'Concept' in Architecture

[JingYao]

UsaRender, I thank you for expressing my thought so clearly which I was unable to do, except to illustrate it in a metaphor.

Now, we all agree that to understand a concept we need to use reflection, we cannot perceive something which does not have a physical form, so we have to use our mind as mirror to reflect as Peruses sees Medusa through his shield.

I agree with Mx2 on his view of scientific theory, how one would form a hypothesis and require empirical evidence to support it, a continuous process what David Bohm calls an iterative process between the imaginative insight, and the imaginative fancy. After all we are all human; we can only justify something with the language we know.

I wish to carry this topic a little further, since we came to questions the very basic of a thought process, the interdependency between concept and context.

We can understand the concept of water through having a range of different experiences, in the rain, swimming in the sea, playing with snow and by drinking it.

If water takes shape of any container once it is poured in, then the essence is formlessness relative to container. If container is viewed as a metaphor, a non-physical, but as ideas or object of thoughts, then what the container holds is the essence that is common to many. We can call this concept.

Since concepts are formless, then in view of linguistics we can see it as adjectives, we can apply any number of adjectives in front of any noun without breaking the rules of grammar, the meaning it produces can be understood as a blend of elements. (His is a passionate, selfish, lousy, rich man.)

Now consider that we have conceived the concept red, from apple, blood, fire, love, communist and so on. It means we have abstract the concept red from different experiences.

Consider the following which I have randomly associated two terms and gave my reactive understanding to it.

Example 1
Red Whale: The type of whale its skin colour is red.
Red Wave: Either the water of the sea has turned red or supporters of Manchester United making a cheer for their team
Red Olympic: the event was held in a communist country, or there was much bloodshed in the sport.

It is apparent, the meanings associated with these two terms are interdependent of each other and interpretational according to my experience, red takes the role of an adjective and whale, wave, and Olympic takes the role of noun. Therefore, if I can express it in an equation, say:
Red + Wave => Meaning
Adjective + Noun => Meaning
Concept + Context => Meaning
X + Y => Z

All, X,Y,Z are interdependent, and all have the possibility being variable, it seem as if to solve this we require to formulate a simultaneous equation.

Example 2 - consider the reverse
Whale Red: A type of colour
Wave Red: Flapping up and down a red ribbon
Olympic Red: A type of colour

We naturally treat Red as a noun, it implies syntax in English conditions meaning how we put two terms together (in mathematic is does not matter if X +Y = Z or Y+X=Z)

Therefore, looking at it in terms of combination, it says.

Case 1 – Concept (Variable/Random) + Context (Fixed) = Meaning (little variation - example 2)
Case 2 – Concept (Fixed) + Context (Varies) = Meaning (large variation - example 1)
Case 3 – Concept (Varies/Random) + Context (Varies) = Meaning (Fixed/varies)

Case 1
If the formation of concept “Red” was independent from “Red Whale” or “ Red Wave” since these are the terms which I formed after my experience of red. However it still gave meaning even though I put them together randomly.

A concept is brought in randomly in association with a fixed context to make a meaning, now by the same analogy, that if a meaning is made to make sense in context, then one of them has to acts as context and the other as concept, as adjective and noun as illustrated in example 2.

It could also be that the Concept is not arbitrary but abstracted from the given context. This implies any give context has to have parameters, where an inner patterns was found which will organize the give information between in relation to its external context. In this case concept is dependent on context to give meanings. The meaning resulted orientates towards contextual. In context sense in this linguistic example we can only bring things that we can associate with whale, wave and Olympics, which we can normally associate instead of Red. (connects to case 2 also)

Case 2
We consider that the concept is fixed, but the context tends to change, as illustrated in example 1, it is apparent the resultant meaning is much more dynamic (the results are observed simultaneously with each other.)

This is mainly because, concept itself is formless, and changes when the context changes, in effect concept is a dependent variable of context. This implies, large apparent changes to meaning mostly are effect from change of context rather than concept.

In the system of concept which are all referential, all context are made from a multiple reference of concepts, context in fact can be viewed as an established or stable set of multiple reference, or perhaps understood as a singularity. This intension shows that the flexibility of context is as much as concept if we could shake its parameters.

Could it be having a concept of something derived internally we are actually fooling ourselves since a concept is dependent on context?

Case 3.
We might have conceived the meaning of something first, but we don’t know quite how to express it, so we will be using it as judgment till concept and context achieves the right balance.

Now, I think this example kind of shoot itself in the foot, in the sense, we could argue how do you know what you wanted is not a result of a heuristic or subconscious process or any process of combination of concept and context. It is kind of the spam and egg question, it seems. We could also argue it happened at the same time.

In my view seeing form the perspective of concept and context is an iterative process when we are inside and seeing the meanings is when we see the process from outside,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pentagon_iteration.svg

If I continuously following the process, I will never understand the big picture, and only through zooming out and creating an awareness of the whole I see its meaning.

