1. In Green Dots 101 the author describes how graphic expediency prioritizes the reception of the project by an audience, putting an idealized relationship over the more flexible option that takes reality into account. How can we possibly change our graphic design to include the details without compromising the appeal?
2. In Strategy of the Void, the author expresses frustration at the constant struggle to invent new architecture. Is it really possible to make unique projects anymore? Why are we trying to make every project a new invention?
3. In regards to laziness in architecture, would it even be possible to create a whole new concept for every project, or is the reuse of ideas unavoidable due to the difficulty of creating entirely unique ideas?
1. In “Notes on the Doppler Effect and other moods of Modernism,” the author mentions that designers instinctively look towards other designs when confronted with challenges related to other disciplines. It seems like an easy way to proliferate design problems so it isn’t it better to refer to a professional who has spent their careers investigating the matter at depth for help?
2. Rem Koolhaas makes an argument to reinstate Shape into the consideration of architects when they design in “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape.” At what point did shape become taboo when it seems to be rather intimate with form? Where is the boundary between a form and a shape?
3. Neutelings brings up an interesting take on the effectiveness of laziness in essay, “On laziness, recycling, sculptural mathematics, and ingenuity.” In reference to his third point, is there a reason to create new designs instead of looking towards works and techniques that have been previously ignored for the past centuries?
Architecture has a long history of discourse and each successive movement seems to be based on proving the last one wrong. As modernism stopped being a new movement and settled into becoming the norm, the likes of Eisenman and Koolhaas came up to challenge the new old establishment. As the postmodernists came about, a fight over the nature of movement in architecture almost rose immediately. Koolhaas came to champion shape over form and the power of the icon over some convoluted processes. In this respect, the iconic graphic is certainly a more democratic idea. Undoubtedly, form can be seen as the conception of the elitists. How does the common layman with no education in the history of the discourse of architectural history and theories come to fully understand the work of Eisenman? The idea of the building will be overlooked and the shape becomes the main focal point for most pedestrians anyway. Some might raise their voices and argue that the icon is highly subject to becoming commodity as soon as it is created. So what? People have made Che Guevara into a commodity with their shirts and graphics to sell to faux movements that barely imitate his ideas even at a surface level. Former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev once participated in a Pizza Hut commercial. If communist leaders can be brought to their knees by capitalism, is the idea of standing up to commodity with a building, a product that can literally be bought and sold, not inane?
1. Despite describing restorative and reformative architecture as “laziness” there is an immense amount of thought and effort that go into these projects. So why is renovation considered lazy? Would efficient not be a more appropriate phrase? Why is such beneficial architecture described using a word with strong negative connotations? Do we only value architecture that serves an immutable purpose?
2. In Green Dots, there are steps to creating logo buildings and backgrounds. The third step of this process is to develop a precise but vague silhouette. with a “hard edge shape, not soft.” What makes an edge hard or soft? Is it the severity of the turn or the edges purpose in the overall composition?
3. Somol and Whiting discuss the Doppler Effect in architecture or rather the effect all the parts of architecture achieve when brought together. However, there is a statement about how seeing architecture as interdisciplinary “reduces” architecture. But architecture must be interdisciplinary in order to function, without a civil, electrical, and mechanical engineer a building would not stand. So why is it that the inherent co-dependency of architecture is viewed as a weakness?
1. “12 Reasons” glorifies the idea of shape by giving many reasons for its return and become a glorious design form. But if shape is as “Empty” and “Adaptable” as stated, then why hasn’t it become a more prominent design factor? and by all 12 standards stated, shouldn’t all architecture fit into these reasons thus making shape and architecture synonymous terms?
2. “On Laziness, Recycling sculptural mathematics, and ingenuity” it is stated on point fie that “compulsory laziness enforces ingenuity”, how do these terms relate with each other in order to further the mind of the creative. How can laziness in reality produce a more robust outcome than when productivity is at use?
3. “Strategy of the void” raises the question of how do technology and architecture interact with each other. How will the future of these both fields be impacted when they both inevitably grow? Will the minds of the future adapt architecture to be more than just a space in which people congregate, or will it be a place beyond humanities wildest dreams where life and structure become one?
Architecture in the twentieth and twenty-first century have encountered many differing ideas from influential architects who in turn publish essays in which their views are clearly stated in the form of words, diagrams and images which further the point that they wish to convey. Koolhaas’s essay on shapes in an one that although seems redundant in the world of architecture due to the popularity of geometry regarding design. If one takes a close look at the architecture that surrounds one, it is evident that geometry and symmetry play a significant role in the shaping of said architecture. Regardless of the seemingly redundant information that appears on a daily basis, Koolhaas conveyed to the readers of his essay “12 Reasons” that shape is inherently significant to the creative power an architect has. Factors like shape, geometry, and symmetry all contribute to a certain level of ease experienced by architects during the creative process, even as to lead to “laziness” as a side effect. “On Laziness, Recycling sculptural mathematics, and ingenuity” highlights the way in which tools that architects have developed overtime simplify the process of creation through laziness that leads to productivity.
1. According to “On Laziness” by W.J. Neutelings, laziness can be utilized as an architectural design tool. Seeing as he concludes by saying that laziness requires a lot of effort, what is the difference between laziness in design and too much work in design?
2. In “Strategy of the Void,” Rem Koolhaas states the voids are useful in that they don’t have to be built. Is it paradoxical to build a mass specifically to incite a particular void?
3. Does “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape” by R.E. Samol reflect a trend in importance placed away from form in architecture design? What are the benefits of re-introducing an importance on shape?
1. According to W.J. Neutelings “the best advantage of laziness is by recycling typologies and concepts ” however, nowadays many architects are not trusting in this mainstream, and great concepts and typologies. Why should new architects take into account these old concepts when designing their projects?
2. According to Simon Brown the in the Arbitrary article, he mentions that the interior of a building is the continuation of the exterior of the building. There are many buildings that actually follow this statement. a great example is Frank Lloyd Write Falling water. what are the main criteria to create this continuation inside-out?
3. why do many architects not even take into account geometry shapes into their designs?
1. On Laziness article, its interesting that laziness can be described as ingenuity. Why are architects always scrambling to complete a project? Why so many all nighters? Is that laziness or ingenuity?
