It's quite amazing how the most mundane action can unexpectedly trigger thought processes. For example, plucking a leaf off a bush as you walk past it.
The underside of a leaf and the underside of a forearm. Both teaming with veins that constrain against the containing skin membrane that covers and protects them. Is it coincidental just how similar humans are to plant life? We breath the same air (though in reverse).We grow through the division of cells powered by the intake of water and nutrients. We reproduce and populate our surroundings. We eventually start to break down, weaken, and eventually die.
The only factor is the human sapience - our language and information processing when it comes to reacting to our environment. But plants react, too. Plants grow in the direction of the sun. Some plants can trap attacks, while some release pollens and other particulates when threatened. I consider that reaction to one's environment. And to be fair there are some animals that communicate and exhibit traits of intelligence, we as a species can't even claim that.
So there is some common corporal connection between us and what we consider our environment. People have even come to design the structures which house them through the same understanding. The physical construction of a human body and that of a dwelling is roughly analogous in function.
Structure: rigid framework that provides form
Humans - skeletal system. Houses - wood frame
Membrane: protection from outside environment
Humans - skin layer. Houses - drywall and insulation
Ventilation/Circulation: the filtration and distribution of oxygen
Humans - lungs and veins/arteries. Houses - HVACs and ducts
Circulation: delivery systems from a central processing area
Humans - nervous system. Houses - electricity wires
Hydration: source and removal of water
Humans - digestion system. Houses - supply and return pipes
Am I saying that there is a problem with this conception of a building? Not really. After all, the human body is an amazing machine, calibrated perfectly to functioning in many different extremes of environments. And I've heard that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I do, however, think that this realization is the first step in the creation of an entirely new method of construction and the key to revolutionizing the idea of a building.
If Google.Maps has taught me anything, it's that the first step in figuring out how to get where you are going is to find out where you are now.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
formLESS
What is architecture? Formless.
We are a society of labelers. Of styles. Things which fit into nice, neat categories. Everything has to be able to be described as part of some kind of movement, and then thrown into a big collection of everything stuck with that tag. No deviations from the norm. OR, if the deviations exist, they are all lumped together and labled deviations. Ironic. Their differences make them the same.
Classicalism. Modernism. Post-moderism. Deconstructivism. Blobitecture.
Too many definitions for the same thing: Architecture. Architecture is not a style. They are too many to mention. Architecture is not a form. The forms are as varied as imagination will allow. The characteristics of what defines a space is not what makes architecture. Decoration is not architecture. Material pallets are not architecture. Computer generated forms are not architecture. They are simply the means through which the idea is conveyed. Its akin to calling the brush or the paint which was used to make an image a "painting." It simply isn't. They are integral to the actual act of constructing or forming the painting. Without them there would be no painting. But that does not mean they are the painting. They have influence, but the end result is an entity independent from them.
If it creates space, it is architecture. The form is incidental. The style is incidental. Labels created by a society which grew up classifying its classmates into groups with various cool points. Fuel for a raging fire of discussion on personal opinions.
In the end, all that matters is the space. Its characteristics. The thoughts. The feelings. The creativity it sparks. Everything else is simply what makes that possible.
We are a society of labelers. Of styles. Things which fit into nice, neat categories. Everything has to be able to be described as part of some kind of movement, and then thrown into a big collection of everything stuck with that tag. No deviations from the norm. OR, if the deviations exist, they are all lumped together and labled deviations. Ironic. Their differences make them the same.
Classicalism. Modernism. Post-moderism. Deconstructivism. Blobitecture.
Too many definitions for the same thing: Architecture. Architecture is not a style. They are too many to mention. Architecture is not a form. The forms are as varied as imagination will allow. The characteristics of what defines a space is not what makes architecture. Decoration is not architecture. Material pallets are not architecture. Computer generated forms are not architecture. They are simply the means through which the idea is conveyed. Its akin to calling the brush or the paint which was used to make an image a "painting." It simply isn't. They are integral to the actual act of constructing or forming the painting. Without them there would be no painting. But that does not mean they are the painting. They have influence, but the end result is an entity independent from them.
If it creates space, it is architecture. The form is incidental. The style is incidental. Labels created by a society which grew up classifying its classmates into groups with various cool points. Fuel for a raging fire of discussion on personal opinions.
In the end, all that matters is the space. Its characteristics. The thoughts. The feelings. The creativity it sparks. Everything else is simply what makes that possible.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)