Relationship Between Experimentation and Theory

(This is really a comment on Kevin's post from March 10, placed in the main thread in order to draw attention back to the question.)

The question of the relationship between experimentation and theory is a sub-set of the larger question: what is the relationship between action and thought? The answer is: thought drives action, and it is subsequently informed by action. This is the core lesson of the feedback loop. To act effectively, we must guide our actions with knowledge acquired from our observations of the world, and to enhance and expand our knowledge of the world, we must engage it in action. We must explore and discover. The relationship between action and thought is not unilateral, in which one element dominates the other, because we are integrated beings, possessing both a body and mind. We need both to survive and to thrive. To paraphrase Ayn Rand: A body without a mind is a zombie, and a mind without a body is a ghost. Both are archetypes of the undead.

Experimenting is an action. It is a way of doing the work of design. Its antithesis is perpetuating, which is the mainstream’s dominant way of working. That is a different action. So the question really is: what ideas (i.e., what theories) are coupled with these actions? What are the ideas that complete the necessary coupling of action and thought in the work of architects? Perpetuating … what? Experimenting … for what? Experimenting is pointless as an end-in-itself. It must be directed, guided by a curiosity about something. It is always guided by an idea (explicit or implicit) about what is important to explore and discover about the world. In other words, every act of experimentation implies a value-judgment – a choice to explore this as opposed to that, which implies that the selected subject of experiment is more important than alternative subjects not pursued. Every act of experimentation expresses a view of the world – a view of what is important about the world or life in it.

Perpetuating is the same. What does one choose to perpetuate? Every act of perpetuation involves a choice, and thus, it too expresses a view of what is important.

So what have you been experimenting with in your projects this semester? What aspects of the world have been drawn out and accentuated? What conventions have you accepted and perpetuated in your work this semester? Answering these questions will lead you toward an understanding of the view of the world embodied in your work. It is a good way to begin to see what your work means.

Individual Work: Jefferson's take

Architecture as embodying theme, in Thursday's New York Times, no less! I wish there was more architectural criticism of Poplar Forest, but it is a general-interest article.

"Its elegance is as stunning as its impracticalities, its form creating less a place for living than one for contemplation (which is why so many of the home’s owners, over the years, were compelled to make modifications). Restored to original form, the house reflects an ideal, lightly compromised. It seems an echo of Monticello’s larger, more polished expression of that ideal."

"Jefferson's Blind Spots and Ideals; in Brick and Mortar"

mankind inhabits nature, nature inhabits mankind

Since the diagrams don't show up too well, I'll describe my intentions for this project a little bit. As the title suggests, I believe there is a dual or symbiotic relationship between man and nature - but only to a degree. Man can gain a great deal studying nature in part or in whole, and the more contact man has with nature the more he understands nature and has the properties of the natural world influencing his thoughts - and actions toward the natural world. Likewise, nature can be made more suitable for human inhabitation, and in this sense improved as far as its suitability for human habitability is concerned. Mankind ultimately determines the nature of this relationship since he possesses a will, and nature is subject to the rules that govern its growth and propogation. Ultimately, mankind can gain an understanding of the physical properties of nature, and a clue to the greater governing laws of the universe, but cannot sharpen his will merely by this study. He must understand that the will dwells above nature, and is governed only by a will greater than his own. This project seeks to give mankind an opportunity to see nature in these different ways. First, on the ground level, is a necessary and intriguing element of shelter and study. Lessons are there for distilling as nature dominates. As mankind progresses to the upper level, he takes a route that gives glimpses of nature in a more exposes fashion, in this case mankind is pushing his limits of comfort, as he sees nature in a more direct way. The uppel level allows mankind and nature to cohabitate the same space in a way beneficial to both. Mankind realizes both the benefit of his natural surroundings, and the dominance of his will over it, but also ultimately his need to utilize nature in a wat that preserves it for his, and its, benefit.

Whew, maybe that makes some sense? Anyway, my question is wide open, but related to this topic: Where does mankind fit in the relationship between the governed and governor? Feel free to answer in any way you feel is appropriate.

on meaning...

"I used to think of meaning as something that one had recourse to - a touchstone or base. Now it seems to me that unless an act or an occupation is suffused with meaning, constantly and indivisibly meaningful, it is meaningless. It is not possible to work at meaningless work, and then go home or to church or to a museum and experience meaning, as one would recharge a battery. The model would be the life of the primitive hunter or farmer, whose work was never divided from ceremony."

Wendell Berry
"Notes from an Absence and a Return"

Discovering Your Convictions

My favorite aspect of this class is the relation between our designs and our "world view". Discovering your own convictions and world view is a quite enlightening, if not very challenging, exercise. And the words that define these convictions, especially the phrase "world view", are often discussed in class and frequently mentioned between classmates. My first question is what does that exactly mean?

When trying to grasp my own world view, it always leads down a path of spirituality and religion. Would your convictions about the relationship between Human and Earth differ if you believed in reincarnation? Would your convictions about the relationships between different people differ if you believed Heaven and Hell? I think these are all deep and important questions. I understand that religion and spirituality are often taboo in liberal institutions, Macalester is a shining example of that. So is this what we are talking about when we say "world view"? Or is it a distinct idea, somehow separated from religion and spirituality?

I have another question, but I think I'll save that one for later as I ponder this one...

Clarifying Theme

This prototype represents 1/4 of the planned model.  It shows top, side, front and corner conditions.  It does not include the redesigned straps that now change relative to their span.   I'm also going to add rough white bristol to the inside surface, which should highlight the oscillation of overlapping edges on the outer surface.  

