume, there is strength in taking an existing volume and carving away at it – this is the process of erasure and subtraction that Rem Koolhaus used and had incredible success with. Also, logo architecture could be considered lazy however proves very successful. Laziness is an intentional process, it does not waste time focusing on every detail but rather pays attention to detail along the way. Renovating / reusing old infrastructure is most definitely more energy and cost efficient. “Laziness as a design strategy is anything but lazy” as stated in the presentation; however, is this a dangerous path? Does laziness eventually lead to a lack of passion or drive? Or can someone be lazy while simultaneously being incredibly zealous? It seems as though once we start validating laziness as an important and maybe even necessary trait, this could discourage artists from putting their all into their work and encourage a half-hearted work ethic. The answer to this is to find the happy medium; architects must always utilize their time in a way that is efficient and cost-effective, while also committing to taking the time that is necessary to come up with a sufficient design that meets / exceeds the needs of the client.
How are architects supposed to avoid using rhetorical excess of geometric form when shapes are essentially always borrowed?
What is considered a “saturated shape”?
How is architecture defined now compared to how it was defined in the 1980’s?
Today’s group presented a nuance of ideas that challenged and provoked questions about ambiguity and shape. Not only that but they discussed the differences between critical and projective architecture. I think the concept of hot and cold however, was incredibly interesting in that the hot aspect of architecture is essentially the act of perfecting or the perfection of a singular aspect of a building. Hot architecture can be looked at as the main character of the story. It challenges what already exists, triumphs against all odds with a purpose and affects everybody in a positive or negative shape or form. Whereas cool architecture exists as a subversive entity that is symbiotic to its environment. Its purpose is to question various scenarios that can become possible. Thus creating different perspective for architecture as a whole.
1. It was mentioned in Green Dot 101 that shapes were made from nothing with no reference, how are you able to do that in this field of architecture when their is supposed to be motive behind every action?
2. In 12 Reasons To Get Back In Shape, it is talked about how new shapes and designs are loved and encouraged in the field of architecture yet why are most new designs don’t go past the regular shapes of squares or circles?
3. Should we now move past order and restrictions in architecture and change to less strict free flowing designs in this new era of architecture like Peter Eisenman?
Today’s presentation looked at the different ways shape and form were created within the field of architecture. They also looked at how laziness can be viewed in a positive light depending on how you use it. In architecture laziness can be seen as an advantage by being able to do more in less amount of time. In architecture you are able to create shapes from nothing yet still have motive behind it by creating this shape with meaning. I believe that in architecture the reason why designs aren’t following this idea of new shapes is because most architects are stuck in the past and afraid to try something new. I believe that to advance in the field of architecture we need to most past the more basic designs of past styles into a new era. We can learn from past styles and use them to advance are designs and create these new free flowing forms like Peter Eisenman.
1. In Green Dots 101 Somol provided cues for how to do logo buildings and landscapes. Do you think that programmed method is a good way to design?
2. Do you agree or disagree Neutelings principle of laziness as a good design strategy although it has been proven sufficiently in some projects.
3. Based on Strategy of the Void, how did the void contribute to the architecture even it isn’t built?
Shape is the characteristic outline or surface configuration of a particular form. Shape is the principal aspect by which we identify and categorize forms. Form is an inclusive term that has several meanings. It may refer to an external appearance that can be recognized, as that of a chair or the human body that sits in it. It may also allude to a particular condition in which something acts or manifests itself, as when we speak of water in the form of ice or steam. In art and design, we often use the term to denote the formal structure of a work-the manner of arranging and coordinating the elements and parts of a composition so as to produce a coherent image. Form suggests reference to both internal structure and external outline and the principle that gives unity to the whole. While form often includes a sense of three-dimensional mass or volume, shape refers more specifically to the essential aspect of form that governs its appearance-the configuration or relative disposition of the lines or contours that delimit a figure or form.
1. Laziness is beneficial to architecture in being reusable, recyclable, and helps incorporate mathematical ideas. In what way can laziness achieve a unique and complex design for a structure and what does Neutelings mean when he states that the disadvantages of laziness is that it requires a lot of effort?
2. Koolhaus states shape is adaptable and can be a hybrid of both beautiful and ugly, how cant his be accomplished in architecture while incorporating other aspects such as scale, ambiguity or hollowness/emptiness?
3. In the notes on the Doppler effect and modernism it states,”architecture is both substance and act.” This is referring to the domino and its theoretical importance in architecture as one of the first modernist and critical gestures. How are these theories employed in design? How do certain structures comment on this idea?
This presentation was very interesting because it brought up peculiar concepts such as Rem Koolhaus’ statements about how Coney Island is a spectacle machine that tried to create little worlds and exploded and created Manhattan and the representative of eating oysters with boxing gloves, naked on the ninth floor. The idea of laziness was thoroughly discussed breaking typical beliefs about productive architecture. It is apparently beneficial for architects to incorporate laziness into their work and it can be used as a methodology. Laziness can help know if a project is not worth the cost to build it and can recycle by renovating an old project or use old forms/partitions or materials. Laziness overall, whether metaphoric or literal was meant, can recycle topology and concepts and can incorporate sculptural mathematics in design when a design cannot be created otherwise. Architecture production is neither cultural nor autonomous nor critical and index is not a symbol or an icon it is a sign.
1. In “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape” by R.E. Somol, he states all these things that he says about “shape”. Does this mean that shape is the 2 Dimensional term, but yet form is the 3 Dimension term to use? Therefore buildings create forms and not shapes, so why is there so much discussion about shape instead of form? Especially since “form is to follow function”. We design for the function not the shape.
2. In “Green Dots”, it says ” A logo function as a “graphic act” and in this sense operates as a performative, whereas Jenck’s icon remains in the constative or representational, domain.” This means that we need to rethink representation. what type of shape do we need to rethink?
3. In “Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism”, Somol uses this word “betweenness”. What would you do as the architect and you were stuck in this “betweeness”? Design for yourself or design for your client?
1. In the “Notes around the Doppler Effect and other moods of modernism”, there is a lot of talk about the “critical architecture”. What specific factors could be considered when properly criticizing works of architecture?
2. Over the years, architecture has gotten the fame of mainly focusing on geometric manipulation, what other characteristics can be used to identify the graphic protocol of an architectural work?
3. The style of architecture has radically changed a lot of the years, but it seems like the main focus all architects have come to explore is architecture that is very complicated and hard to design. In what ways can future architects find a compromise in using all of the characteristics that are described in “12 reasons” for making their projects more adaptable?
The idea behind what can truly be considered laziness takes on a completely new meaning as the readings proceed. The sense of the word can now be view as a tactic of working rather than a negative attribute. Depending on the person that may be dealing with a job or assignment, it might become more beneficial to leave the higher workload until the end. This can now be considered a better way of working because of the added pressure. From personal experience, feeling under pressure when doing an assignment forces me to do a better job, it drives me to create something much more extraordinary than what I could have done if I started earlier. Although in most cases this technique is judged by many, it brings me a sense of relieve knowing that people such as my fellow classmates, as well as world renowned architects work in the same way for the same purpose of creating something more magnificent.
1.) What do the Green Dots actually symbolize in In “Green Dots 101.”
2.) Somol states in “12 Reasons,” that shape does not need justification. This kind of goes against what most architects believe. What is Somol imply when saying this?
3.) W. J. Neutelings’ “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics & Ingenuity,” reminds me of the “smart worker.” Someone that uses logic to accomplish tasks efficiently and effectively. How can we do this as architects?
In music, the quarter rest hold the same value and the same importance as the notes themselves. You cannot merely skip over the rests. Counting seems mundane but in the grand scheme of things, the overall performance of the orchestra is more important than thinking the rests are boring. Many other forms of art hold the same principal. When conceptualizing form and shape, the elements can either be harmonious or in conflict with another. Space versus void can be a balance somewhere inbetween too. Both are equally as important.
1. In “S,M,L,XL” Rem Koolhaas proposes that experimental architecture can be rid of its responsibilities. But can architecture be rid of all responsibilities? Is Architecture still Architecture without constraints, or is it just art?
2. In “12 Reasons” Somol Mentions the relevance and of shape in our society. How does the idea of shape directly correlate to physically shaping form?
3. In “Green Dots 101” Somol states: “modernism’s values of abstraction and medium-specificity, articulation and notation both demand a commitment to the natural, necessary, and authentic.” How does one approach identifying the natural, necessary, and authentic? Is it based on perception? If so can this “perception” be change over time just like the idea of modernism?
During the presentations I gained insigt on various forms of work produced by Rem Koolhaas, and how his body of work differed from Peter Eisenman. I Appreciate the Eisenman ideology of creating an architectural space through a generative process; this is a common practice I use to quickly generate new iterations of forms I am creating, and it establishes an order in my work tat is able to speak for itself. Rem Koolhaas seems to have opposed the notions of architecture being limited by its constraints, and rather subscribed to the ideology of “Alles ist Architektur”, a concept that I previously touched upon in the last writing. To further expand on this philosophy, architecture is no longer defined by its constraints, rather there is no constraint to what architecture can be which is why all is architecture. I was also interested in W.J. Neuteling’s article on laziness. This article was a fun read because I felt that my strange workflow in studio could finally be justified, but I also realized that there is a limit to how “lazy” I could be.
1) In the reading by Koolhaas analyzing “The Strategy of the Void”, there are very specific beliefs and philosophies pertaining to architecture presented. “..Liberated from its former obligations, architecture’s last function will be the creation of symbolic spaces…”, this realization from the passage provokes a plethora of considerations regarding the existence of architecture and the life span of what one would deem as architecture today. If in fact architecture has a last function to see through prior to its demise, has this last function been enacted?
2) This week’s readings in particular, in each passage, directly or indirectly present strong views regarding what architecture “is” or “is not”. It would seem that this debate is one that will essentially be everlasting. Somol and Whiting respond to this by taking a categorical approach in architectural classifications, the first addressed being “critical architecture”. What could be the results (positive or negative), of placing an adjective in front of the word architecture? Would this act be confining or would it be a liberation of sorts?
3) Can geometric order exist in the realms of graphic projects? This is a seemingly challenging balance to establish for an architect that cares for a balance between the two. Is it necessary for there to be a balance? Can there be a beauty or desired work established that is classified as only graphic or only geometric?
