The Silver Screen of Architecture

Some conversations are really not meant - or shouldn't be meant - for the whole design community, even though they may be posted that way...

Postby usarender » Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:13 pm

This topic on Honeycomb Housing was most interesting !

Honeycomb housing: an alternative to terrace or row houses

These ideas of defensible space, connectivity, personalized areas and the introduction of the cul-de-sac are fantastic and much needed in the urban tissue. Too often communities are impersonal, turned in on themselves but lacking the shared common personalized spaces where neighbors can interact. It does seem such cul-de-sacs, however, favor the interaction of children and it doesn't seem those small parks in front of every home would be space enough to stimulate adult activities. The neighborhood parks for more general adult use in your scheme seem a little detached from the clusters in the sense that too much zoning of privacy can also reduce community integration to a sense. Thus, there should be a central park and community centers, located at the center of your scheme.

The idea of shared and public spaces is nice and when personalized, can carry more significant meaning, association and a greater sense of security, privacy and community unity to it's residents. One needs to achieve a balance however, between too much personalization and close-knit private spaces and greater community unity and feeling as a whole. In the cul-de-sac arrangement, the winding roads also increase a sense of security and help to reduce the amount of undesirable stranger traffic. It does create a sense, however, of being lost, and houses become difficult to find in a maze of streets. There is something to be said, however, for the landmark concept. This, however, suggests the need for a mixed use zoning and the taller buildings would thus be far apart from each other, and thus, not all larger buildings are accessible in walking distance. This may help to reduce the density of the urban tissue, and distribute the business sector with the residential sector, but also it suggests many buildings will only be reached by car. It suggests a very large community also and more communities to function well should be smaller in scale and maintain a relationship to more dense commercial areas that function at the center of multiple residential areas, as in a more traditional layout. It also suggests large tracks of land that can be easity controlled, developed by one central planning board. This is not always the case. Cities often develop in a metamorphic way and rarely one gets a chance to plan well a city before it exists, and pre-determine how the city will breath. A city is a function of how the development takes place based on economic need and decisions, and the relation the city has to economic development, other cities, and how people will actually absorb the urban tissue in practice. When one pre-determines all this, it may work or it may not work as expected.

Such zig-zag layouts could also be nice to people who live in the cities, but for new people arriving or simply traveling in and through the cities, it could create much confusion. Further, the relation of such communities to other city areas becomes not clear, and seems to suggest if we are to design communities in this fashion, there is an imperative need also to re-design our city layouts, and even greater layouts of the relation of cities to one another. Such zooming out could continue, where an entire state could be optimally designed and laid out prior to being developed. But in practice human occupation and development is quite complex and very un-frequently can be intricately planned in advance. Frequently cities who try to do this end up with areas that do not function as planned.

By Mr. Nelson

Architect, Designer, Builder, Inventor, Visionary, Leader, Scientist, Musician, Writer, Poet, Promoter of Matrix Integration and Technology Integration System.

The Global Pyramid, The Gateway to the Sky, New Physics of Pressure Differentials, Magnetic Cancellation Theory, The New Cosmic Theory of Gallactic Energy & Time Distribution, The Global Ring, (the new space lift of the future), The Computer of the Future, The New Internet & Data Transmission System, Transportation System of the Future X, Project Star Scraper, Laboratory on Mt. Everest, New Space Energy Production System, Anti-Earthquake Technology, Anti Tidal Wave Technology, Magnetic Levitation Systems Theories, The Atom as a model of Energy Production, The New Language of Architecture, The New Vocabulary of Architecture and more.....

Project Liquid Universe

Global Developer

Architectural Art USA

Latin American Real Estate.

Designing and Building homes, developing the architecture of the future.

What we, as a global community develop -->>

A new architecture.

New cities.

New Mega Projects.

The technology of the future.

Welcome to the journey.
millennium club
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:22 am
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby usarender » Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Deconstruction in Architecture

The discussion on Deconstruction in Architecture was most interesting, and maintains relations and allusions to the idea of " a spirit of a place", where a particular location can denote certain metaphysical qualities based on the inhabitants, the past, the present, the expected future of the location, and the materials, elements and organization of the same in space and their "experiential quality" that can be " pleasant", "urban", "modern" and on. When experiencing architecture, according to the famous book, one must take into consideration this metaphysical quality. We can learn from it, and create our own philosophies based on it. It is everywhere. The experience of the world around us is connected in a metaphysical way to the events, the people, the materials, the location, the context (historical, geographical, cultural, spiritual, metaphysical experience and individual reaction to the environment).