2. If shape is so COOL, then why do most of our skyscrapers look the same just by a glance?
3. In strategy of the void, I really begin to consider that spaces in which we reside (this correlates with my studio project) while traveling. So much investment to create a giant, elaborate space for travelers in airports and all they can do is just sit there? why? How do we make this better?
1. The article made some points on what was regarded as laziness. Remodeling a building is a form laziness, but its also eco-friendly and cost efficient. Why tear down a building when you can just update the interiors? A lot of the times leaving projects or assignments to be completed at the last second makes you work faster (because you feel more pressured) and sometimes a person can develop a good design or idea under pressure as well. Its our culture as architects to push ourselves to the limit, but time is money and that does not necessarily happen in every architecture firm. Overworking like we do in school could easily run a company into the ground.
2. At a glance, most skyscrapers look extremely similar. A giant rectangular form with giant windows spanning all four sides. With the same idea as my instagram post, we should keep in mind when observing skyscrapers that its more about materiality and how they work together to create the shape of the building. Also, how these materials are able to give a the viewer a new perspective without even considering the massing.
3. A lot of the times voids in airports are the most expensive areas due to high ceilings (leading to large or intricate structure) and the very large inefficient windows to see the airplanes on the tarmac. Can we make these spaces better? New implementations have been to include spaces to charge your phones and maybe a desk for those who want work while waiting for their flight. Can the new airport be just an extended office space? Why not implement sleep pods for those who want to sleep while waiting? Why not a game room? or a movie theater?
Strategy of the void shows the inner thoughts of an architect trying to tie together the abstract idea of negative volume and practical needs. How does a “carved out” void allow for different design possibilities than an accreted space?
Neutelings praises how laziness forces architects into more efficient solutions. However, are there drawbacks to this attitude?
How is it possible to create ambiguous, “cool” architecture in a medium that seems inherently precisely defined and traditional?
1. How will the growth in “lazy” design that Neuteling mentions in “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural mathematics and Ingenuity” affect the field of architecture and its success?
2. The paradox discussed in “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural mathematics and Ingenuity” that laziness actually requires a lot of effort is exemplified through several buildings such as the Minnaert. In what way does this project demonstrate how recycling can breed creativity?
3. The concept of major public spaces defined by the absence of buildings, as voids which do not need to be “built” and are free from all external logic including gravity is discussed in “S,M,L,XL” by Rem Koolhaas. How can we accomplish this in a practical way, avoiding difficulties of architecture without detaching our buildings from the world?
Many of the topics this week are notably relevant to the design challenges faced by architecture students on a daily basis. Particularly the topic of laziness resonates even with only 1.5 years of experience in architecture school. ‘Laziness’ in design has the potential to originate from studying and learning, and it is interesting to observe which students and professors embrace its merits and how this influences their work. One of the forms of laziness described by Neutelings is the method of creating a “simple basic mathematical concept within which the program is to be organized”. This is a common practice in studio, particularly with our current housing design project which is entering a generative phase in which a simple grid is created which will guide us throughout the semester. Thankfully according to Neutelings, this practice may yield success since it allows us to act irrationally without providing justification. There are many other forms of laziness presented by Neutelings that are familiar to what practices have been learned so far, and they have demonstrated firsthand the effort laziness requires as well as the creativity it can generate.
In On laziness, recycling, sculptural mathematics, and ingenuity, Neutelings talks about laziness in such a positive manner that seems he is using a word with a completely different definition/ Why does this essay teach the value of repurposing buildings rather erasure? Why is this the polar opposite of the norm – what we are taught in school and we see implemented in life?
The dual narratives used by Koolhas is an interesting approach to discussing anything architecturally. Architects stereotypically only put forth confidence and definitiveness behind their words and actions and rarely, if at all, do we witness any transparency, candor, or how they truly feel and think in regards to their process. How much learning, growth, and effectiveness is there the potential to be rewarded if architects that suffer from this archetype “dropped” facades and championed vulnerability?
With Somol, again we discuss the context and power of communication in architecture when talking about decoration and figuration, is there any form of limit to the level of unconventionality that can be implemented to convey a message through form? Can what is seen as innovative be too informal to be considered “good” design?
1.) In R.E. Somol’s “Green Dots 101”, Somol discusses the uses of various tendencies like performatives and Constative descriptions and how these singular words summarize architectural schemes. Is it more beneficial to consider a combination of these statements to analyze works of architecture or to only use singular terms from one of these categories?
2.) In R.E. Somol’s “12 Reasons to Get Back Into Shape”, Somol highlights key adjectives to describe what he believes geometrical shapes of architecture should include. How should architects begin each phase of design to satisfy each of Somol’s conditions?
3.) In Rem Koolhaas’s “Strategy of the Void, Koolhaas mentions the struggle and vexation of designing a structure that establishes something new. Have we reached a peak of individuality in architecture? Is it possible to establish a scheme that doesn’t include notions of previous architectural projects?
1. In “On Laziness, Recycling, Structural Mathematics and Ingenuity” written by Neuteling, he discusses how new architectural developments do not relay on earlier achievements, but rather the rejection of them. However, this doesn’t sound entirely right, because wouldn’t we want to learn from our previous achievements, and see how we can expand on them?
2. At the end of “Green Dots 101,” Somol concludes that there is nothing technically or scientifically true about Green Dots of the general performative category of the logo. If this is the case, and there is no scientific or formulatic method to creating a successful logo building, then wouldn’t this make the “5 steps for how to do logo buildings” void and unusable?
3. In “12 Reasons to Get Back Into Shape,” R.E. Somol discusses how architects recently have strayed from using shape as the primary influence in thier work, and instead having massing as the leading influence that defines their work. However, aren’t the two nearly identical?
1. In “On Laziness, Recycling Sculptural Mathematics and Ingenuity,” W.J. Neutelings writes that laziness is one of an architect’s most useful characteristics. How is this so?
2. In “Twelve Reasons to Get Back into Shape,” R.E. Somel uses 12 terms to describe shape. Why does he pick these twelve terms in particular?
3. In “Green Dots 101,” R.E Somel writes that green dots can only be done, not taught. How is this so?
Based on Neutelings’ “ON laziness recycling sculptural mathematics & ingenuity” what are examples of architectural aspects that influence laziness and with that knowledge, how do we create things that insinuate energy into the inhabitant?