• There was one specific work brought up in today’s lecture that I deemed particularly interesting in the context of the topic “Shape and Void”. This specific work that I’d like to analyze in conjunction to this week’s readings is the Iliad. It seems as though the story of the Iliad embodies the essence of architecture attaining a certain last function. In retrospect, if the shape and void of the architecture of the Trojan horse had a certain feeling of its own, was it possible that it knew it was being built for a suicide mission? If this vast assumption can be revered as accurate, would that mean that the shape and the void of architectural works when created not only effect the creator and/or viewers but the work itself?
“On Laziness Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, and Ingenuity” discusses laziness in Architecture. It is argued that we wouldn’t have the great buildings we have today if Architects compromised too much in the design process. It is also argued that laziness can be beneficial and used to the Architect’s advantage. One method is recycling elements of buildings or entire buildings that already exist. Has this methodology aided stagnation in the Architecture field?
In his journal entries that chronicle his participation in the Very Big Library Competition, Koolhaas explores the philosophical and social concept of a library. Libraries are spaces full of knowledge that people are seeking less frequently. Almost all accessible knowledge is becoming more and more digitalized. Koolhass describes this technological revolution as something that will eventually “melt all that is solid”. As society transitions, are certain spaces that we used to value disappearing? Or transitioning into something else? Is there any way we would predict the direction that spaces are evolving?
In, 12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape, the author, R.E. Somol, argues that having exotic and abstract shapes would be beneficial to new architecture. It would create a niche that would influence more Architects to create and design with even more interesting shapes. Eventually we would become accustomed to experiencing spaces without the rectangular, 90 degree angles that we are familiar with and dependent on. How would the lives of people change if we changed the angles of the spaces that they occupy?
1. In “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape”, the concept of “shape” is graphic and avoids form. It is a term that can serve multipurposes. Does “shape” have a variety of forms that allows this flexibility? Does our perspective of architecture aid in creating the term’s inclusive nature?
2. In “Notes around the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism”, the Doppler effect is the change in frequency of a wave. Modernism has caused the Doppler effect on architecture and architects, What is the author inferring about current architecture? Does modern architecture only aim to exist to be mainstream?
3. In “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics & Ingenuity”, reconstruction and destruction is a new concept added to the overall definition of architecture. Along those concepts, there is laziness within approaching architecture in order to fix issues. Could laziness be an obstacle to the development of our buildings and cities? What can be considered lazy in the current construction of architecture?
Architecture is an ongoing motion that is expressive on different levels, to understand the complexity we must strive towards new developments and methods. Fully utilizing advanced technology while considering different economies, ecologies, social groups, and informational systems. There is a procedure to constructing architectural structures, we also have to consider how to take advantage of reusable resources and which steps to take to be more efficient. Laziness is usually considered a negative trait that slows down the process of development, however it can be productive in an indirect way. How can someone take advantage of laziness and turn it into productivity? Instead of focusing on all the details at one step, we can focus on specific details along the procedure. To be more efficient by generalizing the trivial details and paying attention to the more important ones. Understanding the core of construction in order to have better ideas on renovation while being considerate about energy and cost efficiency. “The continuous state of laziness leads to the ingenuitive developments.”To extend the boundaries of design and construction, architects should be allowed to be lazy to be able to work smart. Architects must be committed to utilizing time management to bring about new design ideas and ingenuity.
1) In Rem Koolhaas ‘ “Bibliotheque” he describes the public spaces (voids) as ” multiple embryos, each with its own technological placenta.” how does a contemporary architect aim to mold his design project (embryo) to the conditions/constraints of its context, culture, budget, and other determining factors (placenta)?
2) The Minnaert Building in Utrecht employs “laziness” by allowing flight, air and water to infiltrate the main hall. The resultant interior-ecology creates a powerful architectonic an iconographic statement as light from above shimmers against the floor’s reservoir, set against the firm, opaque concrete of the main hall’s passage. What are other dramatic examples of ecological interface within the building envelope that engender such provocative tension?
3) Heterogeneity in program requires a specific level homogeneity in design, where separate programmatic elements are distinguishable but do not blur into potpourri. Where does architecture draw this line between homogeneity and heterogeneity? in other words, how does architecture express programmatic differentiation while remaining visually and atmospherically consistent?
Architecture must not conform to any particular set of principles or any single ideology. Interdisciplinary by definition, today’s building design needs to pull from all schools of thought. It must aim to synthesize all relevant precedents in order to spawn the ultimate performative system. Neutelings Exemplifies this in Gent by adapting the Beguinage housing typology to a modern housing challenge, effectively enclosing a grand central courtyard within an urban grid.
First and foremost, a designer must assume responsibility for the site and its existing artifice. While every designer would rather start from scratch, one must first attempt to reuse of old infrastructure to reduce both energy and material necessity. In a world where every designer is trying to invent something novel, it is critical to first exhaust all possibilities for recycling existing development. This “re-appropriation” of old architecture pushes America towards a more sustainable future.
1. In Neutling’s “On Laziness, Recycling Sculptural Mathematics and Ingenuity” he opines that the tare space is the only space where architects have any freedom to design. How can we as a field improve the quality of the tare space such that it is preferred to the thought space?
2. In Somol’s “Green Dots 101” he opines that the logo is the ultimate form of architecture devoid of constraint. How is iconography such as the logo of a firm promulgated through the experiention of architectural space? Furthermore, how can the logo become the interface between the dimensional indices of the built and cyber worlds?
3. What is your honest opinion of Rem Koolhaus after reading “S, M, L, XL?” Like do you like his style of writing and his points? I really do
I appreciated the critiques on Neutling’s “On Laziness, Recycling Sculptural Mathematics and Ingenuity.” I think that it was a good clarifier that it was not a negative critique but one of ingenuity. Cody’s presentation was good
Contemporary Design Approaches 
In the reading, On Laziness Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, and Ingenuity, the main focus in the reading was on the culture of laziness. And it brings up the point of how we wouldn’t have the great buildings we have today because of the lazy compromises that the architect makes in the design process. And that brought up the question of, how would architecture differ if architects weren’t lazy with the process?
Based off of the same reading, they talk about how the clients need to be compromised with and told to think less ambitious, or just told what they cannot have. Would we have as many architects or functional buildings if we listened to the client all the time or would the compromising of the client’s ideas be inevitable?
The reading 12 Reasons to Get Back Into Shape by R.E. Somol it gets into detail on how interesting shapes are great to have for buildings because how the shapes are interesting and give new life to buildings instead of just having boxes. What would buildings will be if there was only exotic shapes? Or only basic shapes?
LikeLike
Shape is a very important feature of architecture, without shape there wouldn’t be form or function. Shape creates new culture of architecture, it creates a new way of expressing ideas stories and form with as much or as little intensity there is. The natural laziness of the everyday people definitely contributes to the process of creation we have all these ambitions and ideas but don’t have the energy to follow through with anything. That self-compromise is very important to the process and every little thing that is produced. Over the years the shapes and designs have been become more and more simple. The further we go the lazier our designs get but the amount of success that they also receive is phenomenal. But I feel the further we go the less basic we can become so we have to resort back to more interesting and complex shapes which will eliminate the laziness.
LikeLike
1. In “Notes on the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism, R. E. Somol and Sarah Whiting reflect on Eisenman’s analysis of the Dom-ino House by Le Corbusier. Eisenman explains that “the design process itself is being registered rather than the material productive and technical systems”. Based on this example, is the design process a subconscious or conscious design consideration in the mind of an architect?
2. In Neutelings’s essay, “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, & Ingenuity”, he describes the various ways to use laziness to the architect’s advantage. One method of utilizing laziness is to reuse buildings that already exist. How does this relate to the idea of the collage from “The Fold, the Blob, and the Diagram” and the question of whether new designs are truly “new” creations?
3. In “Strategy of the Void” Rem Koolhaas discusses his project, Très Grande Bibliotheque (Very Big Library). In the core of the building, the “major public spaces are defined as absences of building, voids carved out of the information solid”. Why would Koolhaas utilize the emptiness of the void to establish the public programmatic elements of the library? How might the overall experience within those rooms change is the spaces were seen as volumetric blocks rather than “absences of building[s]”?
LikeLike
A critical aspect of the discussion was on the efficiency of laziness in architecture. Laziness brings up the idea of working smarter not harder. The method of creating with less effort, thus being perceived as “lazy”, works not only to design buildings and ideas but also to design an effective process. When put into a time crunch, the designer is forced to come up with innovative ways to meet the requirements of a project. In turn, is subtraction a result of laziness? Subtraction has become a new formula for design, the second step after addition in design. Subtraction in it of itself is innovative, a new way of establishing voids in designs. In the process, the subtraction allows for the original form to be deconstructed and find elements that work to improve the overall design. Subtraction is a new “lazy” design method, but works to establish more complex and intricate designs.
LikeLike
1. In Neutling’s “On Laziness, Recycling Sculptural Mathematics and Ingenuity” he states that while recycling run down buildings , typologies and concepts, and simple mathematical strategies may be “lazy”, it seems to take more effort and require a lot more ingenuity than just starting from scratch. Why is it still considered lazy to do these things if it, at times, takes more effort to think of how to make recycled ideas your own?
2. In “Strategy of the Void” Rem Koolhaas writes about how architecture must focus on its last function “the creation of the symbolic spaces that accommodate the persistent desire for collectivity.” It also says that “the ambition of this project is to rid architecture of responsibilities.” If the goal of architecture is to rid it of its responsibilities, how can architects create spaces that make people feel a certain way?
3. In Somol’s “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape”, shape is said to be criticized by architects while they accept form and mass. Why don’t architects want to use shape if it is explained as this expendable, graphic and adaptable system of design?
LikeLike
Laziness is always seen as a bad quality to have. People want to avoid having lazy designers because they think they won’t do as good of a job. Today there were a lot of different views on laziness and how it works in the world of architecture. Laziness can be a very good thing when redesigning a new building from the remains of an old one. Since the architect is lazy, they’re able to take the concept from the old building and recreate it in a more modern way while keeping the same ideas. In my opinion, lazy people work the most efficiently because they get right to the point. Using ideas that have been used before and slightly modifying them is also smart because they know that the concept has worked in the past, so it will definitely work again. This shouldn’t be considered being lazy, but ingenious. If you already know it worked, why not do it again with your own style? Isn’t this why architects each have their own “thing” they do well?