In a way to understand the meaning of this we do not need to zoom in to infinity, but zoom out and see where we are. Like a concept, to understand a concept we do not need to understand every connection which leads to the understanding of the world, but a large multitude of something that is enough for us to understand its intension. The dynamic of continues motion can be understood as a whole. In a way it also express two levels of awareness, I think.

[usarender]

The last statement seems to suggest -->>
" I think, therefore I am."

From your discussion, the following points can be summarized -->>

1. A concept exists and can be either dependent or independent of a context. Depending on it's contextual application, it will carry new meaning.

2. A concept should always fit the form of the context.

3. Both concept and context can be variables and thus produce different results.

4. A fixed concept with a variable context will always produce different results.

5. A variable concept with a fixed context will also produce different results.

6. A concept, a context, the meaning and the process can all be seen better from the outside then from the inside of the problem at hand.

7. A concept can be understood by analyzing a multitude of something that is enough for us to understand it's intention.

8. The dynamic of continuous motion, in the transformation process, can be better understood as a whole.

9. The dynamic of continuous motion expresses two levels of awareness - "I think, therefore I am." Thus, some relation can be established with Platonic or existential type thinking.

Now, there are those who ask, what is the use of all this perusing about the meaning of a "concept"? We are, together, able to formulate basic equations, meanings and summaries of points that enable us better to understand the design process, how designers should approach design problems, and how "concept" in architecture relates to the world around us.

We are, in essence, a laboratory of architectural discussion.

The interesting thing would be to see, as we teach new students this clear, concrete method of understanding "concept", if we will end up achieving a better architecture in the future. The result remains to be seen.

But, much progress has been made, and we are in the process of defining clearly and objectively idea in architecture (concept) that, according to a personal view, has never before been expressed in such clear terms.

Just as the adage "form follows function" is accepted as standard among many architects, these formulations have the same potential, in my view.

In summary of it all,

"Concept Follows Context" ?

Context cannot follow Concept.

If function came after form, then we would be mere artists establishing a metaphor and trying to fit the context to it.

If context followed concept, we would be playing the part of god, where we could create a concept and then force the context to fit it. Both context and concept must go hand in hand, play together and give birth. However, concept is completely dependent on context to produce a healthy architectural result. Context relies on an adequately elaborated concept to resolve the equation into a satisfactory solution.

Mr. Nelson

Project Liquid Universe Coordinator

http://www.globaldeveloper.net/

[JingYao]

Hehehe..
It is funny that you have brought up "form follows function", the title of my research is called "form follows concept", i guess you have pointed out that i disproved myself.
The title was choose not becase i know much about concept at the time, it is because i don't know anything about concepts.

The title was kind formulated simplistically, i thought that concept is the core idea of architecutre projects today, architects always talks about what their concept for so and so projects, it has become a marketing tool as the drive behind the wanting of concepts to express something more than just a building that we see such dynamics of forms in construction.

[csintexas]

What I was trying to point out is that concept (water) is not formless and saying it is formless is an over simplification that leads to an imperfect understanding.

Context (just the facts) can change with time but it is always the same at any given point.

Concept = pork
context = beef
our brain = meat grinder
architecture = animal intestine

pork + meat + meat grinder + intestine = sausage with infinitely variable mix

[JingYao]

I agree with UsaRender, that this forum is the in “essence laboratory of architectural discussion”, that we are creating a synergy of mind power. I believe in the power of society of thoughts, we are like waves, riding on the shoulders of another. I believe the human race is superior in language and thought is the drive of culture, an open culture happily sharing our thoughts and ideas.

I am still formulating the next part it might take a while.... trying to get my thought together....

[usarender]

We can start by saying -->>

Form Follows Function.

Function Follows Program.

Concept Follows Context.

Does form follow concept ?

The equation must be -->>

1. A Problem. (for example, "meat head" posts).

2. A context. The discussion of concept.

3. A function. We need a practical solution.

4. A concept. "Des-integrate and re-structure mental energy".

5. A form. "Voyla lear belle preparation."[/i]

Albeit it be !

Mr. Nelson

Project Liquid Universe Coordinator

http://www.globaldeveloper.net/

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.

Our greatest strength is not in our individuality of effort, but in our unity of ideas, global connectivity and force of mass collaboration.

The point has been made.

Welcome to the journey.

[Richard Haut]

Voyla lear belle preparation

- Et qu'ils on debagoule leur turpitude a monsieur le prestre.

You are evidently a Calvinist.

Perhaps the statement that is more relevant to the subject is not merely in how one prepares but comme s'il retournoit de voir vne bastelerie inutile et sotte.

However I do not equate the designing of a building with preparing to receive the body and blood of Christ.

(if any of you lack the requisite knowledge of 16th. Century French, please complain to Mr. Nelson).

[usarender]

It was used that way in 16th century French. Here, the intent was as a mere illusion of thought, an extraction of an expression so often used to imply a sort of magic of substance, the sudden appearance of an idea unseen, the ultimate revelation of the embodiment of an implied idea in the form at hand.