Neutlings also touched on the topic of using a pre existing building, fixing it up and placing a program inside it which the architect who created it initially did not keep in consideration. But for some reason, buildings that have been renovated seem to be more fascinating than the one that was there before. Is it possible for an architect to create a program that can carry out more than one person in everything room? If so, and there are two programs present in the construction, can we mix and match them and still have them be executed?
In “Green Dots 101” R.E. Somol he talks about graphic representation and how significant it is in terms of visualizing one’s work. What can we suggest outside of the basic structure or formal language of a building thru drawings and graphic representation?
1. Somol described that “a projective architecture…delineates the fluctuating borders of architecture’s disciplinarity and expertise…as experts on design and how design may affect economics or politics.” It is always good to give an architectural project capability of influencing the society, but while the growing economy or inclining politics catalyzing the architecture development, don’t they also alienate the architecture from its nature as a civilian facility as well as a technical art piece?
2. “The logo in its architectural manifestation enacts a hybrid state of figural decoration…largely thru…a saturated shape” When talking about fitting the architecture in its context, we want either the shape to be less saturated and flows with the rest on the site, or something representing the context in a highly saturated manner thru the architectural scale. Which would be more beneficial to the local urban development in the long run?
3. To create “cool” shape in architecture, too many establishments have presented “the great taboo” What could be the reason of people considering architectural abnormality even more significantly disturbing than the similar cases in other disciplines?
The ultimate presentation of an artwork piece is not completely based on its subjective realm decided by the creator and the spectator alone, but highly impacted its scale. Think of the sculpture David where if it is at the scale of a can of coke or the scale of a skyscraper, its visual projection will absolutely make people’s experience a whole lot different, so does its meaning to the human art history. This also apply to the discipline of architecture, since the scale of a piece of architecture is almost as strict as the scale of a living human being due to its very nature of accommodating human activities. Under this situation, the split between the digital/graphical presentation available to the designer/contractor should be drastically different from what the spectator can experience, inside or outside of the architecture. What this split mean to the whole process of designing architecture is oversimplification and over abstraction, which directly caused the “legolized” projective presentation of architecture. “the shape” or “the composition of shapes” does not maintain their self-sufficiency when scaled by more than 100 times, and this permanent global concept will eventually be shredded into pieces of temporary local perceptions at its best. It does not necessarily mean this kind of procedural practice is bad, but the amplification of the architect’s segmental perspective of “architectural experience” will overwhelm the true demand of the people and the site.
“Laziness helps architects to be efficient with their time,” but is it laziness or lack of consideration and what are the potential implications of this? Examples of laziness given were recycling the existing, saving previous geometries and renovating existing projects. One can assume that when an Architect is designing a project, they are considerate of the environment that the project will live in. If a building is designed to complement a certain location, what can we expect to happen when the same building is copied and pasted somewhere else? Will this building be perceived as it is, a foreign object implanted into a space? How will this affect the people living in and around this foreign entity? As Architects, we should always be cognizant of not only where we are building, but who we are building for. When moving through different neighborhoods and observing consciously, it is easy to differentiate the projects that were designed from the projects that were implanted. Today an ever increasing number of people feel out of place in their own neighborhoods. They can sense that they were not considered when the neighborhood was designed, and are still not considered when new projects arise. Which begs the argument of laziness simply being a guise for lack of consideration of certain groups and how they experience space. Could this be one of the reasons why Architects are collectively criticized for being absent when it comes to tackling social issues?
Every creative medium at some point in history comes into contact with a situation in which something about the medium has to be problematized. Just in the same way that photography introduced challenges to painting when it was invented, the machine introduced issues to the world of architecture when they became a usual thing. Now that floor slabs in high-rise buildings have elevators, how could one architecturally create connection between them? How can a building still engage the inhabitants in ways that were not mechanical? The introduction of machines demanded that the form of a building required more logic and reason, so that it was no longer about program and aesthetics. Since then you find that the form for a building is a loaded variable that considers an array of topics that shape the end product. Within every great work of architecture, you will find that the work presents some kind of message, argument, or stance about a subject, and in many cases that is evident in the figuration of the project.
Neutelings casts laziness as an admirable trait, one that forces architects to adopt innovative solutions. Diligence allows one to persist in a path that is inefficient, and an adequately lazy architect will put mental effort into determining the path of least resistance. Neutelings practices this by only working on projects when they believe thee are necessary; if the same end could be accomplished by refurbishing, scaling down, simplifying, copying the past, or less equipment, additional work is pointless and inefficient. Neutelings and Koolhaas both reacted strongly to the general extravagance of the mid-century modernists, and wanted to create a movement that was specific and unadorned. Somol proposes similar ideas; they argue that architecture doesn’t need to be complicated and “hot”, but can be effective with simple shapes and strategies. It appears effortless, making such “easy” shapes stand out from designs that try to stand out and attempt to look complicated.
Character can be assumed by the language of the design itself, strangely people assign certain ornaments or forms an almost personified identification. Buildings are typically designed to complete a service, however the way in which the architect interprets this concept and the structure’s purpose determines the character behind the form. This also goes hand and hand with program, because the way in which one decides to organize a space has thought behind it and reasoning. This development of program and the architect’s design strategy to satisfy the needs of the space initiates this idea of narrative and that’s where character is drawn from. Character is developed through narrative and can bee seen both through form and through function depending on how the architect translates his or her ideas. Form and function don’t necessarily have to have a direct connection yet program is a factor of determining both these factors because of its conceptual and physical implications.
Designing is also sacrificing because you have to deal with opportunity costs which force you to make decisions that inevitably abandon the other choices possible. Thus the issue is about when to make what choices that enables you to achieve the required product in the end, which is a hard question.
There are unresolved questions associated with the “Doppler Effect” article: what is analogous to the car and sound wave of the example in real architecture world? How the relationship between architecture and humanity transforms when the “car” is moving towards the audience? What is the “sound wave” and its frequency all about? These are interesting issues to be discussed.