LikeLike
1. In “Notes around the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism” by R. E. Somol and Sarah Whiting, they discuss the difference between “hot” and “cool” in different disciplines. Hot architecture can be described as preoccupied with creating something unique and different, while cool architecture requires context and a viewer to complete the project. Following this idea, is it better to create hot or cool architecture?
2. According to “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape” by R. E. Somol, what exactly is shape (if not form or geometry)?
3. In W.J. Neutelings “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics & Ingenuity,” the author discusses the use of laziness as a design strategy. Does this method of design create an issue of authorship?
LikeLike
Eisenmann develops a strict process from which to design. As a result, one must know the process to understand the building and its intent. This way of designing is utilized in many architecture schools, because it is a way of generating ideas. This design method alienates the public from fully understanding these buildings, because they might not understand the processes that were so important in creating the final product. While this method is useful in the academic world, it is questionable whether it belongs in the professional world. Buildings are built to be used by a specific client. This means that the viewer is integral in seeing the purpose of a building. With this in mind, one could argue that Eisenmann’s method of requiring people to see his projects only in the way he prescribes is not a successful way to design.
LikeLike
1. How does the concept of digital intricacy (and the blob) differ from graphic expediency (and the logo)? In Green Dots 101, Somol writes “Rather than exaggerate the kit of parts that makes up the whole, turn a single part or component into the whole. Proliferate one thing…” How can this relate? Can a group of logos create a blob?
2. Laziness, according to Neutelings, becomes a driving architectural force, from the world of commissioning and scope of projects beyond build dates to the recycling of topologies and concepts. Do you think that, in the vein of week 1’s overarching question, recycled architecture is due to laziness or due to the inability to make something new?
3. Koolhaas talks of the claustrophobia of modernity, saying “If we keep it as flat as the city demands, the thousands that now clog Beaubourg’s escalators would have to be shuttled between the extremities of the site to the five libraries like cultural cattle…What a nightmare.” Brasilia, the capitol of Brazil, is one of the only modern cities designed from the ground up by one architect, and is often likened to this kind of problem. Vast swathes of concrete separate simple, repetitive monuments. What do you believe Koolhaas means by “The claustrophobia of antimodernity,” and how might it apply to today’s integrated-information world of “new equalities?”
LikeLike
The immediate interpretation of Neutelings’ laziness declaration is a literal one—much of architecture is made by means of lazy design, or deadline-pressure push-throughs, or a recycling of thoughts and ideas. His emphasis on the ironic use of “lazy” is sometimes overlooked—he’s not just advocating for passive laziness. After the presentation, I believe that an architect’s relationship to any current style or status quo is not as severed as they may like. Recycled architecture is often accidental, and the influence of modernism, regardless of stance, is by now inescapable in today’s schools. The invention of new modes and methods in design will produce new composts, new blobs and collages, new-new-new. Lazy architecture is in the eye of the beholder as much as the creator. Koolhaas’ comparisons to claustrophobia, cows, and the new flat city go far in asking how modernism, and anti-modernism, could apply to today’s world of “new equalities,” where lazy designing and those aiming to reinvent the wheel exist in the same places.
LikeLike
1. Somol describes or defines the idea of shape in many ways. Do you think you can develop form or massing without shape?
2. Would you agree or disagree with Neutelings statement that “architecture seems to be one of the few disciplines in which new developments seem not to rely on earlier achievements”?
3. We have been taught about the history of architecture and the developments of various styles and design types. Neutelings says the reuse of powerful types in a contemporary version is a more effective approach. Would you consider following these styles as laziness or a necessity to create new architecture?
LikeLike
The process of design and the production of meaningful architecture has always been highly discussed. Last week we questioned whether or not you could actually create new things, as well as the idea of authorship in architecture. Instead of categorizing in terms of style, it has become the norm to refer to something as the architect’s individual style. In most of our course work we learn about the history of architecture and the development of various styles. In the Neutelings reading they talk about the reuse of powerful types being a more effective approach. Laziness is also a debated topic, are following these styles a form of laziness in architecture? Eisenman views the process of developing architecture extremely necessary. It’s important to be able to see the process to create a meaningful design. The opposite is Koolhaas, where the process is not important at all, only the end result. This is the basis of “hot and cold” architecture, where Eisenman represents the “hot” architecture and Koolhaas with the “cold.”
LikeLike
1. R. E. Somol’s “Green Dots 101” emphasizes the importance of graphic representation; does something’s graphic representation necessarily need to correlate to its manifestation in order for the graphic to be as architectural as its manifestation?
2. In “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, & Ingenuity” Neutlings makes the suggestion that laziness can make effective use of the old, and also possibly inspire ingenuity based on specified conditions; is this to say that the current existence of architecture is inherently not benefitting from laziness, or can an architect find ways to be lazy while still designing architecture that is not strictly innovative?
3. Strategy of the Void uses the phrase “simulating invention.” Does all contemporary architecture need to be innovative, or are there instances in which all that is needed is a change in perspective? Are there other ways for architecture to be contemporary if it is not one of these two things?
LikeLike
1. Graphic representation gives a possibility to express a project in abstract terms without the necessity to be realistic. That is not to say that such a format of representation would not be architectural, simply that it could help bring to light important aspects of the project that otherwise may not be understood or seen in the manifestation.
2. It would seem that there are ways to be lazy without creating anything new, all the while still creating, particularly in the cases that involve the repeated and the identical. One example of this is in the instances of neighborhoods in which the majority of the houses in the area have the same floor plan, or one that has been altered slightly to create the illusion of change.
3. It can be supposed that a change in perspective would be innovated once such a connection is made, and for the sake of my argument, I will disregard that as an intersection these questions. One potential outcome to avoiding revelation in any capacity is to, as mentioned by Neutlings, to repurpose something old and implement it in a pre-existing condition in which it has never existed before; the concept of “recycling” an idea in order to give the impression of a new concept without having done anything at all.
LikeLike
1. Based on Green dots 101, and Eisenmann’s theories on the direction of where architecture is going, is the “blob” or the “logo” going to be more critical in years to come?
2. Based on the article on the doppler effect and other modernisms, how is the theory behind”Mitchum architecture” shown in today’s architecture?
3. Based on Rem Koolhaus’s article, how is the void integrated into a building’s creation that causes it to be so important?
LikeLike
1. I think everyone has their opinion on architecture nowadays whether or not they are well informed. I think the public would feel better in having more of a logo frame of mind, where they can find something they recognize easily.
2. Mitchum architecture in the article is described as looking cool and effortless. While architecture is not effortless, one of the major criticisms I personally have is that if something is designed well, most of the time people will not notice. They might say it looks pretty, but otherwise not notice any effects the architecture might have on them. If something is designed poorly, everyone will know right away.
3. Without the void, architecture is nothing but form. The void is what creates the livable, useable space that is the most important part of architecture. Void gives architecture its form so it can have a function.
The presentation was well done and created a clear movement from topic to topic that allowed the viewer, myself, to clearly be able to understand all 5 articles and be able to understand the key points. Additionally, there was a good use of pictures and diagrams, and not overly too much text. We all read the articles that presentation helped me to understand it.
LikeLike
1. In Neuteling’s, On Laziness_Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, & Ingenuity, he addresses the growing presence of laziness, and how taking laziness into consideration when designing is crucial to ensure the longevity of architecture With that in mind what are examples of “laziness” that cause people to be drawn to certain spaces, and how can we implicate those same ideas into our work to create successful designs?
2. Nueteling also talks bout the wave of recycling run down building and how some of which many have been used for one thing but programatically would be better used for another purpose. How is that so, especially when architects place program with such high importance how could an architect design a building which doesn’t efficiently serve its own purpose? Is it because these older buildings were not designed with a debt of organization and program like modern architecture practices today? Maybe architects have a better ability to transform something existing, like a blank canvas?
3. The S,M,L,XL reading is a series of Rem Koolhaas’ diary excerpt which discuses ambition, iteration, and the creative process through the designing of a library for competition. The reading takes place between April and July of 1989 which is a similar time frame we have as architecture students each semester, how can we follow his iterative process and design approach to create similarly successful and also conceptually developed designs in our own work?
LikeLike
1. In the article “Strategy of the Void”, Rem Koolhaas introduced the idea of a big library with voids carved out of the information solid to be as the public space. Is this something different than the current architectural or urban planning order where circulations are more or less formed by functional spaces surrounded?
2. In “Notes around the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism”, I suspect that minimalism is considered as “cool architecture” given the fact that the environment is filled with “high def” objects: when one type of existence becomes familiar, the opposite would switch the criteria and become critical.
3. In “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape”, Somol seems to confuse the concept of “shape” or, in other words, to expand the idea of “shape” to be inclusive to other qualities. IMO, it all depends on the scale and angle you inspect the project. ?
LikeLike
1. It’s similar to the urban environment where we walk around “voids” formed by functional spaces. And Rem Koolhaas manifested this idea in his Seattle Central Library project which is like an extension of the public street.
2. I think “cool” architecture is best defined as something that does not stimulate strong and particular emotions. “Cool” architecture allows flexible interpretation without causing acute discontinuity and unfamiliarity.
3. “Shape” of architecture should be simpler but able to combine with other characteristics to articulate different feelings and characters. “Shape is buoyant” is better defined as “Shape + Buoyancy”
LikeLike
1) While shape is described as “intensive” in “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape”, it can be argued that most of those qualities come from the passive, subjective perspective of the viewer or inhabitant. How can we as architects develop shape so that it can become active or more engaging?
2) Part Two of “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics & Ingenuity” brings up an interesting point in how we think about design: many examples of city-building architecture seem to either ignore the existing context or erase it entirely. Why do you feel that these examples stray away from being “lazy”?
3) “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics & Ingenuity” seems to establish a blurred line of division between efficiency and laziness. In architectural design, is there a point where the two can be considered as two completely separate entities? Do you feel that you identify as efficient or lazy in your undergraduate work?
