sentiment & reason
Category

The_Art_of_Building_Cities

 

 

 thoughts  2014/12/02
p1
Aristotle - A city should be built to give its inhabitants security and happiness
the science of the technical will not suffice to accomplish this, We need, in addition, the talent of the artist.

p2.
Public squares - The sole reason for their existence is to provide more air and light, and to break the monotony of oceans of houses.

p8
Public square still follow the type of the ancient forum.
type of squares-1. the cathedral square 2. Signoria (The signoria of Florence)

p11. criticism about the public space in Vienna
Statues adorn the two museums, the palace of Parliament, the two Court theaters, the City Hall, the new university, the Votive Church. But there is no interest in adorning public open spaces.
비엔나...석상 (포럼에 있는 것 같은)들이 건축물을 빛내게 하지만, 정작 공공 영역에서는 쓰여지지 않는다 (원래의 의미와 다르게 쓰인다.)

p11-12
The fundamental difference between the procedures of former times and those of today rests....
이전에는 석상들이 광장의 주변에서 건물을 배경으로 세워졌음 (겸손하고 소박한 건물이 석상을 더욱 돋보이게..) 하지만 지금은 혼돈의 광장 한복판에 (교통, 상업 행위, 인파등등) 세워져 의미가 퇴색되었다.



tkoyvsxdke

QzOu26 <a href="http://natadmxbegqm.com/">natadmxbegqm</a>, [url=http://vyscjttmmfad.com/]vyscjttmm

x
uprelvFbfg

qOT1tt http://www.viagragenericoes24.com

<a href="http://www.viagragenericoes24.com">http://www.

x
peyaeqmj

aw8YJ7 <a href="http://taiwveiayaut.com/">taiwveiayaut</a>, [url=http://xtdtgavymavw.com/]xtdtgavym

x
dlnnwqvah

v0I37S <a href="http://istlwshuhgbi.com/">istlwshuhgbi</a>, [url=http://frhlbqcztbhc.com/]frhlbqczt

x
name :  p/w : comment

Origin_of_Architecture

 

 

 thoughts  2012/07/10
The origin of architecture is not the primitive hut, but the marking of ground, to establish a cosmic order around the surrounding chaos of nature.

-Vittorio Gregotti, in 1983
name :  p/w : comment

something_strange

 

 

 thoughts  1000*600  2012/06/05
+이성적 비평

컴퓨터 툴에 의지하였지만 건축가의 감각으로 만들어진 geometry.
감각 (intuition)에 의해 디자인된 건물은 독특함(uniqueness, particularity)를 가질수는 있겠지만, 모두의 동의를 얻어내는 아름다움을 가지기는 정말 힘들다.
단지 일부 건축가들 또는 천재들만이 보편적인 동의에 의한 아름다움에 성공했다. (for example, Bilbao Guggenheim - Frank Gehry,  Sidney Opera House - Jørn Utzon)

그럼에도 불구하고, 예시의 빌바오 구겐하임이나 시드니 오페라 하우스는 컴퓨터를 이용한 prefabrication 이나 innovation of structural engineering 이란 점에서도 건축계에 기여한 바가 크다.
결국 두 건축가는 자신의 감각을 이용하였지만 결국 실현해 낸 것은 매우 건축적인 방법에 의해 이루어진 것이다.

그러나 여수의 이 건물이 보편적인 아름다움의 동의를 얻어낼 수 있는지 의문스럽다.
일단 이건물은 요새 유행하는 것들은 이것 저것 조합해낸 결과물에 가깝다.
예를 들어 kinetic facade는 Herzog and de Meuron의 Signal tower 와 office DA가 하우징 프로젝트에서 사용한 패턴이 떠오른다.
스크립팅을 사용한 듯한 gradation 패턴 역시 요즘 건축 대학원에서 시간이 부족할 때 학생들이 가장 쉽고 빠르게 사용할 수 있는 방법이다.
intuition에 의한 건물이지만 독창성이 떨어지는 것이 가장 큰 문제가 아닌가 한다.

독창성이 떨어지면, 건축 자체가 매우 합리적으로 계획되어야 하는데 불필요한 곡면이 많다보니 합리성또한 떨어지는 것은 당연한 얘기 일것이다.


+매우 감성적인 비판,

일단 SOMA라는 사람들의 홈페이지를 보고 다른 건물 들도 봤지만.
미국에 있는 같은 이름의 다른 건축 사무실이 보다 더 흥미로운 프로젝트 들이 많았다.

이미 10년전에 유행하다 지금은 점차 사라지는 방식으로 설계하는 사람들인 것 같은데,
위험부담이 따르는 렌더링위주의 건축가를, 그들이 전에 해왔던 작업들도 고려하지 않은 채 선정한 것은 너무 무리수가 따르지 않았나 생각된다.
'렌더링에 속지 말자' 는 모두들 다 알고 있는 진리지만, 속지 않기는 정말 힘들 것이다.
그러한 점에서 주최측을 이해한다.





name :  p/w : comment

Aldo_Rossi

 

 

 thoughts  640*427  2012/04/09
Theoretical approach of design,
urbanistic architecture I named : considering the meaning of "type" in the urban context, and the virtue of "construction" not as a physical form but the way to realize an idea.

건축가들이 자주 쓰는 단어 "typology"
요즘 건축가들에게 "typology"는 건축가의 감각 (intuition)또는 검퓨터에 의해 의도반, 우연반으로 만들어진 form을 변명하는 수단으로 쓰이기도 합니다.
예를 들어 그냥 막 만든게 아니라 new typology를 제안하는것이다라던가...