In terms of the explanation of “shape” in architecture, I would argue that there’s a trend to redefine and expand the vocabulary to make it more inclusive that addresses broader areas of issues. In my opinion, it’s always easier to simplify the language and generate more possible combinations: Making “Shape is Cool” into “Shape and Coolness”.
What is “New Architecture?” The term “Modern Architecture” is one that is totally up to the interpreter to define. There is no clear definition to refer to especially considering the fact that if one were to analyze each word separately then it would be even more relative to the individual and time period for a clear definition to transpire. The word “modern” by definition is the practice of things non-traditional in terms of style and values. So if one is basing his or her knowledge rooted into this idea, that would mean that at some point everything we know as architecture now was once considered “modern”. But can anything really be “new,” or are the things we call “new things” just an elaborate iteration on something that already exists? In the history of architecture particularly, things that are knew are not exactly taken lightly by those in charge of the manifestation of the things that were already present. Revolution is the act of overthrowing a government or social order in favor of a new system. This process has been used throughout history successfully on numerous occasions, such as the civil rights movements or riots. The crucial piece behind the term is that it influences change that could be seen as necessary or important for the growth and prospering of an otherwise struggling community or society. But even if an idea arises that hits all of those points, is it really “new?”
During the symposium, architecture was treated as a fluid concept, not something that serves one purpose and is done. The discussion of shape revealed that edges themselves cannot be hard or sharp but the purpose they serve within the larger shape determines the resultant severity. Lastly, architecture was discussed as a complex and multifaceted practice, with several parts coming together to form that which we call the practice of architecture. Architecture is indeed codependent but perhaps the reason that the nature of architecture is ignored in such a way is because we think of architecture as such an ephemeral concept, something that takes years to define but yet that definition continues to grow and change as we learn more, something that is so large and encompassing that to consider architecture as a codependent field seems almost an insult to all that architecture is.
Personification is the gifting of human emotions to inanimate objects that of course unlike humans cannot feel said sensations. Still people somehow and for some reason can link these moods to certain buildings or give those traits equal to that of a human. This structure is happy, this one is lethargic, and one could even be male or female. This isn’t usually an accident, when an architect creates a building they want to give a certain essence to the building that the view can immediately receive when looking upon a building. It’s a way to observe the building through the eyes of the architect in order to see the structure in the way the architect wants it to be seen. So the view can observe the building the way it was meant to be observed as, and admire it for the way it is.
As time passes by, architects have been developing architecture in many different ways, and they have created and adopted new skills in order to come up with crazy designs that can blow any bodies mind. But are these architects even thinking about what is allow, what is possible, and how well will their designs work through the environment in which they are placed?. It is possible that at one point these constraints are not first in these architects’ minds just because the façade of the buildings come to be more important to attract viewers. However, R. E. Somol mentions in his article. “12 reasons to get back into shape” that “shape is arbitrary” meaning that not only a building has an exterior. But also, an interior and this must have a connection or a direct relationship with the exterior. Somol also mentions that it should be almost like a continuation game between these two architectural subjects.
“Laziness is used as methodology to produce work”. Sometimes in our process we stall or lose motivation and only produce material at the last minute. Although this often works to our benefit, many times we leave it to machines to figure out our ideas for us. We return to previously created designs and repeat many of those structures or elements from it. How can we grow as a society when our ideas are not? Connecting back to the first lecture, if no idea is ever truly new aren’t we indefinitely lazy because it is impossible to have an idea that has yet to be recycled? Maybe laziness and procrastination are the source of new ideas and without them we will be left to continue to recycle in a never ending loop. Perhaps the inevitability of such is important if we as a society want to create new designs and grow our society and the structures we occupy.
This weeks discussion and readings were interesting in how contradictory they are to the ideas pushed on us as students- laziness is a good thing, architecture doesn’t have to hurt, and just forget about context. Starting first semester of architecture school we are pushed into a culture of constant work and all nighters in an attempt to design the right building with the given requirements and set site. The benefits of laziness in architecture were discussed as being able to say no to a project and being able to simply reuse a building. Recycling topologies is probably one of the most prevalent methods of laziness in architecture, and while it might allude to a lack of creativity, it also keeps what we know to be successful rather than edging on disaster. We also see these methods used in studio with students who wait until the last minute to finish a project and must think of inventive ways to crunch time. I wouldn’t necessarily agree that deciding to not build a building is “lazy”. I think the idea that building too many buildings is not lazy is wrong too. On the subject of social context and site context it’s not only lazy to disregard them, but reckless.
Laziness is one of the many ways in which architecture is paradoxical. In “On Laziness,” W.J. Neutelings discusses the benefits of using architectural laziness as a design strategy. This is paradoxical because all of the methods of laziness that he lists require a fair amount of effort. In “12 Reasons to Get Back Into Shape,” R.E. Somol also mentions laziness, highlighting the trend amongst architects to spend a lot of time on their designs and in doing so overcomplicating them. Both articles are calling for more simplicity: Neutelings with laziness and Somol with the shape. Rem Koolhaas also alludes to laziness when he discusses the void. He argues that the void is a useful aspect of design because it doesn’t have to be built. In this way, he too is using laziness as a design tool. The contradiction is that all of these examples of architecture laziness are very difficult to achieve.
The presentation holds the idea that shape can be and is identified in a multitude of ways, as the presentation discusses the theory behind it. The concept of shape belongs to the architect and it belongs to the profession. It is a general concept given to and allowed the possibility of distortion. Due to this possession of shape, it is more often than not the case that architects will find themselves concerned in regard to whether or not the shape that they have set in mind is one that is simply arbitrarily placed within their building or not. It is understandable that the fear that maybe a certain shape doesn’t belong to the overall theme of the building and that in arbitrarily creating a void or a form might detract from the true nature of the structure, however what many architects fail to see is the identity of the building once it has reached its final form. At this point, that void or arbitrarily assigned shape has become coupled with the overall identity of the structure and will come to mind whenever that structure is mentioned. So in that regard, it is no longer some erratic response to the environment, it is now within the DNA of the building itself.
Contemporary Design Approaches 
1. In Green Dots 101 the author describes how graphic expediency prioritizes the reception of the project by an audience, putting an idealized relationship over the more flexible option that takes reality into account. How can we possibly change our graphic design to include the details without compromising the appeal?