LikeLike
One of the most interesting parts of today’s symposium for me came from the diversity of interpretations for the differences between architectural “laziness” and “efficiency”. A conscious design that is made with respect to its surroundings is very important to me, so seeing how everyone applied it to their own views on work ethic, time management, and personal beliefs was informative. A great point I’d like to highlight is the fact that “the ground is where both culture and politics are prescribed”.
In order to go towards an architecture that is made for humanity, we must have stronger connections with those that we design for. Stronger emphasis should not only be placed on research and true understanding of these things, but also the architectural traditions and pre-conceived standards that contribute to the misunderstandings that this issue stems from. I personally want to understand more about how concepts such as figure ground and shapes can be used to enhance and give depth to the idea of context. These will help me diversify my work to be as well-rounded as possible.
LikeLike
1. Somol pairs the word “shape”, or at least its place in architecture, to a plethora of negative adjectives. From the reading, “shape” is considered worthless in architectural conversation, but form and mass are considered valuable. From my point of view, I had always thought the “shape” was an over-arching term that encompasses “form” and “mass”. In that regard, what is the how is “shape” such a no-no, when all three terms are related to one another?
2. Koolhaas describes the electronics revolution as something that will eventually “melt all that is solid”. It’s interesting to look at poetically, since we are getting towards the end of the curve with this transition. He then goes in to the concept of the library (in building form) as an allegory for this thesis. Thinking about how a library holds physical books as its central program, and how less people now are reading physical books, I raised myself this question: Could program change based on technological advancements, or just become obsolete? For example, when there are no physical books, would people still go the library? If so, what for?
3. In the reading about laziness, it takes a lot of time to describe the benefits when it comes to being lazy and efficient with architecture. However, just briefly it mentions that diligence and ambition is a dangerous combination in architecture. What makes diligence a bad characteristic?
LikeLike
From the lecture and discussion today, I can understand how “shape” isn’t a desired term in architecture. “Shape” is superficial; it refers to the look of things and doesn’t go into a deeper understanding in terms of architecture.
Program can definitely change, but not easily. Buildings that rely on older technology, which will soon be outdated, will have to adapt or else they will become obsolete. It takes the implementation of innovative strategies and flexibility of program to make this possible. On the other side, this doesn’t mean that everything will survive and remain relevant. In a sense, it would be survival of the fittest.
Diligence could be looked at negatively because since you would try to work and think more, you might overthink things and be prone to mistakes with overthinking.
LikeLike
In conjunction to my point about diligence, you also have to consider if you possess the trait of indecisiveness. A lot of times, having no chance to think will clear out any muddy thoughts and will leave you with a clear one.
LikeLike
1. In “Green Dots 101”, Somol states that the structural grid that was once so prevalent in Eisenman’s work has now become a “thematic trope” in his later works. Are there any similar examples of other architects doing the same?
2. Has “shape” found its way into architecture since Somol gave us twelve reasons to get back into it? Or has architectural progressed in a different direction?
3. In “Notes around the Doppler effect”, Somol discusses Marshall Mcluhan’s labeling of hot and cold media, and calls Architectural criticism hot. Are there any other aspects of architecture that could be labeled hot or cold?
LikeLike
The lecture/ presentation today presented many very interesting ideas regarding shape, form, context, and criticism. However, the one thing I thought about the most after the presentation was the notion of laziness in architecture. The idea of laziness is one that I haven’t often thought of, but the story about OMA’s Casa da Musica, and Falling water were truly eye opening. Not in a way that would encourage me to wait longer and longer to start my work, but rather it showed that even the most experienced designers often work better under pressure. The fact that one of the most well known buildings in architectural history was practically thrown together in one afternoon is inspiring, but it also shows the ability of the most accomplished architects and designers. Right now I may not even be able to make a legible plan in four hours, but in the future, with a greater education and design skills, I may be able to procrastinate as well as Frank Lloyd Wright.
LikeLike
1. In their writing, Somol and Whiting describe the Doppler Effect, both scientifically and in relevance to architecture. They then assert that indexes are traces of the real and that the Doppler effect explains the change in pitch between sounds approaching and moving away. Given this, how can the Doppler effect be modeled within architecture to create indexes, while ensuring that architecture essentially becomes adaptive?
2. Architects and historians have a long-standing disagreement between the use of the terms form and shape. Understanding Rem Koolhaas’ assertion of the term ‘shape,’ what are modern examples of architecture that are representative of the word, as opposed to being form-based constructions?
3. Establishing a graphics protocol for architecture to be read diagrammatically and seamlessly is incredibly important, as one might recognize in OMA’s use of ‘Green Dots’ in their Tree City Project. However, could the logo, as Somol asserts instead become an indicator of an architect’s work as opposed to a diagrammatic tool, or must it always have a function legibly?
LikeLike
For many, the issue of architecture has become one of commodity, hence allowing for architecture to become more readily understood, and accessible to the general population. However, for many architects, the discourse has become almost too readily understood. One of the means through which architecture has become much more accessible is through the architect’s efficient use of laziness. Instead of design buildings to the point of excess, for many, architecture has become more simple- minimal, almost. The operation of subtraction has become critical architecture, drawing it back to its original state of zero-ness; helping architects to efficiently create “new architecture.” However, despite the operations carried out by architects to create “new” architecture, architects are essentially limited in their creations due to buildings codes and constraints of form. While we can take architecture and alter the function of a building, the original form riddles the preconceived notions that decrease the perceptions of originality, rendering the building static.
LikeLike
As I read, Laziness Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, and Ingenuity, I noticed the attention that the author had drawn toward the overall idea of “laziness” in the architectural world. This brought up many questions that I was uncertain about. One being; if a large majority of today’s architects were lazy in their work, would that take a toll on the production of our current cities, and hold us back going into the future?
From reading, 12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape, the author, R.E. Somol, put the shapes of our world’s architecture into a perspective. This perspective was that having exotic and abstract shapes would be beneficial to new architecture, and that it would open the door to even more interesting shapes that could be later used. My question is, would it be possible to open up a new era of architecture, and if this was possible would the minds of the everyday people be able to adapt to such a drastic change in the way we view our world today?
The reading, Green Dots 101, puts a focus on how the “logo” is a direction in which architecture is going today. Will this “logo” be the right conception of architecture we need in order to create new and advanced architecture that will benefit us in the long run?
LikeLike
1. In Rem Koolhaas’s entries following his way through the Very Big Library Competition, he expresses his thoughts and criticisms of what has come from modern architecture. He seems worn out and tired of the constant pressure on architects from people to create something new and interesting. He even questions why he should be doing it and not them, and therefore creates voids as public areas for them to invent their own “eureka” moments. How much creativity and inventiveness should be tasked to the architect versus the inhabitants/visitors? Is it through voids and vagueness that the most creative and innovative spaces evolve?
2. In “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape” R.E. Somol said “architecture doesn’t have to hurt.” This statement stood out to me the most in the entire article because I find it applicable to studios we are taking now in school. Has architecture become too critical that we tend to gravitate to overly complex projects out of fear? If so, is there a way to get away from this “pseudo intellectual” and seemingly pretentious way of creativity?
3. On the subject of laziness as a tool in architecture, the question of how buildings should be built is prompted. If we want to be able to reuse buildings for different functions in an ecological effort to stop building an excessive amount of buildings that will inevitably become abandoned, how much thought should be put into the function of a building in its design? Should more focus go on the transformative properties (spatially and material-wise) of a building that would make it viable for reuse?
LikeLike
Mentioned in the Neutelings, how can people believe that taking advantages of laziness will always gain a persuasive result? What will be the core design idea if architects only utilize those lazy methodology?
During the accommodation for collectivity supposed by Koolhaas, every small consideration happens in a project, that other people who are not architects cannot discover, emphasizes the meaning of architecture. Could we arbitrarily define this as our last function?
The redefinition of hat and cool arose in the Somol and Whiting pointed out the interaction between architecture and human. Could the ignorance of real temperature also influence this interaction and also the distinction of hot or cool?
LikeLike
Mentioned by Michel Foucault, Unities forming a number of autonomous, but not independent governed by rules, but in perceptual transformation. Whatever shaping the form based on the rules established by cause and effects, or structuring the space from cold to hot generated by interaction between social activity and architecture, the projective architecture reads as scenario of a spatial composition.
LikeLike
1. In R.E. Somol’s “Green Dots 101”, the author writes about digital intricacy in design saying, “If intricacy was concerned with introducing the non-linear, with turning the geometric inside-out, one aspect of the expediency program is to make extensive references intensive..” Does intensive intricacy single out and focus on one reference or does it seek to intensify extensive references?
2. In Neuteling’s On Laziness Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, and Ingenuity, it is obvious that laziness is not implied to mean non-productivity in the action of design on an individual’s scale, but what adverse effects does the concept of laziness enforcing ingenuity have on a society built by these individuals?
3. In the third way of taking advantage of laziness (recycling typologies), style is an architectural taboo. If recycled concepts are reformed to fit the “new” style, how does style change if the concepts don’t? Is advancement just an aesthetic?
LikeLike
Architectural forms do not need to be complicated and are still effective in a design with simple shapes. I think the explanation of shape in architecture is based heavily on the language of design. Somol discusses architecture using laziness as a way of defining “new” architecture. Essentially Somol is referring to the use of recycled ideas, concepts, and forms to create “new” architecture. However we need to be careful with the way we define things. One might say that if architecture is recycled forms and concepts, then current buildings are not “new”. Concepts and forms are recycled, but they react to modern technologies/site and urban contexts. Program of current buildings are absolutely new, however there are also new limitations brought about by the way a building interacts with its site and embedded technologies. Therefore often the most effective forms for complex building logics are derived from the simplest shapes. Louis Sullivan’s “form follows function” is becoming more embraced in the practice of architecture. The newness of architecture is not its shape necessarily, but its purpose and its place in a society.
LikeLike
1. Is there a teachable difference between that with order and that without? If so, how do we begin to explain the different types of suborders that make up that object and begin to distinguish it from another architectural form?
2. If laziness is innate characteristic for architects, and one of the way to take advantage of that is recycle buildings, concepts and things that have been done before, how does an architecture surpass the struggle of trying to create an ingenuity different from the others? is there even such a thing as a new idea?
3. Following with the question of new ideas, Somo writes “Why not get back in shape”, suggesting that we focus on shape and form and its arbitrary and coll qualities. Is there any value in shape as a single space? or do we value programmatic organization over “intensive” and “protective” spatial conditions?
