Deconstructionism "Understanding Thought"

[Quick dimension1]

As a point of departure for our conversation let us begin with the concept of thought. Thought allows us to experience the cultural and natural phenomenological world; "thought," is what allows us to recreate or supplement the experiences we encounter in life, and we recreate these experiences through art, music, science, and writing. However, the supplements we create become arbitrary, in other words, we repeat what we don’t know; we disseminate various types of media that substitute and talk about the phenomenological world we experience, but in reality, we don’t know why or what the phenomena means. How does one determine the sublimity of each supplement that we fabricate? Do we study the ephemeral phenomena’s, such as the play between the temporal elements?

[mx2]

Since this is an architectural forum, we must speak of both the temporal and spatial experiences when we discuss these "supplements" you speak of. The fundamental aspect to the recreation of these memories & ideas is based on the relationship our bodies and mind have with the immediate environments we occupy and/or travel through over a period of time. Then it's how our minds interpret these experience and record them as memories...think about good feelings vs trauma. Then these are recreated as an extension of the emotion in the physical dimension.

mx2.5

[Misvit]

All I can say is that hyped up paragraph to start us off sounds a lot like what some profs of mine back at college would give for a paper...

[Quick dimension1]

The question was not intended to manipulate anyone’s thoughts. Instead it’s a question that I’ve generated through various readings on the deconstructionist philosophy. Since this is an architecture forum, I think the question, in its transparent meaning, asks the basics – “What is design?” That’s all.

[csintexas]

Hi Quick dimension1,
Those are pretty abstract terms, I don't think most people sensing architecture are all that abstract in their thinking.

Being more of a practical type I don't see much use in attributing a lot of metaphysical qualities to architecture. I would not say everything we create is completely arbitrary, but it is somewhat because we are all individuals perceiving our surroundings in our own way. As far as determining the sublimity of our creations I wrote my views about that here:

http://www.designcommunity.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10542&start=0

[Quick dimension1]

csintexas,

Metaphysics is a philosophy that is dedicated towards explaining the reality of the world. Buildings & shelters exist – that is a reality. Designing and criticizing buildings & shelters only supports the idea that the spirit of architecture does exist, but in reality we really don’t know what the spirit of architecture is.

[csintexas]

why don't we know what the spirit of architecture is? How do you know that I don't know?

[Misvit]

Metaphysics is not the philosophy of explaining the reality of the world...

Metaphysics, or to be translated "after/beyond" physics is the philosophy of the soul, supernatural, inner being of everything. This could be argued an interesting subject for architecture. What does the brick want to be. How does our building effect society by it's very placement. What does our building do to the system of things besides be a building. I would argue that metaphysics is the study of what matters beyond reality, beyond what we can easily see and understand by measurement or visual acknowledgement. Not that the brick wall is red, hewn, coursed a certain way, but how does the rough texture and red color effect one's mentality when passing the wall and interacting with it.

I have noticed an interesting trend in architecture that I find normal but that others outside the field would attribute to lunacy. We as architects believe that inanimate objects want to be this or that to the point that in conversation we will even pose the question or state as fact, "Well the entry wants to be (insert what it wants to be here)" Many outsiders and critics would ascribe the language as a cheap way of saying "I want the entry to do this, or that, or I think the entry should be this or that" However I would plead my case to all your inner architects and believe you would agree with me that it is not us that prescribe these definitions to whatever object, but their inner attributes coming to light before our trained eyes. That, to me, is metaphysics.

[csintexas]

"How does our building effect society" -I think this is psychology and not metaphysics but otherwise I think your definition is better.

If it wasn't us prescribing our definitions to an object than every architect presented with an identical problem would arrive at an identical solution.

In other words what my entry way wants to be is not what yours wants to be even though we are looking at the same problem because we can only interpret the solution based on our individual experiences. Anything else would be to believe in mysticism.

[Quick dimension1]

Misvit,


Point well taken…But, it’s not so much that we design spaces that possess inner qualities which are arbitrarily conceived by the random chance of how we perceive the material or the space…that’s a giving. Instead, the way we perceive the material or space should possess sublime qualities. For example, the entry wants to be a certain way based off orientation, size, and other qualities that make up an entry, but what is the true nature of the entry?

[csintexas]

Wouldn't the true nature of an entry be specific to each entry? Could you determine my true nature unless you knew everything about me?

[Misvit]

I think all these responses are good and also what I was trying to say. I never said it was random.

Also, it would be argued that yes, in an identical scenario all architects would come up with the same depiction because in essence, it is what the solution requires. The key to allowing for difference of design lies within our ability to come up with multiple solutions to something.

If you assume that everything in a building has many desires and also assume that it is our responsibility to decide which desires take presidence over others, then we can see how multiple architects would come up with multiple layouts for the same building.

Taking the entry example, if the entry called for/wanted to be symetrical, aligned with the path leading towards parking so that when people exited their vehicles they would then turn towards the building and view the grandness of it all which symbolised the importance of the entire building and what it stood for, however the parking because of site issues, really wants to be on the back of the site, away from the main street, meaning teh entry would not be seen at all from entering the site. One could keep the entry on the opposite side of the front of the building, which means the front would want to become the back, the site foliage would want to be planted in such away as to naturalize the site and hide the building until one went around it so that the first thing you saw was the front of the building. Or, one could let the parking dictate, have a way more straight forward approach, and put the entry on the side facing the street. Let's assume however that this side does not wish to be symetrical, for whatever reasons, perhaps all the buildings on the street are assymetrical, perhaps the composition of the street elevation just doesn't read well symmetrical. For this reason, the entry would then want to follow the precedent of the front more than it would want to be symetrical, and take an assymetrical feeling.

As an architect we have to evaluate and re-evaluate everything within it's given context, and if something is changed, follow that change through all the drawings and all the design seeing how it effects other parts of the building and seeing if those parts' desires have been changed.

[csintexas]

"Also, it would be argued that yes, in an identical scenario all architects would come up with the same depiction because in essence, it is what the solution requires."

But this isn't true right? They may have many things in common (depending on how narrowly the problem was defined) but they would not be identical.

By deciding for ourselves which desires take precedent aren't we projecting our own values onto the building?

[P.C.]

Why is than so much volume architectural lookalike, buildings that mimic an advanced trend without being such by core ?

Is it realy enough just to form your picture about what advanced bilding composision is about and then the heck with the actural core, as long as it act and there are belivers, then that is the shared image ?

[Quick dimension1]

I think were talking about two different design approaches:

1- A concept that is dictated by a systematic approach of designing a building based off what the site has to offer and utilizing a predetermined architectural language such as: symmetrical, asymmetrical, solid, and void. I’m not sure if this is a good or bad thing.

2- A concept that is driven by the nature of the building, for instance, if the building is a library, museum, or church, each design will be different regardless of the site; each design will begin to speak of the inner qualities of the building type, opposed to faithfully re-producing the language of architecture, instead one manipulates the language so that it speaks of the nature of the building.