When we as architects say the building "wants to be something", others may think we are only expressing our own desire, in other words. But there is something truly metaphysical about our way of experiencing a problem, a client, a context, a material application in the sense that the group of factors seem to "cry" or "call" for a particular solution that involves our sub-conscious mind, it's connection to the physical and metaphysical world around us. We are all connected in a way to this metaphysical energy and depending on our level of connection, it can inspire our architectural design.

Can a building affect society ? It is obvious that buildings affect society and the world around us. One must always take into consideration the user's point of view, from design inception through design evaluation and user evaluation in the course of a building's existence. A building is an inherent reflection of the society, values, people who design, build and occupy the spaces. A building can have a bad design, but still carry some positive connotations, based on it's metaphysical connection to the world and society around it. Or it can have a good design, so to speak, but only in the architectural sense, but maintain no connection to the metaphysical or physical world around it, thus loosing it's place in the context in which it sits. Much is to be said for the contextual aspects of the design, as Misvit has expounded upon.

About the sublime nature of architecture, this can be expounded upon as well. The degree to which this can be executed in practice can be determined by an infinity of variables, that may or may not allow the architect to fully express the full intent of his sublime inspiration, depending on the budget, cultural prejudice or particular influence of the architect.

Quick Dimension 1" brought up some interesting points related to a design approach. A concept that is driven by a building and "speaks of the inner qualities of the building type"...and "one manipulates the language so that it speaks the nature of the building". These are interesting points, among the others cited. A building cannot be ordered simply by the 'Frank Ching' principles, without no connection to the inner qualities that a building must express. If we were to do so, a building would be contextually out of place, as many buildings end up becoming when architects dis-associate themselves from the inherent contextual, cultural, technological, human and related challenges of the project at hand. Allowing a building to become "want it wants to be", can also allude to the need for the architect to express a certain sensitivity, an openness of mind, a willingness to experiment, rather then develop a preconceived idea of what he thinks or believes the building wants to be. This can be the danger, if the architect is not refined in his capacity to absorb all the challenges at hand with an open mind.

It is to be noted also that the most influential architects are also the ones that have the most freedom to break the rules, to create their own systems of thought, ways of designing, style and means of application. These are the vanguards of architecture, or those who define and shape the way smaller "minor" architects think and design. If we wish to be among the leading architects, we should not design by copying other architects designs, elements or style. We should be able to work within our own style that can reflect or work within a particular architectural style, but is not resting solely on such architecture, but rather, on one's own interior inspiration. A good architect should also be an artist, and an artist must have his own unique inspiration.

Also, we can speak of the movement "Deconstructionalism", or we can speak of Deconstruction in architecture. One is a historical movement and can be seen in spam architectural thought, as an example. The discussion here seems to deal with how we brake buildings down into their metaphysical qualities, the sublime nature of architecture, or the inherent qualities in a program that call for a particular solution. This seems to be in essence a hodge-podge of different ideas and reactions, rather then an orderly discussion of a topic.

Perhaps some of this discussion could be referenced more to the movement "Deconstructionalism" in it's historical context, and it's implication on modern architecture.

Also, is architecture a pursuit of self-knowledge ? Can it be an introspective experience of discovering one's own inner essence and expressing this in a rational visual way ? Is it a quest for self knowledge ? A quest for understanding the intricacies of the human mind ? I think not.

Now what birgco said completely expresses the idea behind the "Secret" of architecture, design, creativity and the greatest architects in history. Truly, there are true "architects" who are masters in their own right, then there are little "designers", who portray themselves as architects, but don't know the heck what they are talking about, a bunch of "bs".