LikeLike
This week we focused on shape and form and how shape is the form itself, along with the concept of laziness.This brought up a lot of questions for me that were related to this, because we always focus so much on program and circulation in design, but in reality the content of it does not matter without the form. With form and shape, arises a new ‘issue’ of character, and how character speaks on a building. Are there any building devoid of character? devoid of form?
Another part of the presentation that was interesting to me was the focus on laziness and the different interpretations of laziness. not because of the way we procrastinator but because of the impacts in has had in architecture. this notion of recycling ideas, shapes and forms is lazy, but as proposed before, is there even such a thing as a new idea (if we are all lazy)?
LikeLike
1. “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape” is a poster like an article by R.E. Somol. In this article, Somol claims that shape is expendable — “Having officially refused all claims to shapes, architectural culture nevertheless retains its right to two related properties: form and mass”. Why form and mass are acceptable in architecture design while the shape is regarded as illicit?
2. The Doppler effect is the change in frequency or wavelength of a wave in relation to an observer who is moving relative to the wave source. In the book of “Notes around the Doppler Effect and other Moods”, Robert Somol and Sarah Whiting claim that the influence of early modernism architects to recent architects is like the Doppler effect. However, many early architects only left fantasy like their theories and parti sketches. How this work contributes to the physical development of architectures today?
3. Peter Eisenman question the “very existence of green dots at all as a legitimate architectural project” in the article “Gree Dot 101” by R. Somol. Why the legality of green dots is doubted by Peter Eisenman? Why he agrees that the relationship between geometry and a building project is critically represented or described, the one between graphics and representation or projection?
LikeLike
In the week 2 symposium, we extracted a number of interesting theories and concepts in several readings like “On Laziness Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, & Ingenuity” and “12 Reasons”.
One discussion arouses my attention is the interpretations of “laziness” and “efficiency” in architecture. Neutelings wrote, “laziness as a design strategy is anything but lazy”. As a matter of fact, laziness promotes the outburst of creation, the perfection of design, and the evolution in architecture. The idea of laziness should associate with the idea of efficiency cause it leads to the concept of the module, the prevalent of the parti in architecture.
Another seminar about “shape” attracts me as well. The shape is endowed with various characteristics in the presentation such as illicit, adaptable, arbitrary and buoyant, etc. Shape in architecture could be interpreted as anything as architects intended. It is unique in architectural design since shape in architecture cannot be divorced from construction. It has to be a decoration or a highlighting element instead of an arbitrary component appears in fine art.
LikeLike
1) In “12 Reasons to Get Back in Shape,” the author discusses the concept of the shape being indefinite and potentially infinite. Is it possible for this sort of belief to be carried over into architecture in that architecture is truly never finite?
2) In Koolhass’ reading, he states that all architecture is a byproduct of the influence of social and cultural economics. Is this a fair statement to architecture as a whole or do you believe that in some circumstances, it is actually the architecture that could be what shapes the social and cultural economics of an area?
3) Neutelings relates laziness to being a better architect. However, do you believe laziness directly makes the architect naturally “better” or is it that this laziness simply makes the architect “happier” thus leading to better designs?
LikeLike
One important thing I pulled from today’s presentation was how everyone had a different interpretation of “laziness” in architecture. I found it very interesting that the term “lazy” actually results in the resource of time, money, and energy which is a much more positive connotation than the world “lazy” is typically interpreted. This sort of opposing connotation that comes with the term laziness in architecture, is also directed related to shapes in architecture. Through the presentation I also found it very intriguing that there were a variety of different characterizations of shapes in architecture whether they be meaningful or irrational.
LikeLike
1.In the article, “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, & Ingenuity”, the most important focus describes how laziness would affect architect to create buildings. Because many architects always try to reuse some buildings that already exist. Would there be more new architecture or functional buildings if architects are not lazy?
2.Also, about the question from last one, architects are affected by their laziness so that they always reuse the some things to create new building. Is this a good thing that architects start to not lazy and design new concept every time when there is a new project?
3.According to the article “12 Reasons to Get Back in Shape” by R.E. Somol, he talks about that shapes are simply cool or boring but also talks about shape is adaptable at the same time. Is there any possibility that let shape become something go from boring into something very interesting?
LikeLike
According to the presentation, laziness is good for architect to save the old style and then renovating new style based on the old one. The lazy has to peel the skin off the type to be able subsequently to manipulate the model and dress it up again. If architects create new concept of how to build their own style buildings, they could not make those new concepts into some deep level considerations. The reason for this is that architectural design is a very long process so that architect is not able to attain their goal in a very short period. The best way to solve this problem is to keep the old style but also start to do something new which is based on the previous design concept. In this case, architects are able to make something that is in a very deep level understanding from the previous design concept, and also it become a brand new way to build what they pursue.
Shape itself has a lot of variety. For example, shape is expandable and graphic. Also, people always consider about how to make a balance between shape and function. Obviously, they can work together in the same building. Take voids as an example, voids in the architecture are like negative space. They are not just negative space but also can be space for the whole architecture. In this case, voids could become solids and solids could become voids at some level.
LikeLike
1) Hays Describes the Barcelona Pavilion as an event with temporal duration, whose actual existence is continually being produced,” or whose meaning is continually being decided. is this an attribute of fantastic architecture, or simply an attribute of architecture itself?
2) According to Neutelings, the concept of appealing to human laziness provides a whole array of different beneficial applications for architecture. while this argument seems valid, its primary flaw is that successfully executing that concept requires a lot of work. is there any such concept in architecture that can be easily executed, or by nature, is the role of the architect inherently difficult?
3) Koolhas describes the strategy of the void in his library plan. by nature, isn’t all architecture about strategically defining experiential voids? how is his interpretation of this different than others? why is it significant?
LikeLike
1. In the article Green Dots 101, the author lists of a series of operations in recent projects which provided cues for how
to do logo buildings and landscapes. What does he mean by “it should be surprising but fast, allowing no time for the quotation, irony, or delay of formal and informal reading protocols”? How can a still object be described as fast?
2. The forth step of developing logo buildings and landscapes mentioned using saturated single color. Why cannot use multiple and pastel colors? Many Japanese architecture were painted with pastel colors. They, in my opinion, do consider as logo buildings.
3. Based on Rem Koolhaas’s article S,M,L,XL, how was the project and concept being developed this successfully within a short period of time?
LikeLike
The presentation mentioned recycling building which was really interesting to me. Nowadays, “going green” has become a popular topic in the world, and recycling building are at the forefront of the green revolution. Most common building materials, such as concrete, bricks and plastics have recyclable alternatives. In addition to recycling building materials, another way for a sustainable design is the use of site provided materials. As the process of recycling materials continues to increase as a fashionable and sustainable statement, we are proposing a futuristic method that pushes the boundaries of how we think and build in the architectural world.
LikeLike
1. In green dots 101, Peter Eisenman’s conceptual markings and notations of design process have been invariably registered through manipulations of the structural grid. How did this reached an extreme in his Cultural Center for Santiago de Compostela?
2. The Domo-ino is one of the first modernist and critical gestures in architecture. In Eisenman’s discussion of Dem-ino, how is it the design process itself that is being registered rather than the material productive and technical systems or specific context discussed by Hays.
3. . In attempting to deal critically with contemporary spectacle culture, Eisenman seems to be arguing for a loosening of form and indexicality into figure. How do you explain “the non-passive passive” that Eisenman exhibited and experienced?
LikeLike
A discussion of the shape shows that the edges themselves are not very hard or sharp, but their purpose in the larger shape determines the ultimate severity. Buildings are usually designed to complete the service, but the way in which the architect explains the concept and the purpose of the structure determines the characteristics behind the form. The benefits of laziness in architecture are discussed because it can say no to the project and can simply reuse the building. Eisenman believes that the process of developing buildings is very necessary. It’s important to be able to see the process of creating meaningful designs. The shape in the building can be interpreted as the architect’s intention. It is unique in architectural design because the shape in the building cannot be separated from the building.
LikeLike
1| As is asserted by R.E. Somol and Sarah Whiting in Green Dots 101, architecture attempts to obligate a performative practice, an action which establishes the construction of another world, to a constative, or rather falsifiable, evaluation. Due to this obligation, could architecture be more thoroughly evaluated upon the means of its creative endeavor? Essentially, rather than evaluating the preconceived functional traits of an architectural work, would it be more productive to evaluate it by its characteristics which separate it from previously existing works?
2| In an attempt to argue for a more efficient architecture, dutch architect W. J. Neutelings insists that an application of laziness, “the reuse of powerful types in a contemporary version is a more effective and less wearying approach” to architecture. To excavate this idea further, is the optimization of past typologies , rather than the tactless reuse of, the most practical and efficient road to a fully developed contemporary design?
3| R. E. Somol argues against the relatively recent rejection of shape as a legitimate architectural concern, reasoning that “shape never appears as a definitive object itself, but at most is the residual for other objects”. Can shape, rather than form or mass, thus allow for a more conceptually complete architecture, being free to ingest the possible myriad conclusions of the characters who inhabit it, rather than attempting to address them?
LikeLike
“Laziness as a design strategy is anything but lazy” – rather it can act as the total optimization of available architectural means; time, money, resources. Laziness is a form of efficiency wherein the architect emerges as the operator of an apparent figural and functional machine. The architect directs decisions shaped by the constraints, or more appropriately the rules and regulations, both social and economical, of the site. The site then, exists beyond its physical, geographical location and reaches into the creative ability, or lack thereof emergent within the mind of the designer. Laziness associates with a particular social stigma wherein those who are lazy are not hardworking, undesirable; however, acting as a conceptually creative tool, laziness is the driving force behind architecture which separates it from other forms of creative expression. Laziness conforms an otherwise nonsensical, over-indulgent and possibly wasteful art form to not only the needs of the client, but also the needs of future generations within an ever-degrading natural environment.
LikeLike
1.) In R.E. Somol’s “Green Dots 101,” it seems as though the teaching of green dots as opposed to the doing/creating is thought of as completely impossible, and even the question of its teaching is, for some reason, illogical, but could those green dots actually be a representation of architecture? Is Somol really asking whether or not architecture can be taught, or if it is simply learned by doing?