2. In Strategy of the Void, the author expresses frustration at the constant struggle to invent new architecture. Is it really possible to make unique projects anymore? Why are we trying to make every project a new invention?
3. In regards to laziness in architecture, would it even be possible to create a whole new concept for every project, or is the reuse of ideas unavoidable due to the difficulty of creating entirely unique ideas?
LikeLike
1. In “Notes on the Doppler Effect and other moods of Modernism,” the author mentions that designers instinctively look towards other designs when confronted with challenges related to other disciplines. It seems like an easy way to proliferate design problems so it isn’t it better to refer to a professional who has spent their careers investigating the matter at depth for help?
2. Rem Koolhaas makes an argument to reinstate Shape into the consideration of architects when they design in “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape.” At what point did shape become taboo when it seems to be rather intimate with form? Where is the boundary between a form and a shape?
3. Neutelings brings up an interesting take on the effectiveness of laziness in essay, “On laziness, recycling, sculptural mathematics, and ingenuity.” In reference to his third point, is there a reason to create new designs instead of looking towards works and techniques that have been previously ignored for the past centuries?
LikeLike
Architecture has a long history of discourse and each successive movement seems to be based on proving the last one wrong. As modernism stopped being a new movement and settled into becoming the norm, the likes of Eisenman and Koolhaas came up to challenge the new old establishment. As the postmodernists came about, a fight over the nature of movement in architecture almost rose immediately. Koolhaas came to champion shape over form and the power of the icon over some convoluted processes. In this respect, the iconic graphic is certainly a more democratic idea. Undoubtedly, form can be seen as the conception of the elitists. How does the common layman with no education in the history of the discourse of architectural history and theories come to fully understand the work of Eisenman? The idea of the building will be overlooked and the shape becomes the main focal point for most pedestrians anyway. Some might raise their voices and argue that the icon is highly subject to becoming commodity as soon as it is created. So what? People have made Che Guevara into a commodity with their shirts and graphics to sell to faux movements that barely imitate his ideas even at a surface level. Former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev once participated in a Pizza Hut commercial. If communist leaders can be brought to their knees by capitalism, is the idea of standing up to commodity with a building, a product that can literally be bought and sold, not inane?
LikeLike
1. Despite describing restorative and reformative architecture as “laziness” there is an immense amount of thought and effort that go into these projects. So why is renovation considered lazy? Would efficient not be a more appropriate phrase? Why is such beneficial architecture described using a word with strong negative connotations? Do we only value architecture that serves an immutable purpose?
2. In Green Dots, there are steps to creating logo buildings and backgrounds. The third step of this process is to develop a precise but vague silhouette. with a “hard edge shape, not soft.” What makes an edge hard or soft? Is it the severity of the turn or the edges purpose in the overall composition?
3. Somol and Whiting discuss the Doppler Effect in architecture or rather the effect all the parts of architecture achieve when brought together. However, there is a statement about how seeing architecture as interdisciplinary “reduces” architecture. But architecture must be interdisciplinary in order to function, without a civil, electrical, and mechanical engineer a building would not stand. So why is it that the inherent co-dependency of architecture is viewed as a weakness?
LikeLike
1. “12 Reasons” glorifies the idea of shape by giving many reasons for its return and become a glorious design form. But if shape is as “Empty” and “Adaptable” as stated, then why hasn’t it become a more prominent design factor? and by all 12 standards stated, shouldn’t all architecture fit into these reasons thus making shape and architecture synonymous terms?
2. “On Laziness, Recycling sculptural mathematics, and ingenuity” it is stated on point fie that “compulsory laziness enforces ingenuity”, how do these terms relate with each other in order to further the mind of the creative. How can laziness in reality produce a more robust outcome than when productivity is at use?
3. “Strategy of the void” raises the question of how do technology and architecture interact with each other. How will the future of these both fields be impacted when they both inevitably grow? Will the minds of the future adapt architecture to be more than just a space in which people congregate, or will it be a place beyond humanities wildest dreams where life and structure become one?
LikeLike
Architecture in the twentieth and twenty-first century have encountered many differing ideas from influential architects who in turn publish essays in which their views are clearly stated in the form of words, diagrams and images which further the point that they wish to convey. Koolhaas’s essay on shapes in an one that although seems redundant in the world of architecture due to the popularity of geometry regarding design. If one takes a close look at the architecture that surrounds one, it is evident that geometry and symmetry play a significant role in the shaping of said architecture. Regardless of the seemingly redundant information that appears on a daily basis, Koolhaas conveyed to the readers of his essay “12 Reasons” that shape is inherently significant to the creative power an architect has. Factors like shape, geometry, and symmetry all contribute to a certain level of ease experienced by architects during the creative process, even as to lead to “laziness” as a side effect. “On Laziness, Recycling sculptural mathematics, and ingenuity” highlights the way in which tools that architects have developed overtime simplify the process of creation through laziness that leads to productivity.
LikeLike
1. According to “On Laziness” by W.J. Neutelings, laziness can be utilized as an architectural design tool. Seeing as he concludes by saying that laziness requires a lot of effort, what is the difference between laziness in design and too much work in design?
2. In “Strategy of the Void,” Rem Koolhaas states the voids are useful in that they don’t have to be built. Is it paradoxical to build a mass specifically to incite a particular void?
3. Does “12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape” by R.E. Samol reflect a trend in importance placed away from form in architecture design? What are the benefits of re-introducing an importance on shape?
LikeLike
1. According to W.J. Neutelings “the best advantage of laziness is by recycling typologies and concepts ” however, nowadays many architects are not trusting in this mainstream, and great concepts and typologies. Why should new architects take into account these old concepts when designing their projects?
2. According to Simon Brown the in the Arbitrary article, he mentions that the interior of a building is the continuation of the exterior of the building. There are many buildings that actually follow this statement. a great example is Frank Lloyd Write Falling water. what are the main criteria to create this continuation inside-out?
3. why do many architects not even take into account geometry shapes into their designs?
LikeLike
1. On Laziness article, its interesting that laziness can be described as ingenuity. Why are architects always scrambling to complete a project? Why so many all nighters? Is that laziness or ingenuity?