The true creative thinkers in this universe don't need to be stewing around about what architecture truly is. It is simply a part of them and they create it, just at the Universe was created by a Supreme Intelligence. To deny this leads to a humanistic, self-centered perspective that ignores the infinite divine nature inherent in good architectural design, among other fields of human intellect. Look at all the great architects, the great inventors, the great scientists of the past. They all understood the "Secret". People define it in many ways. It is simply the reflection of something much greater, beyond our comprehension, that connects us metaphysically to the world we live in, and allows us to have a "divine moment of inspiration" , so to speak. By using this "secret" Architecture can reach for the sublime, can inspire, can create awe, can be considered itself a source of inspiration. By introspecting and looking into ourselves, we see nothing but a myriad of confusing ideas and ways of perceiving the world. By connecting to the universal energy around us, we thus transfer the universal knowledge and wisdom into our architectural thought.

Mx2's reaction to this thought also maintains some valid points. Many brilliant men in existence simply are never recognized, never become known. By connecting our minds to the "Secret" and the universal energy around us, we to can aspire and inspire. We need a sense of relaxation, of loosing our worries, and in a sense become metaphysically detached from the problems of life in a way that our mind is free to soar, to dream, to inspire. This cannot be done by pecking away or criticizing other thinkers. It can only be done with a kind, liberal, open and free mind.

There are architects who have a negative view of everything. They consider the past will always be. Nothing is new, nothing new can be created, it is, in their vision, the same old "stuff", reorganized into a new nice looking package. So, in this view, there is nothing new in the world.

If this were the case, the greatest technological achievements, inventions and creations of all time would have never come into existence. We, as free thinkers, must aspire, inspire, and create a new reality around us. We, literally, shape the reality around us based on the perception we have of the world we live in. This is the basis of the "Secret".

There are those in these forums that only give in to rational logic, to pragmatism, to purely practical applications. For them, this type of thinking is "wishful thinking", a bunch of "hypothetical postulation" and nothing but metaphysical speculation. They, in effect, maintain no connection and have no way to understand the metaphysical nature of the act of creation.

It seems, at some point, the discussion on this topic is completely lost. All types of wild detached emotionally responsive statements start to appear, that are based on preconceived ideas of what the world is, should be, and what architecture is. We cannot form one solid, unyielding definition of the metaphysical qualities of architecture and our ability to experience it and translate this into our own thinking and architectural expression. We each perceive reality around us in a different way, and are in the process of re-shaping the reality around us by our reactions and self-imposed ways of viewing the world. This, in turn, can either generate a new reality, or keep bringing more of the same back into existence. This leads then to the type of thinking that "it is all the same garbage coming back to us over and over again" . This pessimistic type of thinking does not aspire to bring about a change of thinking, as it is a thinking which keeps bringing the same reality back into existence. When we begin to alter our perception of the reality around us, we find a physical correspondence in the world we create. We thus, are the masters of our own fate, the captain of our own souls, the one's who determine what our architecture is and wants to be, based on our perception of the reality around us and how we project that perception back into existence in the form of a solid object, shape or architectural expression. We can project our feelings, our beliefs, our experiences, the experiences of others, the style of others, our own style, or simply do what we think society expects of us. Truly free thinkers do not base their opinions based on their expectation of what they believe society expects of them. They simply produce according to their own convictions. We need in this world architects with stronger convictions, that are so determined to act according to these that they will do anything to adjust their perceptions so they are in perfect alignment with what the project aspires to be. They must, therefore, have an open mind at that same time that they follow their convictions. Now, this is the difficult thing to do. If one has a strong will, and strong convictions, the tendency is to think that one will push for what one wants, and not what the problem truly calls for. This is where the "Secret" comes in. It calls for a generous, open, liberal mind that is connected to the Universe around us and is completely free of negative thinking and is in complete control of the negative forces that may try to disrupt the balance of forces that tend to push in opposite directions. In this universe, there are positive and negative forces everywhere. A great architect, likewise, must find a perfect point of balance between what the building wants to be and what it does not want to be. He must find a point of equilibrium for all undertakings, a place where his building will sit in perfect balance and harmony with it's context, surroundings in such a way that it becomes an inherent part of the world around it. When an architect can achieve this, he has created a master-piece.

Now what JingYao posted " Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:31 pm " makes complete sense. Somehow the topic of the conversation was lost somewhere along the "hodge-podge of ideas" in this forum.

Metaphysical reflection is truly essential to architecture. To find the " best pattern for a given context" reminds me of the book "Pattern Language" by Mr. Christopher. This may imply "conceptual engineering" , but only in the sense of creating the overall guiding pattern language which will guide the overall design experience. Without a pattern language, communities see uncontrolled development, find themselves lost in a conflicting urban tissue that becomes chaotic, self-centered and completely devoid of spiritual value.

