"Probable Geometries: The Architecture of Writing in Bodies"
In Lynn's article, he argues about the history of architecture essentially relying on a set of defined rules and proportions about which most design is built from. Symmetry, proportion, scale, all these things define architecture and without it, architecture wouldn't be organized. These proportion systems are based off of the human body and have forever relied back to human form. Since the times of Vitruvius, pure geometric forms and proportions have been defined and repeated to maintain what is believed to be a pure design idea.
Lynn argues that the idea of "anexact" forms, which are neither exact or exact, have merit in design. Much like in writing, where there are no pure forms/geometries, we can allude to that concept to help shape the way design happens in contemporary architecture. Lynn also alludes to other disciplines that are fearlessly employing new technologies to diagram and analyze their subject fields. Geologists now can model much more exactly and readily have technology able to dissect their subject matters. The medical field use MRI technology to explore sectional views of the body that allow them to more accurately diagnose external pressures on the body. Now, more than ever we need to push our boundaries of exploration in architecture. He exclaims, "geometry has classically occupied a foundational position in architecture, and this tradition must certainly be overcome in order to exploit the effects of geometric possibilities."
I think Lynn has very good arguments in his approach to design. I think that the old ways of design and interpretation of classical proportions and "rules" should not be discarded, however. I think design can morph and change however, there is no "clean slate", so to speak, in which we wipe clean and start anew. I believe with modern technology and tools available to us, we can begin to incorporate new ideas and ways of thinking to expand our current knowledge base on design.
In Lynn's article, he argues about the history of architecture essentially relying on a set of defined rules and proportions about which most design is built from. Symmetry, proportion, scale, all these things define architecture and without it, architecture wouldn't be organized. These proportion systems are based off of the human body and have forever relied back to human form. Since the times of Vitruvius, pure geometric forms and proportions have been defined and repeated to maintain what is believed to be a pure design idea.
Lynn argues that the idea of "anexact" forms, which are neither exact or exact, have merit in design. Much like in writing, where there are no pure forms/geometries, we can allude to that concept to help shape the way design happens in contemporary architecture. Lynn also alludes to other disciplines that are fearlessly employing new technologies to diagram and analyze their subject fields. Geologists now can model much more exactly and readily have technology able to dissect their subject matters. The medical field use MRI technology to explore sectional views of the body that allow them to more accurately diagnose external pressures on the body. Now, more than ever we need to push our boundaries of exploration in architecture. He exclaims, "geometry has classically occupied a foundational position in architecture, and this tradition must certainly be overcome in order to exploit the effects of geometric possibilities."
I think Lynn has very good arguments in his approach to design. I think that the old ways of design and interpretation of classical proportions and "rules" should not be discarded, however. I think design can morph and change however, there is no "clean slate", so to speak, in which we wipe clean and start anew. I believe with modern technology and tools available to us, we can begin to incorporate new ideas and ways of thinking to expand our current knowledge base on design.
"Blob Tectonics, or Why Tectonics is Square and Topology is Groovy"
Lynn is aggressively trying to advocate for "blob architecture" as a viable form of design. He argues that while yes, blobs can be "alien" and all-together unique, they do conversely have the ability to accept context around. He defines three main ways to look at the blob: from a science-fiction view, the philosophical definition, and in context of the modern construction methods. Lynn goes on to define the various perspectives and how they can allow you to absorb the concept of the blob.
He also begins to argue against those who advocate for the maintenance of the "upright oriented building". This leads to the creation of simple articulated volumes with hats, or roofs in other words. With the notion of upright orientation, one can lose the seemingly limitless possibilities of design. Instead of flat roof typology, blobs lend themselves to be more of a shed-roof form which can perhaps allow for things such as program within a roof form, thus unlocking more use in a building.
Lynn focused much more in depth on a multitude of examples and expanded on some of the points I alluded to, however I find that blob architecture has it's merit. I also think it is also based on the situation. Some designs, programs, problems call for a certain design method. Not all architecture needs to be blob-based. I believe the blob can help to frame a way of thinking, but most certainly not govern a program to fit the needs of a philosophical approach to architecture.
No comments:
Post a Comment