I updated the wall of pins with my new theme, "a dynamic interaction of opposites," but I'm not totally satisfied with that yet.  For me the opposites are expansion and contraction represented by the circles and straps.  The system uses one connection type throughout.  The expansion of the circle puts tension on the strap.  This is repeated with variation in size and degree of folding.  Each module (consisting of both systems) is connected to four other modules and because of this the enclosure becomes structurally redundant.  So the system is about cooperation, interdependance, and being comfortable operating in larger system of difference.  This is how I would characterize my future as a 'digital craftsperson.'  I expect opposition, I will however continue to act as a collaborator with change in exploring my ideas.

This is the current state of things. The concept driving the model is the idea of the world as a framework for exploration. The images show the progression from ground level to birds eye to overview, revealing and concealing the different elements to be explored and engaged. Also, it looks like a spaceship.

Paul

                                                                                I am searching for meaning with my own project - and struggling a bit.  A thread of meaning has been flowing through my early projects this semester, but distilling it has been tricky.  I started with the choatic, but very purposeful, way that connections form in the brain; then moved to a sectional reinterpretation of that idea in order to explore its layering and spatial implications.  

As I move into serious development for project_03,  I keep coming back to this idea that space is also found within, not just around, built elements (much like the internal structure of the biological precedents we have found).  This idea is important to me because many of the most influential buildings I have inhabited in my life were those where I could climb on walls, see to the floor below, or view into another space through a "mistake" in the construction.  These spaces create a rich experience, and instill memory of the experience - a wall that can be walked on or sat in, a floor that offers a view, a ceiling that reaches down and invites you to go up and dwell.  

These images are examples of such places.  In Berlin, a memorial to the nazi book-burning offers a view below the street into the world of the "purity" the nazi party was attempting to achieve - an empty library, a place devoid of people, books, and therefore meaning.  

In Manitowoc, a view up the silo of my grandparents' old dairy farm reveals a view of imagination and exploration.  I could always imagine myself traversing the "corridor" that led to the top.  

Now that I've rambled on long enough, I ask for anyone's response.  What way(s) can you summarize my disparate thoughts on this subject?  Is there a larger, yet more concise, principle driving this project?

Architecture as:

built exploration playground?

facilitator of memory?

tectonics of imagination? 

I will post pics of my project shortly.

 

The Half-Resurrected Field of Architecture

It's inspiring to see some midwesterners tearing it up in Minnesota, a state as conservative as ours. Rock on. I appreciated Houminn's devotion to process. When they talked about process, I liked what they had to say, and they talked about it sufficiently deeply to keep me interested.

When they started talking about product, however, I dosed. Houminn is symptomatic of leading-edge practice today, which can't talk about product deeply. Houminn's projects were essentially like the Dubai project Manto slammed on Friday - the one that defined "plant irrigation" as its primary design intention. So Houminn defined "natural ventilation" as a primary intention, or on another project, the reduction of solar heat-gain by 1%.

Clearly they had other things in their head. They mentioned racecar air-intakes and camouflage. But... why? What is relevant about those things? Why did they spend so much time justifying their work functionally, and so little time talking about the significance of their sources of inspiration, or the significance of the experiential impact of their designs? When it came to aesthetics, they were basically silent. Were they holding out on us, or are they oblivious to the deeper significance of their work?

The same problem arose in the Office da lecture. In the Q&A she was very explicit: "Our designs are driven by program." Yet clearly they weren't. No purely functional explanation can be offered for the faceted skin of the gas station canopy, nor for the crazy folded-plate roof of the drive testing facility.

What's going on here? If contemporary architecture is supposed to incorporate a return to meaning - a return to the significance of architecture beyond minimum functional solutions - then why do these folks remain so silent on the meaning of their work? The answer can be found in the nature of leading-edge architectural education, and the rediscovery of introspection among leading designers.

The current generation of leading-edge designers is the first of its kind. When in leading-edge architecture school, its members were mostly indoctrinated into the still dominant Post-Modern view of the world, and its corresponding approach to architecture. Central to this approach is the belief that architecture (like everything) is ultimately meaningless. Meaning in Post-Modern thought is subjective, that is, it is arbitrarily projected onto things by an observer, according to each observer's whim-of-the-moment. What a building means to me, Post-Modernists like to say, is not what a building might mean to you. And what a building means to me today might not be what it will mean to me tomorrow. If this subjective view it true, then designers have no control over the meaning of their work, and thus, according to Post-Modern architectural theory, designers should not be concerned with meaning. The idea that designers can make meaningful architecture is a delusion of the past.

This idea is still deeply infused in the thinking of first-generation Genetic designers. It is as though they have habitualized the turning-off of any thinking about meaning. They instinctively avoid any line of inquiry that might lead them there, steering clear of the "hornets nest of unanswerable questions" it implies to them. This peculiar habit of mind makes them blind to the absurdity of such statements as "Our designs are driven by program." They have contorted their thinking in such a way that they've actually convinced themselves this is true.

(This is a dangerous state of affairs - a vulnerable time in the growth of Genetic architecture - in which the whole movement could careen into a New Functionalism.)

The first generation of Genetic designers have been successful in taking back only the field of design process. Here they have aggressively cleaned out the cobwebs of Post-Modernism. They have opened the field back up, allowing architects to reflect on process and experiment with it beyond any prior age. But they have not yet broken the Post-Modern vice-grip on product and the closely linked consideration of significance (i.e., meaning). This, I hope, will be the great achievement of the second generation of Genetic designers. This will complete the pending architectural renaissance. Designers will again develop the ability to reflect on product as well as process.

Thematic Update

Thanks to the following folks for posting theme-related comments. (If I'm mis-stating your theme, please correct me.) A nice diversity of perspectives is emerging. I love it when things emerge.

Jasenko: Interdependence
Ted: Calm, steady change
Kelly: Change as dynamic and chaotic