Csintexas brought up a point to be mentioned also - Feng Shui and it's spiritual interpretation of architecture. This is to be mentioned, for those seeking to derive some metaphysical quality out of architecture. In this thinking, all architectural elements, their position in relation to the space, to the material world, to the energy and the "spirit of the place" are all connected. In this thinking, the metaphysical world truly "calls for a particular arrangement of space and objects in the space". Elements of energy, the Earth, Wind, Fire became the central figures in controlling and expressing the metaphysical energy. Their arrangements in space determine the success of the space itself in creating a feeling of balance, or harmony. When the elements are well placed according to this philosophy, a building maintains a balance between the positive and negative forces within. So there is much to be said, within this context. We do not seek to propose such a philosophy as the ultimate tool for design, but it has it's valid applications. Especially on the Western World, where we tend to simplify our design efforts into a pragmatic, intellectual reaction devoid of spiritual meaning. One can see in this forum that those who refer to this philosophy do not truly understand how it functions and operates. This is amusing in itself.

P.C. refers to the scientific method to determine the correct proportions of a room. This leads to the modern industrial age Le Corbusier view of the ideal human proportions, traced back to the Renaissance, where designers try to find a perfect proportion based on the human figure and apply it in a practical way to modern buildings, in the same sense that Michelangelo applied it to the graceful human shapes in the Cistene Chapel and his resulting architectural achievements. In the Modern Movement, this may result in buildings where "form follows function" but not much in terms of the spiritual values such as those defined in Feng Shui. So they seem to be two opposites, two extremes in architectural thinking. Not to dis-credit the modernist movement. It has it's application, validity,and has lead and can continue to lead to beautiful architecture. It is being used merely in reflective comparison of architectural value and interpretation.

It is important, at this point, that the discussion reverted back to the idea of the "concept" in architecture, the abstract thinking that leads to creative thinking. This is the basis of good architectural design. Any type of metaphysical relationship between the world and our human existence must involve our interpretation of this reality and how this translates into our architectural concept. We conceptualize based on how we feel either connected or dis-connected to the world around us. If we feel dis-connected, our architecture will reflect this. If we are in complete harmony with man and nature, our architecture should reflect this balance of spirit. Here enters the validity of such abstract philosophies as cited.

Interesting Article on Deconstruction

I find the article interesting, particularly the comment on the Tschumi project "The result of this "superimposition", as Tschumi calls it, is, according to Mark Wigley, a "series of ambiguous intersections between systems […] in which the status of ideal forms and traditional composition is challenged." and " Ideas of purity, perfection, and order, become sources of impurity, imperfection, and disorder" (Wigley in Broadbent 1991: 17). " and further -->>

"The inherent purity of the geometrical system evokes a feeling of rational control and stability. If things turn out differently, then, and the juxtaposition of several "pure" systems gives way to impurity, the geometric system's rational control over that which "ought to have remained secret", weakens. The repressed leaves its enclosed habitat and thus provokes in us an uncanny feeling. In the case of Tschumi's Parc de la Villette, the uncanny does not function as a physical motif that threatens the bodily integrity of passers-by, but rather as a theoretical concept that helps to undermine and - indeed - deconstruct traditional humanist and functionalist architectural discourses."

Under this context, Deconstructionalism can be seen as a reaction against the "pure" forms of spam Constructionalism, just as other movements typically become a reaction to another movement, and on and on.. each one pretending to be a more "resolved", or " pure " form of designing. It seems, then that architects in the past, and until today are constantly trying to re-define the aesthetic function in terms of reactionary individualistic contextual interpretation of a previous movement, in an attempt to re-codify the values in favor of an alternate solution. It seems this eternal dispute goes on, and these forums is no exception.

There are times when we as architects must "brake down all we know" into fragments of information and then "re-assemble it " into a breathing orderly system that awakens a new consciousness of our existence and inspires a new generation to metaphysically establish a new mental connection. This is in essence the re-wiring of our brain, often due to "information over-load". We can define it as a new movement, but we in essence, as creative individuals need to, at times, brake down the values of the past, the order given to us as the "ultimate truth" and conspire to re-create the order that will give a new meaning to the elements. This eternal quest for a re-structuring of thought into a new semantics is an eternal quest in architecture. The moment we cease to re-order our mental structure, is the moment we fall into a cataclysm of lack of creativity, lack of inspiration and loose our vision towards the world around us, in my opinion.