2. If shape is so COOL, then why do most of our skyscrapers look the same just by a glance?
3. In strategy of the void, I really begin to consider that spaces in which we reside (this correlates with my studio project) while traveling. So much investment to create a giant, elaborate space for travelers in airports and all they can do is just sit there? why? How do we make this better?
LikeLike
1. The article made some points on what was regarded as laziness. Remodeling a building is a form laziness, but its also eco-friendly and cost efficient. Why tear down a building when you can just update the interiors? A lot of the times leaving projects or assignments to be completed at the last second makes you work faster (because you feel more pressured) and sometimes a person can develop a good design or idea under pressure as well. Its our culture as architects to push ourselves to the limit, but time is money and that does not necessarily happen in every architecture firm. Overworking like we do in school could easily run a company into the ground.
2. At a glance, most skyscrapers look extremely similar. A giant rectangular form with giant windows spanning all four sides. With the same idea as my instagram post, we should keep in mind when observing skyscrapers that its more about materiality and how they work together to create the shape of the building. Also, how these materials are able to give a the viewer a new perspective without even considering the massing.
3. A lot of the times voids in airports are the most expensive areas due to high ceilings (leading to large or intricate structure) and the very large inefficient windows to see the airplanes on the tarmac. Can we make these spaces better? New implementations have been to include spaces to charge your phones and maybe a desk for those who want work while waiting for their flight. Can the new airport be just an extended office space? Why not implement sleep pods for those who want to sleep while waiting? Why not a game room? or a movie theater?
LikeLike
Strategy of the void shows the inner thoughts of an architect trying to tie together the abstract idea of negative volume and practical needs. How does a “carved out” void allow for different design possibilities than an accreted space?
Neutelings praises how laziness forces architects into more efficient solutions. However, are there drawbacks to this attitude?
How is it possible to create ambiguous, “cool” architecture in a medium that seems inherently precisely defined and traditional?
LikeLike
1. How will the growth in “lazy” design that Neuteling mentions in “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural mathematics and Ingenuity” affect the field of architecture and its success?
2. The paradox discussed in “On Laziness, Recycling, Sculptural mathematics and Ingenuity” that laziness actually requires a lot of effort is exemplified through several buildings such as the Minnaert. In what way does this project demonstrate how recycling can breed creativity?
3. The concept of major public spaces defined by the absence of buildings, as voids which do not need to be “built” and are free from all external logic including gravity is discussed in “S,M,L,XL” by Rem Koolhaas. How can we accomplish this in a practical way, avoiding difficulties of architecture without detaching our buildings from the world?
LikeLike
Many of the topics this week are notably relevant to the design challenges faced by architecture students on a daily basis. Particularly the topic of laziness resonates even with only 1.5 years of experience in architecture school. ‘Laziness’ in design has the potential to originate from studying and learning, and it is interesting to observe which students and professors embrace its merits and how this influences their work. One of the forms of laziness described by Neutelings is the method of creating a “simple basic mathematical concept within which the program is to be organized”. This is a common practice in studio, particularly with our current housing design project which is entering a generative phase in which a simple grid is created which will guide us throughout the semester. Thankfully according to Neutelings, this practice may yield success since it allows us to act irrationally without providing justification. There are many other forms of laziness presented by Neutelings that are familiar to what practices have been learned so far, and they have demonstrated firsthand the effort laziness requires as well as the creativity it can generate.
LikeLike
In On laziness, recycling, sculptural mathematics, and ingenuity, Neutelings talks about laziness in such a positive manner that seems he is using a word with a completely different definition/ Why does this essay teach the value of repurposing buildings rather erasure? Why is this the polar opposite of the norm – what we are taught in school and we see implemented in life?
The dual narratives used by Koolhas is an interesting approach to discussing anything architecturally. Architects stereotypically only put forth confidence and definitiveness behind their words and actions and rarely, if at all, do we witness any transparency, candor, or how they truly feel and think in regards to their process. How much learning, growth, and effectiveness is there the potential to be rewarded if architects that suffer from this archetype “dropped” facades and championed vulnerability?
With Somol, again we discuss the context and power of communication in architecture when talking about decoration and figuration, is there any form of limit to the level of unconventionality that can be implemented to convey a message through form? Can what is seen as innovative be too informal to be considered “good” design?
LikeLike
1.) In R.E. Somol’s “Green Dots 101”, Somol discusses the uses of various tendencies like performatives and Constative descriptions and how these singular words summarize architectural schemes. Is it more beneficial to consider a combination of these statements to analyze works of architecture or to only use singular terms from one of these categories?
2.) In R.E. Somol’s “12 Reasons to Get Back Into Shape”, Somol highlights key adjectives to describe what he believes geometrical shapes of architecture should include. How should architects begin each phase of design to satisfy each of Somol’s conditions?
3.) In Rem Koolhaas’s “Strategy of the Void, Koolhaas mentions the struggle and vexation of designing a structure that establishes something new. Have we reached a peak of individuality in architecture? Is it possible to establish a scheme that doesn’t include notions of previous architectural projects?
LikeLike
1. In “On Laziness, Recycling, Structural Mathematics and Ingenuity” written by Neuteling, he discusses how new architectural developments do not relay on earlier achievements, but rather the rejection of them. However, this doesn’t sound entirely right, because wouldn’t we want to learn from our previous achievements, and see how we can expand on them?
2. At the end of “Green Dots 101,” Somol concludes that there is nothing technically or scientifically true about Green Dots of the general performative category of the logo. If this is the case, and there is no scientific or formulatic method to creating a successful logo building, then wouldn’t this make the “5 steps for how to do logo buildings” void and unusable?
3. In “12 Reasons to Get Back Into Shape,” R.E. Somol discusses how architects recently have strayed from using shape as the primary influence in thier work, and instead having massing as the leading influence that defines their work. However, aren’t the two nearly identical?
LikeLike
1. In “On Laziness, Recycling Sculptural Mathematics and Ingenuity,” W.J. Neutelings writes that laziness is one of an architect’s most useful characteristics. How is this so?
2. In “Twelve Reasons to Get Back into Shape,” R.E. Somel uses 12 terms to describe shape. Why does he pick these twelve terms in particular?