At any rate, thank you for the clarification of the idea.

[Richard Haut]

"the sudden appearance of an idea unseen"

no way - it means precisely the opposite.

Calvin's Commentary relates quite specifically to the preparation needed - neither sudden, nor an idea unseen. (The phrase is clear in being an exclamation about the preparation).

what else did you think was its specific meaning ?

[usarender]

In the religious sense, the source is actually-->>

1 Corinthians 11:23-29

http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comment/calvin/comm_vol39/htm/xviii.iii.htm

More specifically, verse 28 --

"28. But let a man examine himself. An exhortation drawn from the foregoing threatening. "If those that eat unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, then let no man approach who is not properly and duly prepared. Let every one, therefore, take heed to himself, that he may not fall into this sacrilege through idleness or carelessness." But now it is asked, what sort of examination, that ought to be to which Paul exhorts us. Papists make it consist in auricular confession. They order all that are to receive the Supper, to examine their life carefully and anxiously, that they may unburden all their sins in the ear of the priest. Such is their preparation!

And it means "See their admirable preparation!". Or "such is their preparation."

In architecture, by following a process of thought, we reach a proper level of preparation in the revealed form. To many, a solution must reveal itself over time. In the US, when we speak the work "voyla" alone, it obviously has religious precedent that we may or not be aware of. Such is the use of language, such as gosh, or darn and on and on... people use the expressions as a reference to something else. The intent of using "voyla" iin a more general sense does not imply a religious association, it depends on the individual using the phrase. In some countries, people refer to Mary in expressions of surprise, although not everyone using such expressions are making a direct reference to Mother Mary.

In the religious sense, and in the scripture cited --- To the people at the time, it was a sudden idea unseen in the sense that they were not considering or taking into consideration the true presence in the supper, by partaking in an unworthy way. It was sudden in the sense of immediate rebuke of those who failed to adequately prepare. So in a sense, it could be considered the immediate interjection of an idea that was not clearly seen by those partaking in the religious event. So it was truly "the ultimate revelation of the embodiment of an implied idea in the form at hand".

So the later application during the Calvinist movement obviously maintained a reference to the preparation of the Lord's Supper. The term "Voyla" is used in a more broad sense, as I have suggested.

This expression often appears in religious catholic ceremonies, as you have proceeded to expound upon.

I am expressing my intent of thought, not as necessarily pertaining to the Calvinistic way of thinking.

I am referring to a peculiar use of the word "voyla" and it's re-application to the form or embodiment of substance. In the religious debate, one can argue on whether the divine is pre-existent, or reveals itself during the application, or a moment of divine revelation. It certainly requires a great moment of preparation, both in the spiritual and physical sense. Much is to be argued in the religious sense. I suppose you are a historian of religious theory ? I do not pre-suppose to do this in this use of the coined phrase.

To some, the preparation is only in a spiritual sense, as the symbol is present but not the actual Corpus Christi. To the Catholics, it represents a direct embodiment of the body and blood of Christ. To the protestants, many do not take the literal revelation to this extent. It is, to them, or more symbolic meaning.

Any time of resulting form in architecture obviously requires the same level of preparation, an embodiment of form, and an immediate unseen solution that reveals itself in the process of embodiment, through the process as listed, culminating in the concept of the "spiritual application into a metaphysical transformation into an actual form or shape". Many such illusions can be made to religious thought, without one needing to remain true to the original idea. Such was my intent. I needed to do a little digging to discover the true source of the use of the world "voyla" in this context, as well.

If you are an ardent defender of modern french thinking or religious expression, pardon my mis-application of the term.

[Richard Haut]

I studied philosophy (not theology).

you are not using the word "voyla" in any way at all - you are misusing a phrase with a clear meaning (even coming from the 16th. Century, its meaning in contemporary French is hardly difficult to see) by pretending that its meaning is the precise opposite of what it says.

[usarender]

In the US, people frequently use the french term in another way. Please see my exposition to the post above.

[Richard Haut]

your response it at variance with the way that you used the phrase. I am not interested in misuse of language being considered OK by precedent.

[usarender]

Ok, at times we designers are guilty of mis-using a phrase that maintains religious connotation.

In could be even argued that we are guilty of inadequate instruction in the use of the term "voylla" alone, as it refers to the complete original phrase.

When we say "voyla", we mean, "there you have it", or " here it is", or " here is the sudden representation of an unseen solution".

I needed to clarify the academic application in the US, which may vary from the French, English or 16th century religious use. We often use funny metaphors of thought in inadequate ways, but it is a part of modern culture.

[usarender]

The greater issue is whether you are objecting to the use of the language, or the overall architectural thought ?

If you are searching for a point of discussion, you have found it.

If you are nit-picking to find and error of learning, do you consider yourself to have found such an error and thus freed yourself from an unlearned discussion ?