Now, a good issue is whether or not the profound nature of the thinking as pertinent to architecture evokes a complexity or profoundness of form, elements and interpretation as it reveals itself in the architectural form. To me, there is much complexity and contradiction in such architecture, so one could not argue it is not profound.

In this discussion, JingYao's quotation of Einstein brings up an interesting point -->>

'you cannot solve problem with the same level of consciousness created it'

The moment of creation, of inspiration always carries with it a multitude of symbols, of images, of associations and it may difficult to "capture" the moment, in the same way one can capture a picture. So, in essence, it is difficult to re-create the same level of consciousness to solve the problem, as the issues begin to interfere with the sub-conscious process of integration, and the rational and sub-conscious intuitive ideas begin to interact within the complexity of the system and produce a different result then would be naturally produced at the time of the original inspiration, if it could be "captured" in a frame, as a camera captures an image.

So in this attempt to formalize a complex system, we are left with only traces of methodologies and ways of thinking long past that each had it's own historical, cultural and reactionary reason and logic. To try to transfer this logic completely over to the solution of a modern problem, when the formula of elements is different is not a rational approach. As you suggested, the problem may be "thinking about the problem". The result is that we need to think about what we are thinking.

All this discussion on the temporal, the ephemeral, the illusions to time and nature evoke an emotional response that is at the essence of the philosophical question of the inherent nature of time. Time can be seen as a fluid. It exists, just as matter, due to energy, motion ,space. Particularly, it is intricately linked to motion, to movement, to currents of energy as they fluctuate through space. Just like space, there can be temporal time distortions and distortions of the energy fabric that makes up matter.

In architecture, we are only concerned with time as it relates to our temporal experience, not as it pertains to the eternal ephemeral qualities of time. Time essentially is possible due to the movement of matter and energy. Without this movement, matter would cease to exist, as the forces of the universe are in constant motion. It is this motion that enables the framework of time. If we can create a static state of true inertia, by temporal distortions of the time/space/energy/motion equation, then in essence we can alter the equation of time.

Time, as energy and matter, must be perceived. Without a point of reference, it becomes irrelevant. The same applies to any architectural perception. It must be perceived within a larger framework as dictated by our perceptions, conditioning and emotional response. Thus, when we begin to understand the nature of the universe and the inter-working of how we perceive the reality around us, we begin to realize that all is connected. This connection allows our mind to re-interpret the reality around us and project a new reality into our existing as well as into our architectural solutions. All we do and think is related to our perceptions and connection or lack of connection to energy/time/space and matter, the environment around us, our conditioning factors and the way we perceive the world around us.

Establishing a greater connection to the time/ spirit of a place allows us to evoke feelings and design ideas that are more connected to the local context in which we operate, or at the time during which the creations were elaborated. The same applies to the reality we project into the future. If we are pessimists, we will project more of the same into the future. If we are optimists, creative, have vision, have ideas, we project a new reality into the future. So in essence, if we think of time as a mere series of events, we live eternally in the present and loose our connection with the past and the future. By re-locating our energy to the study of the past, we can better contextualize the present. We begin to realize time is more then a sequence of events. There is a connection between past and present thought and endeavor and what we project as possible or plausible into the future.

All this may be somewhat theoretical, seem mystical, seem "new age", call it what you may, but the undeniable truth is that we are all connected to the energy and world around us as related to space/time/matter in a way we do not even realize. When we begin to change our thoughts in the present, our perspective of the past and future begins to change. We realize that due to this connection, we must place ourselves in more connection to these elements. And, at the same time, in better connection to the architecture of the past and the possibilities of the future.

Our re-shaping of our current way of thinking and perceived reality re-shapes and re-defines the flow of intellectual energy as it projects itself into the future. It has an undeniable immediate effect on the way we organize energy states as they pertain to the architectural environment. So to call Feng-Shui and related ways of thinking as "irrational", mystic and strange only reveals our Western ignorance as to the connection of energy states with the world around us, especially the architecture we design. One may not adapt Feng-Shui as a design philosophy, but still be able to establish a connection between our architecture and the environment around us, and it's temporal qualities, such as Mr. Wright did in "Falling Water" and many great architects have done in contextualizing their architecture to the flow of energy, time, matter and the natural surroundings. Architecture that is immortal maintains a balance in it's connection to these elements, establishing a harmonious design that is in intricate connection to the world around us, and thus becomes the true "Timeless Way" of designing architecture.