3. In “Green Dots 101,” R.E Somel writes that green dots can only be done, not taught. How is this so?
LikeLike
Based on Neutelings’ “ON laziness recycling sculptural mathematics & ingenuity” what are examples of architectural aspects that influence laziness and with that knowledge, how do we create things that insinuate energy into the inhabitant?
Neutlings also touched on the topic of using a pre existing building, fixing it up and placing a program inside it which the architect who created it initially did not keep in consideration. But for some reason, buildings that have been renovated seem to be more fascinating than the one that was there before. Is it possible for an architect to create a program that can carry out more than one person in everything room? If so, and there are two programs present in the construction, can we mix and match them and still have them be executed?
In “Green Dots 101” R.E. Somol he talks about graphic representation and how significant it is in terms of visualizing one’s work. What can we suggest outside of the basic structure or formal language of a building thru drawings and graphic representation?
LikeLike
1. Somol described that “a projective architecture…delineates the fluctuating borders of architecture’s disciplinarity and expertise…as experts on design and how design may affect economics or politics.” It is always good to give an architectural project capability of influencing the society, but while the growing economy or inclining politics catalyzing the architecture development, don’t they also alienate the architecture from its nature as a civilian facility as well as a technical art piece?
2. “The logo in its architectural manifestation enacts a hybrid state of figural decoration…largely thru…a saturated shape” When talking about fitting the architecture in its context, we want either the shape to be less saturated and flows with the rest on the site, or something representing the context in a highly saturated manner thru the architectural scale. Which would be more beneficial to the local urban development in the long run?
3. To create “cool” shape in architecture, too many establishments have presented “the great taboo” What could be the reason of people considering architectural abnormality even more significantly disturbing than the similar cases in other disciplines?
Yifei Peng
LikeLike
The ultimate presentation of an artwork piece is not completely based on its subjective realm decided by the creator and the spectator alone, but highly impacted its scale. Think of the sculpture David where if it is at the scale of a can of coke or the scale of a skyscraper, its visual projection will absolutely make people’s experience a whole lot different, so does its meaning to the human art history. This also apply to the discipline of architecture, since the scale of a piece of architecture is almost as strict as the scale of a living human being due to its very nature of accommodating human activities. Under this situation, the split between the digital/graphical presentation available to the designer/contractor should be drastically different from what the spectator can experience, inside or outside of the architecture. What this split mean to the whole process of designing architecture is oversimplification and over abstraction, which directly caused the “legolized” projective presentation of architecture. “the shape” or “the composition of shapes” does not maintain their self-sufficiency when scaled by more than 100 times, and this permanent global concept will eventually be shredded into pieces of temporary local perceptions at its best. It does not necessarily mean this kind of procedural practice is bad, but the amplification of the architect’s segmental perspective of “architectural experience” will overwhelm the true demand of the people and the site.
LikeLike
“Laziness helps architects to be efficient with their time,” but is it laziness or lack of consideration and what are the potential implications of this? Examples of laziness given were recycling the existing, saving previous geometries and renovating existing projects. One can assume that when an Architect is designing a project, they are considerate of the environment that the project will live in. If a building is designed to complement a certain location, what can we expect to happen when the same building is copied and pasted somewhere else? Will this building be perceived as it is, a foreign object implanted into a space? How will this affect the people living in and around this foreign entity? As Architects, we should always be cognizant of not only where we are building, but who we are building for. When moving through different neighborhoods and observing consciously, it is easy to differentiate the projects that were designed from the projects that were implanted. Today an ever increasing number of people feel out of place in their own neighborhoods. They can sense that they were not considered when the neighborhood was designed, and are still not considered when new projects arise. Which begs the argument of laziness simply being a guise for lack of consideration of certain groups and how they experience space. Could this be one of the reasons why Architects are collectively criticized for being absent when it comes to tackling social issues?
LikeLike
Every creative medium at some point in history comes into contact with a situation in which something about the medium has to be problematized. Just in the same way that photography introduced challenges to painting when it was invented, the machine introduced issues to the world of architecture when they became a usual thing. Now that floor slabs in high-rise buildings have elevators, how could one architecturally create connection between them? How can a building still engage the inhabitants in ways that were not mechanical? The introduction of machines demanded that the form of a building required more logic and reason, so that it was no longer about program and aesthetics. Since then you find that the form for a building is a loaded variable that considers an array of topics that shape the end product. Within every great work of architecture, you will find that the work presents some kind of message, argument, or stance about a subject, and in many cases that is evident in the figuration of the project.
LikeLike
Neutelings casts laziness as an admirable trait, one that forces architects to adopt innovative solutions. Diligence allows one to persist in a path that is inefficient, and an adequately lazy architect will put mental effort into determining the path of least resistance. Neutelings practices this by only working on projects when they believe thee are necessary; if the same end could be accomplished by refurbishing, scaling down, simplifying, copying the past, or less equipment, additional work is pointless and inefficient. Neutelings and Koolhaas both reacted strongly to the general extravagance of the mid-century modernists, and wanted to create a movement that was specific and unadorned. Somol proposes similar ideas; they argue that architecture doesn’t need to be complicated and “hot”, but can be effective with simple shapes and strategies. It appears effortless, making such “easy” shapes stand out from designs that try to stand out and attempt to look complicated.
LikeLike
Character can be assumed by the language of the design itself, strangely people assign certain ornaments or forms an almost personified identification. Buildings are typically designed to complete a service, however the way in which the architect interprets this concept and the structure’s purpose determines the character behind the form. This also goes hand and hand with program, because the way in which one decides to organize a space has thought behind it and reasoning. This development of program and the architect’s design strategy to satisfy the needs of the space initiates this idea of narrative and that’s where character is drawn from. Character is developed through narrative and can bee seen both through form and through function depending on how the architect translates his or her ideas. Form and function don’t necessarily have to have a direct connection yet program is a factor of determining both these factors because of its conceptual and physical implications.
LikeLike
Designing is also sacrificing because you have to deal with opportunity costs which force you to make decisions that inevitably abandon the other choices possible. Thus the issue is about when to make what choices that enables you to achieve the required product in the end, which is a hard question.
There are unresolved questions associated with the “Doppler Effect” article: what is analogous to the car and sound wave of the example in real architecture world? How the relationship between architecture and humanity transforms when the “car” is moving towards the audience? What is the “sound wave” and its frequency all about? These are interesting issues to be discussed.
