Deconstructionism "Understanding Thought"

[P.C.]

Yes but architecture that is commonly known as the cutting edge building structure and science, most advanced CAD projecting, shuld mirror this in it's core structure and that shuld hardly be covered , it can not be how the structure display as a schulpture but how the structure and building technike make this possible that must be the issue, if there even are a discussion about visions.

[Misvit]

It seems that there are multiple concepts/ideas within architecture... in fact now that I type it, I think that obvious. That being the case, maybe it would be helpful to suggest all the things we can come up with that would affect a building, and then tackle each. Quick dim brought up two so far. I thought they were very well put. I would say every building, if designed well, would have thought of and resolved both aspects. I would argue that exemplary architecture solves all aspects a culture can come up with, and maybe even some that only the architect himself thought of, which makes him an exemplary architect beyond the rest of us.

To recap:

1. Site
2. Program
I would like to add 3. tradition- which I feel has been alluded to a couple of times in previous posts. There is a name for this effect in architecture and I read a post of it. It breaks down as thus, the first architect on the scene can do whatever he wants. The second architect has a decision, to follow the first, creating a trend, or break away from it in whatever ways he deems necessary. Any architect following then follows the trend, only breaking the trend in ways that are in fact set up to be allowed by the second architect, or in key instances that require it after thought.

I would like to caveat that these aren't requirements, however just thoughts, and would suggest that everyone else add their own so we can get a list going. Then we will more easily define and tackle the abstract statement that started the post.

[mx2]

Uh oh...this is going the route of "what is good/great architecture?" again...!



It's always good to question things. Hence, metaphysics....

BTW, I think the original query was more about HOW is architecture perceived/created rather than what is architecture.

mx2.5

[csintexas]

I'm not clear as to the intent of the topic.

"How does one determine the sublimity of each supplement that we fabricate?"

It seems to me that this and the one following where the main questions.
Which would bring us back to what is good architecture.

But then it was simplified to “What is design?”

But the title -Deconstructionism "Understanding Thought" would be about examining how we think about or perceive (architecture).

The part I have been trying to respond to is:
- "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."

And the statement that followed: "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."

But since I am not well read in the philosophy of deconstructionism I'm having trouble seeing the view point of these statements and they seem false to me.

[Quick dimension1]

Since I’ve been taught by a professor with a Ph.D. in the History of Architecture, I see the frustration generated while trying to answer the question that I posse, which references readings from the book "Dissemination, Plato's Pharmacy, by Jacques Derrida. I appreciate all the responses received about this topic, of thought, design, architecture and perhaps what is great architecture.

As a final note: Architecture does exist; in this case, architecture presents itself in the form of conversations within this forum.


Best Regards,

[mx2]

It's odd that a "final thought" comes at the height of the discussion, and presumes that being taught by a professor with a PHD makes one more educated or more understood, for that matter. I have been taught by many PHD professors as well as those with Bachelors and even more importantly by professors who actually practice architecture in either small or very famous firms.

One thing is certain; when posed a question, the responses often must follow some route of dissemination and critical analysis before reaching a conclusion, if one is to be determined that is. And I agree with Chris's basic observation, that between the title, the various ideas presented by the first post and the ensuing discussions, it is unclear as to what exact knowledge/truth is being pursued. So far, I find everyones bit of response to be somewhat valid and pertinent. So, should we end this interesting discussion now?

mx2.5

[Quick dimension1]

The idea that one is more educated if they have been taught by many professors with knowledge was not the intent of my comment. What I meant to say was that I understand the frustration one experiences while trying to understand any discipline. With that being said…The topic at hand deals with: what is design. The phenomena of designing is intriguing, the idea of speaking about the nature of design only provides evidence that the nature of design exists, but I really don’t know what design is.

[csintexas]

Isn't design (and architecture) what we make of it? Being inanimate architecture can't have it's own spirit but must only live inside each of us. Maybe we know architecture by knowing ourselves.

[Quick dimension1]

To further clarify the intent of the question - “what is design,” I will give a brief example.

Let us say that we would like to explore the natural phenomena of reading and writing: Writing is a form of media that that conveys our experiences - it’s the now; the present. Reading on the other hand is the opposite; it reflects the past or tries to explain what we have experienced. Now let us say that design is a form of reading and writing – see how we can never fully express the true experience, or inner qualities, since writing and reading only reflect a supplement of the true experience.

[csintexas]

I'm afraid I still don't get your idea. "What is design?"