For those who wish to expound on the Universal application of creative thought and it's implication to architecture, science, and the world around us, we would like to invite you to visit our new "Liquid Universe" project.

In this project, the concept of the "Secret" is carried to it's extreme ultimate implications. The site may contain scant allusions to architecture, as the intent is not to focus on one subject. It is a project with universal implications. We are a group of architects, scientists, inventors, and visionary thinkers and the ideas we are launching are far reaching in their implications.

We welcome all who wish to participate on this project.

"You don't imagine the power of dreams and imagination.

Our words carry magic and can transform the future.

Our thoughts, ideas, aspirations and inventions re-shape reality around us and transport us into an unimaginable future of advanced human interaction and endless possibilities of technological developments."

Before our eyes is emerging of a new generation of scientists, visionaries, world collaboration, global intelligence, freedom of creation and scientific exploration !

Welcome to the journey !

Inventor, Architect, Artist, Scientist, Writer, Poet, Mechanic, Musician, Philosopher, Researcher.

"The theory of Gravitational Kinnetics of Motion".

"Terrestrial Transportation System X".

"The Gravitational Cancellation Theory".

"Energy States and Their Relation to Renewable Energy".

"The Model of an Atom as a Source of Renewable Energy"

"Magnetic Cancellation Theory".

"A Blue-Print For the Computer of the Future"

"The New Internet and Data Transmission System"

"The New Global Connectivity Platform"

Scientific theory with a universe of possibilities in mind.

"Concept Follows Context"

Our greatest strength is not in our individuality of effort, but in our unity of ideas, global connectivity and force of mass collaboration.
millennium club
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:22 am
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby djswan » Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:45 pm

millennium club
Posts: 1248
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:36 pm
Location: Montana, USA

Postby lekizz » Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:13 pm

13,000 words without reply must be a record! And only a man of words rather than deeds could confuse Constructionalism with Constructivism :roll:
millennium club
Posts: 1236
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:22 am
Location: UK

Postby usarender » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:25 pm

lekizz wrote:13,000 words without reply must be a record! And only a man of words rather than deeds could confuse Constructionalism with Constructivism :roll:

Some have completely mis-understood the nature of this post.

Therefore, a need to explain -->>

It is a collection of the links I have enjoyed most on this forum, together with a collection of my recent essays and writings in architecture. So this explains the large quantity of characters and words. It is not elaborated as a standard discussion topic, but rather as a summary of the links I have found most interesting in these forums, and I wish to keep it this way. So please, no unnecessary comments or critiques of this post, please. Only comments relevant to the issues and essays in architecture posted, please.

I do welcome constructive feedback on the topics, but no monkey wrenching, ridiculing or hijacking of my post, please. Enough topics have already been ruined on these design community forum due to this type of behavior by ill intended individuals.

Please save the forums therefore and submit your constructive feedback please, and ones that are relevant to the topics at hand. Each topic posted contains a further definition of terms, and I suggest also readers look into the individual posts and become familiar with them first, and then reply with constructive, positive, well elaborated articles that address the various topics posted and which to have been found, in my opinion at least, to be among the best on these forums. I do hope everyone can keep it this way.

millennium club
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:22 am
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby usarender » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:31 pm

Due to possible confusion on this topic, I further quote Solidred

solidred wrote:usarender writes: "It seems, then that architects in the past, and until today are constantly trying to re-define the aesthetic function in terms of reactionary individualistic contextual interpretation of a previous movement, in an attempt to re-codify the values in favor of an alternate solution. It seems this eternal dispute goes on, and these forums is no exception."

Exactly. 'Though I would say it's more conversation than dispute; more questioning than disagreement. Interrogation of the status quo, after all, keeps culture up-to-date with current circumstances but simultaneously retains traces of the culture that once was. And it's not that our forebears were mistaken: simply that their context was different. For us to repeat the glories of ancient Greece would, for us, be the mistake, as would ignoring it altogether.