In terms of the explanation of “shape” in architecture, I would argue that there’s a trend to redefine and expand the vocabulary to make it more inclusive that addresses broader areas of issues. In my opinion, it’s always easier to simplify the language and generate more possible combinations: Making “Shape is Cool” into “Shape and Coolness”.
LikeLike
What is “New Architecture?” The term “Modern Architecture” is one that is totally up to the interpreter to define. There is no clear definition to refer to especially considering the fact that if one were to analyze each word separately then it would be even more relative to the individual and time period for a clear definition to transpire. The word “modern” by definition is the practice of things non-traditional in terms of style and values. So if one is basing his or her knowledge rooted into this idea, that would mean that at some point everything we know as architecture now was once considered “modern”. But can anything really be “new,” or are the things we call “new things” just an elaborate iteration on something that already exists? In the history of architecture particularly, things that are knew are not exactly taken lightly by those in charge of the manifestation of the things that were already present. Revolution is the act of overthrowing a government or social order in favor of a new system. This process has been used throughout history successfully on numerous occasions, such as the civil rights movements or riots. The crucial piece behind the term is that it influences change that could be seen as necessary or important for the growth and prospering of an otherwise struggling community or society. But even if an idea arises that hits all of those points, is it really “new?”
LikeLike
During the symposium, architecture was treated as a fluid concept, not something that serves one purpose and is done. The discussion of shape revealed that edges themselves cannot be hard or sharp but the purpose they serve within the larger shape determines the resultant severity. Lastly, architecture was discussed as a complex and multifaceted practice, with several parts coming together to form that which we call the practice of architecture. Architecture is indeed codependent but perhaps the reason that the nature of architecture is ignored in such a way is because we think of architecture as such an ephemeral concept, something that takes years to define but yet that definition continues to grow and change as we learn more, something that is so large and encompassing that to consider architecture as a codependent field seems almost an insult to all that architecture is.
LikeLike
Personification is the gifting of human emotions to inanimate objects that of course unlike humans cannot feel said sensations. Still people somehow and for some reason can link these moods to certain buildings or give those traits equal to that of a human. This structure is happy, this one is lethargic, and one could even be male or female. This isn’t usually an accident, when an architect creates a building they want to give a certain essence to the building that the view can immediately receive when looking upon a building. It’s a way to observe the building through the eyes of the architect in order to see the structure in the way the architect wants it to be seen. So the view can observe the building the way it was meant to be observed as, and admire it for the way it is.
LikeLike
As time passes by, architects have been developing architecture in many different ways, and they have created and adopted new skills in order to come up with crazy designs that can blow any bodies mind. But are these architects even thinking about what is allow, what is possible, and how well will their designs work through the environment in which they are placed?. It is possible that at one point these constraints are not first in these architects’ minds just because the façade of the buildings come to be more important to attract viewers. However, R. E. Somol mentions in his article. “12 reasons to get back into shape” that “shape is arbitrary” meaning that not only a building has an exterior. But also, an interior and this must have a connection or a direct relationship with the exterior. Somol also mentions that it should be almost like a continuation game between these two architectural subjects.
LikeLike
“Laziness is used as methodology to produce work”. Sometimes in our process we stall or lose motivation and only produce material at the last minute. Although this often works to our benefit, many times we leave it to machines to figure out our ideas for us. We return to previously created designs and repeat many of those structures or elements from it. How can we grow as a society when our ideas are not? Connecting back to the first lecture, if no idea is ever truly new aren’t we indefinitely lazy because it is impossible to have an idea that has yet to be recycled? Maybe laziness and procrastination are the source of new ideas and without them we will be left to continue to recycle in a never ending loop. Perhaps the inevitability of such is important if we as a society want to create new designs and grow our society and the structures we occupy.
LikeLike
This weeks discussion and readings were interesting in how contradictory they are to the ideas pushed on us as students- laziness is a good thing, architecture doesn’t have to hurt, and just forget about context. Starting first semester of architecture school we are pushed into a culture of constant work and all nighters in an attempt to design the right building with the given requirements and set site. The benefits of laziness in architecture were discussed as being able to say no to a project and being able to simply reuse a building. Recycling topologies is probably one of the most prevalent methods of laziness in architecture, and while it might allude to a lack of creativity, it also keeps what we know to be successful rather than edging on disaster. We also see these methods used in studio with students who wait until the last minute to finish a project and must think of inventive ways to crunch time. I wouldn’t necessarily agree that deciding to not build a building is “lazy”. I think the idea that building too many buildings is not lazy is wrong too. On the subject of social context and site context it’s not only lazy to disregard them, but reckless.
LikeLike
Laziness is one of the many ways in which architecture is paradoxical. In “On Laziness,” W.J. Neutelings discusses the benefits of using architectural laziness as a design strategy. This is paradoxical because all of the methods of laziness that he lists require a fair amount of effort. In “12 Reasons to Get Back Into Shape,” R.E. Somol also mentions laziness, highlighting the trend amongst architects to spend a lot of time on their designs and in doing so overcomplicating them. Both articles are calling for more simplicity: Neutelings with laziness and Somol with the shape. Rem Koolhaas also alludes to laziness when he discusses the void. He argues that the void is a useful aspect of design because it doesn’t have to be built. In this way, he too is using laziness as a design tool. The contradiction is that all of these examples of architecture laziness are very difficult to achieve.
LikeLike
The presentation holds the idea that shape can be and is identified in a multitude of ways, as the presentation discusses the theory behind it. The concept of shape belongs to the architect and it belongs to the profession. It is a general concept given to and allowed the possibility of distortion. Due to this possession of shape, it is more often than not the case that architects will find themselves concerned in regard to whether or not the shape that they have set in mind is one that is simply arbitrarily placed within their building or not. It is understandable that the fear that maybe a certain shape doesn’t belong to the overall theme of the building and that in arbitrarily creating a void or a form might detract from the true nature of the structure, however what many architects fail to see is the identity of the building once it has reached its final form. At this point, that void or arbitrarily assigned shape has become coupled with the overall identity of the structure and will come to mind whenever that structure is mentioned. So in that regard, it is no longer some erratic response to the environment, it is now within the DNA of the building itself.
LikeLike