2) In Somol and Whiting’s “Notes on the Doppler Effect and other moods of Modernism,” a fear of literalism is compared to disciplinarity, but could this idea be just as significant as Eisenman and Hays’ work , and could their work be “literal” in that is it some configuration of their past teachers’ work, only slightly iterated to become their own? If their work is just an iteration of what they had been taught, would that not mean their work is just as literal as the work it had been based off of?
3) In Koolhaas’s “12 Reasons to Get Back in Shape,” shape is illustrated as something completely versatile, something architects should be experimenting with, so why does most architecture seem to remain less experimental with shapes? Are architects afraid to expand their work beyond what it has remained for years, beyond their 90 degree angles?
LikeLike
Shapes can be completely versatile, capable of creating endless variations of themselves. It seems as though architects are afraid of straying from their typical designs and forms, leaving architecture to be of a repetitive nature, with little to no exploration of different sorts of shapes besides what is classified as the norm. It is possible to warrant this fear of experimentation with forms as laziness among designers, opening another point of how laziness has become another norm in the architectural field. It seems as though the lack of striation from simple forms such as a cube has become ideal, seemingly creating a sort of comfort or relief compared to other shapes that could potentially appeal to a more exciting or creative sort of project. Laziness has led to the exhibition of repetitive angles and massings, leaving room for discovery of possibilities with virtually any other sorts of shapes and forms.
LikeLike
1. R.E. Somol, in 12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape, writes that architects often view shape as taboo. However, he goes on to say that shape is many things. So how are architects able to avoid shape even though it takes on so many different roles?
2. What is the difference between shape and form? And how does one differentiate between the two?
3. In Green Dots 101, Peter Eisenman asks how you teach green dots, but he isn’t asking how to teach the shape as it is, he is asking whether the mere existence green dots is a legitimate architectural project. What transforms a shape into an architectural idea?
LikeLike
Laziness is often seen as a bad trait to have, however that isn’t always the case. Laziness, in many cases, is good. It saves time, money, and often leads to many ingenious developments. This week’s presentation was largely about what is perceived about certain traits or objects versus the reality of them. Often people see things as being one way, or only having one trait or purpose, when in reality, they are much more complex or have greater implications than what is originally portrayed. Shape and laziness are two of the main ideas of this presentation because they are viewed in a negative light many times. The stigma behind these two in relation to architecture is very negative. Shape is many things, however, for being so versatile and useful, many architects don’t like it, and try to avoid it. It is often seen as the lazy way out, but lazy isn’t a bad thing either.
LikeLike
1. In “12 Reasons to Get Back Into Shape” by Somol, he uses 12 keywords to describe what shape is in architecture. One of them is empty. If like he says shape is empty and often neglected in architecture, why would we always asked the question should shape (form) follows function?
2. “On Laziness Recycling Sculptural Mathematics & Ingenuity” by Neutelings suggests that laziness is one of the most important aspect in architecture, laziness combined with ambition is the key of a successful and balanced wok. However, no matter how successful it might be as a method, it still requires a lot of effort to achieve the goal. So does Laziness actually exists in architecture? Or is it a metaphoric way to say diligence is not always necessary in architecture?
3. In Rem Koolhaas’s “Strategy of the Void”, he says that “because something is void it does not have to be’built’, individual libraries can be shaped strictly according to their own logic, independent…of the external envelope.” But without external envelope to define the void wouldn’t void just become an empty space with nothing in or around it?
LikeLike
The presentation summarizes the readings very well and explains the concepts clearly. Some ideas they talked about that caught my interest were the “unavoidable void” and “the Doppler effect and other moods of modernism”. One question they mentioned was classic function or shape first? Their understanding of the question according to the readings lead to an interesting answer—Solid cube being carved out is no different than shapes being filled in. So function and shape are inseparable, without one the other would not have meanings. Voids are solids, and solids are voids. The combination of Doppler effect and modernism makes an unusual but intriguing concept. To summarize the whole concept in one sentence is that change is nature, and this is what projective architecture is about. Architecture is the relationship between moving entities and things are always moving forward, which in conclusion, projective architecture might be a new way of architecture.
LikeLike
1. In Green Dots 101 the author talks about creating a shape without reference but how is this done when everything done especially in architecture where most actions have some motive behind them.
2. In 12 Reasons to Get Back in Shape the author writes about surface area and shape being two connected things that affect each other in equal ways but then he talks about the possibility of one growing more rapidly then the other. What methods cause this more rapid growth in one area and not the other when these things are linked indefinitely.
3. In Notes around the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism the author writes about the differences between “hot” and “cold” architecture but which one or what mixture of both create the most iconic types of architecture.
LikeLike
1. Hays states that “Mies’s architecture situates itself between ‘the efficient representation of preexisting cultural values and the wholly detached autonomy of an abstract formal system’”. How do we balance the abstract organization of a design with the connection to its current surroundings?
2. Deleuze and Guattari believe diagrams and abstract systems “[do not] function to represent, even something real, but rather construct a real that is yet to come, a new type of reality”. What are diagrams used for in relation to structures?
3. Shape is described as an intention, a visual, and skill, among other narratives. How is shape truly categorized?
LikeLike
1. From Rem Koolhaas’ S,M,L,XL – Rem’s diary seems to be closely tied into the diagrams shown. It seems as though he tries to relieve some of the pressures of competition work through both the act of writing and the act of diagramming. What does the diagram gain from being informed by the diary? How can the disenchanted feeling that comes across in the writing come across in the diagrams without being counterproductive to the project?
2. From 12 Reasons to get back into shape – Shape is very important to architecture, and obviously a very complicated topic as Somol is able to assign so many adjectives to it. Do we inherently overthink shape in architecture because of the importance that assign to it?
3. A part of Neuteling’s thesis is that the discipline of architecture succeeds by dejecting earlier ideas. Is it important to deject ideas of the architectural lifestyle to allow architects more creative and personal freedoms from their work?
LikeLike
One approach to modern architectural theory has been very process oriented. Peter Eisenman has pioneered his style of architectural process and many people that studied under him have adopted this process. The process has pervaded modern architecture practice. Although this branch of theory has been successful, other contemporaries have rejected this idea altogether. One notable architect to do so has been Rem Koolhaas. While Rem’s approach is also process oriented, it tends to play off of programmatic analysis that is as old as architecture has been a practice. Koolhaas tends to take topics in discourse and activate them in counterintuitive ways. He tends to find great success in these classic ideas. Koolhaas tries to undermine discourse to create successful building. His focus on discourse often leads to iconic forms that aren’t tied into context beyond their size. He tends to plan the buildings based upon the functionality and accessibility of program. Again and again, he proves that the success of a building’s program is not related to the form of it.
LikeLike
1. Representation matters. Many of the readings are beginning to present architectural ideas and concepts in new ways that have never before been seen. How does these new ways of representing architecture inform architecture in new ways? Moreover, how will these new ways of representation inform architecture in the 21st century?
2. In Somol’s’ “Green Dots” text, he talks about the teaching of green dots, not in a classical way, but in a new way. He breaks down the idea that “those that can do, and those that can’t, teach” by teaching a new way of doing. How does this new idea of teaching transform the way we think about architectural education? Also, how would this bring architecture and our perception of it further into the 21st century and the future?
3. Neutlings preaches the concept of laziness as a newfound way of coming up with informed design. He uses this concept to give name to ideas in architecture (recycling, etc). While it is novel to call this ideas “laziness”, at what point can we still call these concepts “laziness”, and not a product of informed urban design? Where do we draw the line between selfishness and selflessness?
LikeLike
In the presentation, we looked at how various ideas can inform shape and design in architecture. Eisenman had one way of thinking, while Hejduk had another style of thought. These two styles, and many others, have informed the way we process and create architecture. In so doing, we can come up with radical ways on how to create, or even how architecture can be taught. The concept of teaching a style of architecture that “does” radicalizes the field, allowing anyone to create anything they want, so long as it’s in the name of “doing architecture.” With this, shape and projection are up to the architect, and how one so chooses to present or project their design to the world is entirely up to them, and we as the viewer are at the mercy of how architecture is delivered to us.
LikeLike
1. In the Strategy of the Void, “architecture’s last function will be the creation of the symbolic spaces that accommodate the persistent desire for collectivity”, how will architecture accomplish this goal?
2. In Green Dots, “Without trying to reduce too quickly the recent architectural noise that has ironically accompanied a new-found desire for communication – that is, the proliferation of discussions about ornament, monuments, the figure, the iconic, blobs, shapes”, how does this play into the argument of modern architecture?
3. In 12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape, what is the overall argument for shape? Is shape everything in architecture, or is it too much?
LikeLike
What is laziness in architecture? Does it equate to efficiency or are they completely different things? Laziness in architecture can be understood in two ways. It can be thought of as recycling other building typologies, sort of like a catalog of drawing conventions to choose from. It can also be thought of as renovating existing buildings. The latter renovating option I would consider to be very efficient and beneficial to the adjacent community. Being able to rejuvenate an abandoned building and bring life back into it is a great thing to do. On the other hand recycling existing building typologies is also an efficient way to architect. It allows for a no fuss design process in that all that needs to be done is a weaving of building elements being strung together into a cohesive design scheme. The other understanding is to actually be lazy and design things with no effort or efficiency. This will always have a negative impact on all the inhabitants and adjacent community.
LikeLike
1. If laziness is a successful method of trying to figure out a method of efficiency, is it possible that people with this trait have the ability to achieve more than a person who is overzealous with their approach to efficiency?
2. In Somols “12 Reasons to Get Back Into Shape,” if shape is supposedly arbitrary, then how would one go about designing the supposedly necessary relationship between interior and exterior that have undergone many different revitalizations over the years?
3. Extending upon the previous question, according to Rem Koolhaas, shape of the negative space in his Very Big Library is an important part of the identity of his project. Would shape still be argued as being arbitrary in a conversation discussing Koolhaas’ intentions with the library?