Then, for what it's worth, Jing Yao's interpretation of Decon is pretty similar to my own, except I suspect that Jing Yao has studied the subject slightly more closely than I have...

Finally, a note on terminology. My understanding of the labels is thus:

Constructivism: early 20th C spam avant garde movement

Deconstruction: late 20th C French philosophical approach led by Jacques Derrida

Deconstruction Architecture: the transferrence of said philosophical approach to architecture, chiefly by Peter Eisenmann and to some extent Bernard Tschumi (although not explicitly so).

Deconstructivism: an architecture which can be related to Deconstruction but which is focused primarily upon the aesthetic effects achieved using certain techniques on the source vocabulary of Constructivism. The early work of Zaha Hadid is the leading example.

Then again, some argue that in his play on structural motifs, Eisenmann is essentially a Postmodernist, if not a Classical Postmodernist. But if I go on any more I'm in danger of turning into a Charles Jencks puppet; sorta reverse-pinnochio, so I'll stop... :wink:
millennium club
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:22 am
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby lekizz » Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:09 pm

Also, we can speak of the movement "Deconstructionalism", or we can speak of Deconstruction in architecture. One is a historical movement and can be seen in spam architectural thought, as an example.

My own understanding is that Deconstructionism is a movement concerned with philosophy and language. I know the spam Constructivist movement quite well. I've certainly never once heard of the spam Constructionalist movement!

However, I will admit the article on Tchumi, Hadid etc is interesting. Thanks for drawing attention to it. I notice that parts of it seem to be translated from French and there seems to be some uncommon terms used, maybe a difference in the two languages. My French language skills don't stretch to advanced architectural discourse.

As you know, usarender, you are adept at making enemies and I am not a big fan of yours at all. Maybe these exhaustive summaries of old discussions elsewhere in DC are therapeutic to you, but don't you think you would get more response if you either engaged in the original threads, or kept your points more succinct?
millennium club
Posts: 1236
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:22 am
Location: UK

Postby P.C. » Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:43 am

Furthermore I would say it is not theoretic spekulation that yield the progress and delivery, these are vell fair but don't has their place at the constructuon yard , they are eye openers not regulations for building modern architecture, they are guidelines and pointers .

Ontop theoretics seem to fail the most obvious critic of today's building culture. No one can deny the lack of structure ,the next step missing or made impossible ,by focusing on the sculptural issues --- that only brought paintings of how we at distance would emagine a future architecture. And when progress went ahead , focusing only on the engineering issues, another important issue are missing. Building methods simply reached each their dead-ends as architecture progressed into entertaining industrie. And as there , we see the same huge problem --- those writing the new stuff, has been neglected or disqualified and the source of newthinking and innovative aproach, has been cut off by nepotism or simple lack of visions among those making the decisions.

There be no fresh new idears, no exiting newthinking, no chalancing viewpoints and if you don't understand what I say, look to this fora ; what happen when an exiting new way , based on a decade of hard work , based on thruout hands-on skills and digital competance challancing the best of you surface ?

"Na -- it don't look as we expect. How can this work when I don't understand it. If you can not build a scale model ,you can not prove your idears , " -- need I continue ?

Feeding pets from hell , is more funny I guess -- and when it bite back , you forget who brought it here. You had your fun but you newer realised what you found funny to fight ---- stay with him, stay with the pet you loved so dearly , whome you supported and allowed to grow.i into a monster.
millennium club
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby lekizz » Sat Jan 26, 2008 3:25 pm

Not sure what or who your last paragraph refers to, P.C.

Anyway, I withdraw the thanks about the "Interesting Article", after I put 'Deconstruction' and 'Architecture' into Google and it was the second thing to turn up. That is a strangely familiar research methodology here, but hardly enlightened :roll:

And what am I doing in the "Echo Chamber"??! I'm outta here!!
millennium club
Posts: 1236
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:22 am
Location: UK


Return to Echo Chamber

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

User Control Panel


Who is online

In this forum zone there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 593 on Sat May 26, 2018 5:18 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
DesignCommunity   ·   ArchitectureWeek   ·   Great Buildings   ·   Archiplanet   ·   Books   ·   Blogs   ·   Search
Special thanks to our sustaining subscribers Building Design UK, Building Design News UK, and Building Design Tenders UK.