From the perspective of the person experiencing it or the person creating it?

You say at first that reading is different than writing but then you finish by lumping them together: "since writing and reading (both) only reflect a supplement of the true experience."

While I agree with the later, your two statements don't seem to agree with each other.

If you are saying for example: I can't truly know (some building) because I don't know the full experience of it's creation, than I suppose that is true. But that is true of everything. Since we are not God, what can we really know about anything?

What is the relevance of all this to what we do (creating architecture)?

[Misvit]

First let me say that I do not believe I was ever trying to describe what makes architecture good, or I should say, why this building is good and that isn't. Since people seem interested in using other fields as example. I would like to use Science. It is a very broad field. One could say Science is biology. One could also say Science is physics. Or rather it might be better put in such a manner as I previously tried to do, "themes or ideas" of Science.

1. Biology
2. Physics

Everyone has varying degrees on the subjects at hand, and some are experts in their field, however even an expert Physicist is not an expert scientist. It is probably no longer possible to be an expert scientist because of the shear amount of knowledge out their under the subject.

However it is still relevant, and worthwhile to try to define and encompass all that is Science. I believe this is true for architecture as well, however first I would argue that a list of qualities (such as in the science example) could be developed to help further our conversation.

OR maybe we have already defined a list and narrowed it's elements to "deconstructionist" architecture. If that is the case, I'd have to get reading on it, as it's not a part of architecture I'm well versed in. Maybe I'll pick up one of the books mentioned earlier in the thread at barnes n noble.

Finally, what I was trying to argue was that encompassing as many of these themes in the topic at hand, whether it be designing a building in office or conversing on the forums, helps to create a full and better picture of what architecture is, which is one of the questions I believe QD was asking.

[birgco]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but none of this discussion really matters and I going to tell you why. According to one of our more "crabby" forum members, "99.99% of all past/present architects don't know what the f&**% architecture is." Now if you follow this line of reasoning, (which I tend to agree with) it means that only a very, very small number of humans (count them on one hand) can be categorized as possessing true "creative genius" or the intellect necessary to understand the meaning of design, beauty, art, the meaning of life.......etc., etc., etc.
You may tend to think this is bunch of hooey, but here's why every word of it is true. The good Lord, in His infinite wisdom, only created a handful of uniquely creative people because of the "annoyance factor". The annoyance factor states that the world can only stand so many truly creative, talented, intellectually superior human beings. Imagine for a moment, several billion creative geniuses running around telling everyone how creative they are, how only they know what really great architecture and/or art is, how smart they are (yawn), how dumb you are (yawn, yawn) and their undying need to let you know that they are an artist/creative genius type. The world would simply implode.
So don't worry......be happy!
(btw, some untalented s.o.b. songwriter stole that line from me!)

[mx2]

I completely disagree that only a few elite genuises are the only ones who can "truly" design. If you ever look at naive painting for example, or architecture without architects and other less structured methodologies, you find incredible genius based mostly on intuitive design. painters, sculptors, etal are not necessarily genuises, however society at large tends to favor one over the majority and deem the one as a genius. But often, many true geniuses fall to the wayside and remain anonymous, even times being redicovered post-humously as genius.

What is design is a valid question that is mired in the simbiotic relationship of self and environment, the past, present and even future. It's the process of creation and that process is what defines design. Since there are many methodologies and media, design is quite unlimited in nature. The judgement of design is another issue. Perhaps we're confusing the process with the outcome. Who is determined to be the official judge of design, good/bad, past or present? We all are...unto ourselves and as a collective. But that judgement is a posteriori and design can be said to be a priori...in essence, it is the creation of something from nothing. Not in a pure sense of course (we're not gods) but on a practical level, we're taking about being able to imagine something before it is seen by any human eyes and THEN create it, and unleash it to public judgement.

Pure creations of the mind is something we find all through history (think Isaac Newton and his apple...or a new graphic for a webpage). The consideration of as many natural elements as possible makes for the beginning of the process for originating something. For me, design is the assemblage of selective elements about an idea that's realized in the physical realm and experienced over time thereafter. Whether this process is by exploration, redefinition, resolution, or just simply trying to coordinate them all and all of this over a perdiod of time, the result is design, at some level or another.

mx2.5

[csintexas]

not bad birgco, I'm not sure the logic will hold up but I found that amusing.

[P.C.]

"Pure creations of the mind is something we find all through history "

Thank you !