LikeLike
In the presentation, shape is presented as being characterized by many different meaningful facets when discussing the exact identity of the idea. Shape in architecture can be as meaningful or as arbitrary as the architect intends to make it. Some architects think that the process of introducing different shapes and forms into a work can risk facing the fact that an operation of removing or adding shape is completely arbitrary and meaningless, muddying the clarity and effectiveness of the intention in the presentation of the building. While this may be true to an extent, shape is a unique component in architecture in that it can’t be completely arbitrary to the design of a building in its final constructed form. When architects think about a void or solid shape being arbitrary, they think that the shape could be formed differently, placed differently, or removed all together without changing the nature of the building as a whole. However, the second that the design of the building is finalized and constructed, such a shape gains meaning that it didn’t necessarily have in the earlier, more conceptual stages of a project. That shape, in construction, becomes essentially a necessary part of the identity of the building, whether it’s immediately relevant to the conceptual design intent or not. People who inhabit and view the building will recognize that shape as being part of the permanent identity of the building, contributing to the profile of which people who utilize it so that they begin to recognize and identify that shape as being strictly tied to that building. Through this idea, shape as a facet of architecture can be arbitrary until that architecture is constructed. Past the point of construction, shape can’t be arbitrary, as it becomes a permanent aspect of the architectural profile of that building that people will use as a tool of identification.
LikeLike
1. In R. E. Somol and Sarah Whiting’s “Notes around the Doppler Effect and other Moods of Modernism”, they state that critical architecture operates between the extremes of conciliatory commodity and negative commentary, as well as being in a position as a cultural product and a discrete autonomous discipline. What is the role of critical architecture?
2. R. E. Somol’s “12 Reasons to Get Back in Shape” states twelve different characteristics that define the idea of shape, ranging from arbitrary, intensive, to empty. Do you agree with all these definitions and classifications? What do you think shape is and what word would you use to characterize it?
3. W. J. Neutelings’ “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics & Ingenuity” delineates how to take advantage of “laziness” to eradicate commision, recycle buildings, typologies, and concepts, utilize sculptural mathematics, and to enforce ingenuity. Really, this “laziness” is efficiency and cleverness. However, what potential shortcomings could there be if architects were only to recycle buildings and typologies? What would the future of design look like if architects were “lazy”?
LikeLike
One topic of discussion for this week’s readings was on recycling buildings, typologies, and concepts, masked under the term “laziness”. In actuality, this “laziness” is a cover up for ingenuity, efficiency, and conservation. Rather than construct an entirely new building, an alternative would be to reuse material, if not reuse the building itself. Furthermore, instead of creating new developments, which are often in response to rejections of prior developments, another method would be to reuse power types in a contemporary way, as that would be more effective and much easier. There’s a saying that you should work smart rather than work hard. Of course you should still work hard, but ingenuity and efficiency can produce equal if not better results, while saving a lot of resources and time. Following previous methodologies that were successful can give the architect room to explore and be creative after establishing a simple mathematical organization of the program.
LikeLike
1. In “Notes on the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism”, Somol discusses the “betweenness” of architecture and its tendency to be situated between a cultural product and an autonomous discipline. Architecture often also lies between history/culture. This realization brings about the question, what is the architect’s responsibility? Is an architect always stuck between wanting to design for his own needs to be met ( personal accomplishment, projects that will help portfolio, etc.) and having to design for the client? However, is this necessarily negative to be considering both sides – designing for both yourself, and the social responsibility of designing to help others?
2. “12 Reasons” describes the inherent qualities of “shape”, being illicit, adaptable, arbitrary, etc. By the end of the reading Somol seems to make the claim that Shape has no need for justification: “Shape is never having to say you’re sorry.” Thus, what role does shape actually have in architecture? Is it simply the result of a series of decisions made when forming the scale and form? And what is the clear distinction between shape and form, considering both define objects situated in space?
3. Logos function as graphic representations of something at a large scale as described in “Green Dots”. Logos condense ideas, seemingly stripping away ornamentation and representing the simple forms and concepts with clarity. Is this process of taking control of ideas and making them clear an efficient way of making architecture? Or, does this process result in an architecture that is limited in creativity?
LikeLike
The presentation helped me to understand better the concept of “laziness” being a tool for efficiency. In my own studies, I have always viewed laziness as a negative trait, a quality that enables minimum effort and time to be spent doing something. However, the presentation’s examples of architects that used “laziness” to their advantage really helped me to think about how I can better spend my time and be more efficient with the time that I have. Instead of spending hours to create a volume, there is strength in taking an existing volume and carving away at it – this is the process of erasure and subtraction that Rem Koolhaus used and had incredible success with. Also, logo architecture could be considered lazy however proves very successful. Laziness is an intentional process, it does not waste time focusing on every detail but rather pays attention to detail along the way. Renovating / reusing old infrastructure is most definitely more energy and cost efficient. “Laziness as a design strategy is anything but lazy” as stated in the presentation; however, is this a dangerous path? Does laziness eventually lead to a lack of passion or drive? Or can someone be lazy while simultaneously being incredibly zealous? It seems as though once we start validating laziness as an important and maybe even necessary trait, this could discourage artists from putting their all into their work and encourage a half-hearted work ethic. The answer to this is to find the happy medium; architects must always utilize their time in a way that is efficient and cost-effective, while also committing to taking the time that is necessary to come up with a sufficient design that meets / exceeds the needs of the client.
LikeLike
How are architects supposed to avoid using rhetorical excess of geometric form when shapes are essentially always borrowed?
What is considered a “saturated shape”?
How is architecture defined now compared to how it was defined in the 1980’s?
LikeLike
Today’s group presented a nuance of ideas that challenged and provoked questions about ambiguity and shape. Not only that but they discussed the differences between critical and projective architecture. I think the concept of hot and cold however, was incredibly interesting in that the hot aspect of architecture is essentially the act of perfecting or the perfection of a singular aspect of a building. Hot architecture can be looked at as the main character of the story. It challenges what already exists, triumphs against all odds with a purpose and affects everybody in a positive or negative shape or form. Whereas cool architecture exists as a subversive entity that is symbiotic to its environment. Its purpose is to question various scenarios that can become possible. Thus creating different perspective for architecture as a whole.
LikeLike
1. It was mentioned in Green Dot 101 that shapes were made from nothing with no reference, how are you able to do that in this field of architecture when their is supposed to be motive behind every action?
2. In 12 Reasons To Get Back In Shape, it is talked about how new shapes and designs are loved and encouraged in the field of architecture yet why are most new designs don’t go past the regular shapes of squares or circles?
3. Should we now move past order and restrictions in architecture and change to less strict free flowing designs in this new era of architecture like Peter Eisenman?
LikeLike
Today’s presentation looked at the different ways shape and form were created within the field of architecture. They also looked at how laziness can be viewed in a positive light depending on how you use it. In architecture laziness can be seen as an advantage by being able to do more in less amount of time. In architecture you are able to create shapes from nothing yet still have motive behind it by creating this shape with meaning. I believe that in architecture the reason why designs aren’t following this idea of new shapes is because most architects are stuck in the past and afraid to try something new. I believe that to advance in the field of architecture we need to most past the more basic designs of past styles into a new era. We can learn from past styles and use them to advance are designs and create these new free flowing forms like Peter Eisenman.
LikeLike
1. In Green Dots 101 Somol provided cues for how to do logo buildings and landscapes. Do you think that programmed method is a good way to design?
2. Do you agree or disagree Neutelings principle of laziness as a good design strategy although it has been proven sufficiently in some projects.
3. Based on Strategy of the Void, how did the void contribute to the architecture even it isn’t built?
LikeLike
Shape is the characteristic outline or surface configuration of a particular form. Shape is the principal aspect by which we identify and categorize forms. Form is an inclusive term that has several meanings. It may refer to an external appearance that can be recognized, as that of a chair or the human body that sits in it. It may also allude to a particular condition in which something acts or manifests itself, as when we speak of water in the form of ice or steam. In art and design, we often use the term to denote the formal structure of a work-the manner of arranging and coordinating the elements and parts of a composition so as to produce a coherent image. Form suggests reference to both internal structure and external outline and the principle that gives unity to the whole. While form often includes a sense of three-dimensional mass or volume, shape refers more specifically to the essential aspect of form that governs its appearance-the configuration or relative disposition of the lines or contours that delimit a figure or form.
LikeLike
1. Laziness is beneficial to architecture in being reusable, recyclable, and helps incorporate mathematical ideas. In what way can laziness achieve a unique and complex design for a structure and what does Neutelings mean when he states that the disadvantages of laziness is that it requires a lot of effort?
2. Koolhaus states shape is adaptable and can be a hybrid of both beautiful and ugly, how cant his be accomplished in architecture while incorporating other aspects such as scale, ambiguity or hollowness/emptiness?
3. In the notes on the Doppler effect and modernism it states,”architecture is both substance and act.” This is referring to the domino and its theoretical importance in architecture as one of the first modernist and critical gestures. How are these theories employed in design? How do certain structures comment on this idea?
LikeLike
This presentation was very interesting because it brought up peculiar concepts such as Rem Koolhaus’ statements about how Coney Island is a spectacle machine that tried to create little worlds and exploded and created Manhattan and the representative of eating oysters with boxing gloves, naked on the ninth floor. The idea of laziness was thoroughly discussed breaking typical beliefs about productive architecture. It is apparently beneficial for architects to incorporate laziness into their work and it can be used as a methodology. Laziness can help know if a project is not worth the cost to build it and can recycle by renovating an old project or use old forms/partitions or materials. Laziness overall, whether metaphoric or literal was meant, can recycle topology and concepts and can incorporate sculptural mathematics in design when a design cannot be created otherwise. Architecture production is neither cultural nor autonomous nor critical and index is not a symbol or an icon it is a sign.
LikeLike
1. In “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape” by R.E. Somol, he states all these things that he says about “shape”. Does this mean that shape is the 2 Dimensional term, but yet form is the 3 Dimension term to use? Therefore buildings create forms and not shapes, so why is there so much discussion about shape instead of form? Especially since “form is to follow function”. We design for the function not the shape.
2. In “Green Dots”, it says ” A logo function as a “graphic act” and in this sense operates as a performative, whereas Jenck’s icon remains in the constative or representational, domain.” This means that we need to rethink representation. what type of shape do we need to rethink?
3. In “Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism”, Somol uses this word “betweenness”. What would you do as the architect and you were stuck in this “betweeness”? Design for yourself or design for your client?
LikeLike
1. In the “Notes around the Doppler Effect and other moods of modernism”, there is a lot of talk about the “critical architecture”. What specific factors could be considered when properly criticizing works of architecture?
