I found quite interesting the part of Versioning that talks about surface and space and the attempt of dA to reconcile them. The article gives a good analysis of the 2 traditions in history, those being the rationalist and the empirical finding middle ground in the treatment of the surface.
The rationalist tradition is found in the Renaissance and the Baroque periods with an interest in the relationship between the parts and its whole. On the other hand the empirical tradition has an interest between problems of expression and structural mechanics.
To attempt the reconciliation of surface and space dA takes the qualities of the 2 different traditions and combines them using the “ formal and structural effects of the empirical through the precision associated with that of the rationalist.”
I found the same problem I find with most of this articles, everything sounds very nice in theory but are they really like that in reality? I feel like because of the complexity of their designs and the theory behind them the experiential factor has to happen for me to actually believe what I read. I other words I have to see it and experience it to believe it. But that happens with every single building we study.
In any case the article was inspiring even though I don’t exactly see the examples given as a reflection of their attempt to reconcile surface and space. I liked the examples but for other reasons than those.
The Witte Arts building shows and interesting alternative to the contemporary use of the brick curtain wall.
The Hookah Den is another interesting approach; they use this “plywood bricks” whose dimension is directly related to structure and interior. It’s folding gives it rigidity and it’s size is determined by the banquettes set against them in the interior. This is probably the only example where I do find the reconciliation of surface and space but at the same time I think that this was possible because of the scale of the project.
After attending dA’s lecture yesterday my doubts about the disconnection between theory and execution was even clearer. Did I miss anything? For me the lecture had a strong emphasis on skin or surface, and they were the main element that guided their designs.
As a whole the article and the lecture were another good precedent of the advantages of today’s technology as one of the main tools used in the process for developing this new ideas in architecture.
4 comments:
In your post you mentioned "After attending dA’s lecture yesterday my doubts about the disconnection between theory and execution was even clearer". I'm curious about what you mean by the disconnection between the two?
thanks-
Well in the reading and in the lecture they talk about ghery's buildings and how there's no relationship between surface and space. dA stresses the attempt to reconnect the 2 but I don't see that happening, I mean when I read about their projects it sounds great but then I see them and I don't find that connection. I thought I was missing something from the reading but then at the lecture tehrani repeted many things that I have read already and again I didn't see the connection of space and surface, on the contrary in the lecture was all about surface and different and ingenious ways to manipulate and use it.
Did that help? I was basically saying that what they write and what they build don't match.
Do you agree with me? Maybe I'm not getting it!
I kind of feel the opp. I expected Tehrani to be way more theoretical than he appeared to be. He seemed to be more about facts and geometry rather than philosophy and theory. Or maybe I should say...that his theories are results of experimentation and not the other way around.
I agree maybe I am using the wrong word here. He is basing everything on experimentation. My point though was that I was expecting him to talk more about his intent on connecting surface and space, instead he mentioned it a few times, remember when he talked about frank ghery's buildings? and how what you see on the outside has nothing to do with the inside?
The title of the article was about surface and space and instead I think he talks more about surface than anything else.
Post a Comment