2. Over the years, architecture has gotten the fame of mainly focusing on geometric manipulation, what other characteristics can be used to identify the graphic protocol of an architectural work?
3. The style of architecture has radically changed a lot of the years, but it seems like the main focus all architects have come to explore is architecture that is very complicated and hard to design. In what ways can future architects find a compromise in using all of the characteristics that are described in “12 reasons” for making their projects more adaptable?
LikeLike
The idea behind what can truly be considered laziness takes on a completely new meaning as the readings proceed. The sense of the word can now be view as a tactic of working rather than a negative attribute. Depending on the person that may be dealing with a job or assignment, it might become more beneficial to leave the higher workload until the end. This can now be considered a better way of working because of the added pressure. From personal experience, feeling under pressure when doing an assignment forces me to do a better job, it drives me to create something much more extraordinary than what I could have done if I started earlier. Although in most cases this technique is judged by many, it brings me a sense of relieve knowing that people such as my fellow classmates, as well as world renowned architects work in the same way for the same purpose of creating something more magnificent.
LikeLike
1.) What do the Green Dots actually symbolize in In “Green Dots 101.”
2.) Somol states in “12 Reasons,” that shape does not need justification. This kind of goes against what most architects believe. What is Somol imply when saying this?
3.) W. J. Neutelings’ “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics & Ingenuity,” reminds me of the “smart worker.” Someone that uses logic to accomplish tasks efficiently and effectively. How can we do this as architects?
LikeLike
In music, the quarter rest hold the same value and the same importance as the notes themselves. You cannot merely skip over the rests. Counting seems mundane but in the grand scheme of things, the overall performance of the orchestra is more important than thinking the rests are boring. Many other forms of art hold the same principal. When conceptualizing form and shape, the elements can either be harmonious or in conflict with another. Space versus void can be a balance somewhere inbetween too. Both are equally as important.
LikeLike
1. In “S,M,L,XL” Rem Koolhaas proposes that experimental architecture can be rid of its responsibilities. But can architecture be rid of all responsibilities? Is Architecture still Architecture without constraints, or is it just art?
2. In “12 Reasons” Somol Mentions the relevance and of shape in our society. How does the idea of shape directly correlate to physically shaping form?
3. In “Green Dots 101” Somol states: “modernism’s values of abstraction and medium-specificity, articulation and notation both demand a commitment to the natural, necessary, and authentic.” How does one approach identifying the natural, necessary, and authentic? Is it based on perception? If so can this “perception” be change over time just like the idea of modernism?
LikeLike
During the presentations I gained insigt on various forms of work produced by Rem Koolhaas, and how his body of work differed from Peter Eisenman. I Appreciate the Eisenman ideology of creating an architectural space through a generative process; this is a common practice I use to quickly generate new iterations of forms I am creating, and it establishes an order in my work tat is able to speak for itself. Rem Koolhaas seems to have opposed the notions of architecture being limited by its constraints, and rather subscribed to the ideology of “Alles ist Architektur”, a concept that I previously touched upon in the last writing. To further expand on this philosophy, architecture is no longer defined by its constraints, rather there is no constraint to what architecture can be which is why all is architecture. I was also interested in W.J. Neuteling’s article on laziness. This article was a fun read because I felt that my strange workflow in studio could finally be justified, but I also realized that there is a limit to how “lazy” I could be.
LikeLike
1) In the reading by Koolhaas analyzing “The Strategy of the Void”, there are very specific beliefs and philosophies pertaining to architecture presented. “..Liberated from its former obligations, architecture’s last function will be the creation of symbolic spaces…”, this realization from the passage provokes a plethora of considerations regarding the existence of architecture and the life span of what one would deem as architecture today. If in fact architecture has a last function to see through prior to its demise, has this last function been enacted?
2) This week’s readings in particular, in each passage, directly or indirectly present strong views regarding what architecture “is” or “is not”. It would seem that this debate is one that will essentially be everlasting. Somol and Whiting respond to this by taking a categorical approach in architectural classifications, the first addressed being “critical architecture”. What could be the results (positive or negative), of placing an adjective in front of the word architecture? Would this act be confining or would it be a liberation of sorts?
3) Can geometric order exist in the realms of graphic projects? This is a seemingly challenging balance to establish for an architect that cares for a balance between the two. Is it necessary for there to be a balance? Can there be a beauty or desired work established that is classified as only graphic or only geometric?
LikeLike
• There was one specific work brought up in today’s lecture that I deemed particularly interesting in the context of the topic “Shape and Void”. This specific work that I’d like to analyze in conjunction to this week’s readings is the Iliad. It seems as though the story of the Iliad embodies the essence of architecture attaining a certain last function. In retrospect, if the shape and void of the architecture of the Trojan horse had a certain feeling of its own, was it possible that it knew it was being built for a suicide mission? If this vast assumption can be revered as accurate, would that mean that the shape and the void of architectural works when created not only effect the creator and/or viewers but the work itself?
LikeLike
“On Laziness Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics, and Ingenuity” discusses laziness in Architecture. It is argued that we wouldn’t have the great buildings we have today if Architects compromised too much in the design process. It is also argued that laziness can be beneficial and used to the Architect’s advantage. One method is recycling elements of buildings or entire buildings that already exist. Has this methodology aided stagnation in the Architecture field?
In his journal entries that chronicle his participation in the Very Big Library Competition, Koolhaas explores the philosophical and social concept of a library. Libraries are spaces full of knowledge that people are seeking less frequently. Almost all accessible knowledge is becoming more and more digitalized. Koolhass describes this technological revolution as something that will eventually “melt all that is solid”. As society transitions, are certain spaces that we used to value disappearing? Or transitioning into something else? Is there any way we would predict the direction that spaces are evolving?
In, 12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape, the author, R.E. Somol, argues that having exotic and abstract shapes would be beneficial to new architecture. It would create a niche that would influence more Architects to create and design with even more interesting shapes. Eventually we would become accustomed to experiencing spaces without the rectangular, 90 degree angles that we are familiar with and dependent on. How would the lives of people change if we changed the angles of the spaces that they occupy?
LikeLike
1. In “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape”, the concept of “shape” is graphic and avoids form. It is a term that can serve multipurposes. Does “shape” have a variety of forms that allows this flexibility? Does our perspective of architecture aid in creating the term’s inclusive nature?
2. In “Notes around the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism”, the Doppler effect is the change in frequency of a wave. Modernism has caused the Doppler effect on architecture and architects, What is the author inferring about current architecture? Does modern architecture only aim to exist to be mainstream?
3. In “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural Mathematics & Ingenuity”, reconstruction and destruction is a new concept added to the overall definition of architecture. Along those concepts, there is laziness within approaching architecture in order to fix issues. Could laziness be an obstacle to the development of our buildings and cities? What can be considered lazy in the current construction of architecture?
LikeLike
Architecture is an ongoing motion that is expressive on different levels, to understand the complexity we must strive towards new developments and methods. Fully utilizing advanced technology while considering different economies, ecologies, social groups, and informational systems. There is a procedure to constructing architectural structures, we also have to consider how to take advantage of reusable resources and which steps to take to be more efficient. Laziness is usually considered a negative trait that slows down the process of development, however it can be productive in an indirect way. How can someone take advantage of laziness and turn it into productivity? Instead of focusing on all the details at one step, we can focus on specific details along the procedure. To be more efficient by generalizing the trivial details and paying attention to the more important ones. Understanding the core of construction in order to have better ideas on renovation while being considerate about energy and cost efficiency. “The continuous state of laziness leads to the ingenuitive developments.”To extend the boundaries of design and construction, architects should be allowed to be lazy to be able to work smart. Architects must be committed to utilizing time management to bring about new design ideas and ingenuity.
LikeLike
1) In Rem Koolhaas ‘ “Bibliotheque” he describes the public spaces (voids) as ” multiple embryos, each with its own technological placenta.” how does a contemporary architect aim to mold his design project (embryo) to the conditions/constraints of its context, culture, budget, and other determining factors (placenta)?
2) The Minnaert Building in Utrecht employs “laziness” by allowing flight, air and water to infiltrate the main hall. The resultant interior-ecology creates a powerful architectonic an iconographic statement as light from above shimmers against the floor’s reservoir, set against the firm, opaque concrete of the main hall’s passage. What are other dramatic examples of ecological interface within the building envelope that engender such provocative tension?
3) Heterogeneity in program requires a specific level homogeneity in design, where separate programmatic elements are distinguishable but do not blur into potpourri. Where does architecture draw this line between homogeneity and heterogeneity? in other words, how does architecture express programmatic differentiation while remaining visually and atmospherically consistent?
LikeLike
Architecture must not conform to any particular set of principles or any single ideology. Interdisciplinary by definition, today’s building design needs to pull from all schools of thought. It must aim to synthesize all relevant precedents in order to spawn the ultimate performative system. Neutelings Exemplifies this in Gent by adapting the Beguinage housing typology to a modern housing challenge, effectively enclosing a grand central courtyard within an urban grid.
First and foremost, a designer must assume responsibility for the site and its existing artifice. While every designer would rather start from scratch, one must first attempt to reuse of old infrastructure to reduce both energy and material necessity. In a world where every designer is trying to invent something novel, it is critical to first exhaust all possibilities for recycling existing development. This “re-appropriation” of old architecture pushes America towards a more sustainable future.
LikeLike
1. In Neutling’s “On Laziness, Recycling Sculptural Mathematics and Ingenuity” he opines that the tare space is the only space where architects have any freedom to design. How can we as a field improve the quality of the tare space such that it is preferred to the thought space?
2. In Somol’s “Green Dots 101” he opines that the logo is the ultimate form of architecture devoid of constraint. How is iconography such as the logo of a firm promulgated through the experiention of architectural space? Furthermore, how can the logo become the interface between the dimensional indices of the built and cyber worlds?
3. What is your honest opinion of Rem Koolhaus after reading “S, M, L, XL?” Like do you like his style of writing and his points? I really do
LikeLike
I appreciated the critiques on Neutling’s “On Laziness, Recycling Sculptural Mathematics and Ingenuity.” I think that it was a good clarifier that it was not a negative critique but one of ingenuity. Cody’s presentation was good
LikeLike