Rossi 의 건축에 대한 이론적 접근방식 - place, type,  monument, urban form
도시에서 출발해 건축의 진정한 '타입'을 유추하는 것이 지금의 '폼'을 위한 '타입'보다는 더욱 건축의 진정한 의미에 가깝다고 생각합니다.
건축은 사람이 머무는 공간이지 바라만 보는 object가 아니기 때문입니다.

우연인지는 모르겠지만, 건축을 '공부'하면서 나 스스로 정한 이론적인 방향 (urbanistic architecture)이
이미 Rossi는 40년전에 추구했다고 생각하니 그가 설계한 건물의 '폼'만 보고 그를 너무 쉽게 판단했던 나 자신을 다시 반성하게 됩니다.


To him, architecture was not removed from an evolutionists belief in progress that still had Wolfflinian roots. Such an attitude led him to think that its history could only reach fullness in modern architecture, as it was only in modern architecture that space was what prevailed.
-103

The ambitious task proposed by Rossi led him to believe that architecture should be thought of in the same way as the natural and human sciences.
-103

Architecture's territory was the city. Now, if architecture was in the city, it was necessary to know how the city was built, what principles had guided its development, how the different zones and quarters comprising it had been formed.
Hence, it was important to begin by describing the city, that reality which was for Rossi "the most complete representation of the human condition." Rossi was convinced that describing the city help him find the keys to explaining architecture.
-104

Concepts like "place", "type", "monument" and "urban form" had become household terms.
-104

Rossi - Ultimately, we can say that type is the very idea of architecture, that which is closet to its essence. In spite of changes, it has always imposed itself on the 'feelings and reason' as the principle of architecture and of the city.
-104

And it is at this point that the book introduces us to the concept of "construction." construction was crucial to Rossi because through it his ideas could be materialized. To make architecture is to construct.
-105
name :  p/w : comment

Making_Sense_in_the_Mid-Lands

 

 

 thoughts  550*378  2012/04/04
Historian, Jonathan Hale 의 건축 분류법 - sense and non-sense
일반적인 분류방식 - compositional, programmatic.

건축을 compositional 과 programmatic으로 나누는것에 비해 Hale의 분류방식이 '덜 구체적'인 분류라는 점에서 안전하고, 사람의 '감각'을 표현했다는 의미에서 다가오는 방식인것 같습니다.
Hale의 마지막 단락에서 David Leatherbarrow의 강연을 차용한 부분은 우리세대의 건축가들이 잊고 있는 부분을 다시 한번 일깨워 줍니다.
Wherever we try to situate ourselves as designers along the spectrum between sense and non-sense, we should at least be always aiming to ‘expand the limits of what had previously seemed sensible’.


by Jonathan Hale,

In a recent lecture at the University of Nottingham, David Leatherbarrow (University of Pennsylvania) set out what might be called – in an echo of his Philadelphia neighbours Robert Venturi and Denise Scott-Brown – a ‘gentle manifesto’ for a not-too-complex-but-just-a-little-bit-contradictory approach to contemporary design. [1]

In a typically precise and measured delivery, and in language of exemplary clarity, Leatherbarrow set out to identify a productive middle-ground between what he sees as the currently fashionable extremes of ‘sense and non-sense’ in contemporary architecture. In a more direct reference to the philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty the paper began by suggesting that non-sense should not be seen as something to be avoided, per se, but rather as a stage that must be passed through both in design and everyday experience: a necessary condition of the ‘beginning of meaning’, rather like the body’s pre-reflective ‘grip’ on the world that forms the basis of our subsequent attempts to understand it intellectually.

On one side of the equation Leatherbarrow pointed to three design approaches that suffered from an excess of rationality, showing examples of buildings that seemed to have been slavishly determined by either technical, historical or environmental factors. These included: Norman Foster’s Sainsbury Centre – a ‘highly serviced barn’; a Sicilian town destroyed by an earthquake and reconstructed stone-by-stone; and a ponderous piece of ‘green architecture’ which seemed to offer little except free energy. All of these approaches he claimed were guilty of neglecting broader cultural concerns. That is, where the rationality of the particular system (whether constructional or conceptual) appeared to override the rationality of the larger human project.

On the other side, and perhaps more surprisingly, Leatherbarrow took aim at some currently fashionable design preoccupations, again under three headings but this time more aesthetically oriented. The first was the ‘expressionist’ approach of Frank Gehry’s so-called iconic architecture, embodying a radical dislocation of space, structure and skin; the second was the minimalism of an Ando or a Pawson; and the third was the ‘sensualism’ of Diller and Scofidio’s Blur Building. In each case the question was posed as to whether the private enjoyment of the designer had closed off any meaningful engagement with a wider public.

In an attempt to find a middle-way between the ‘too clear’ and the ‘not clear enough’, Leatherbarrow then took us on a brief but thoughtful tour of the Norwegian architect Sverre Fehn’s Hedmark Museum. Remarking on the sensitivity of the architect’s combination of new-build and restoration, Leatherbarrow delighted in the way the visitor’s journey was choreographed through the museum, providing a subtle narrative of unfolding experiences through a succession of walkways, ramps and bridges. This is a project that I once heard Peter Cook approvingly describe as a classic example of a ‘delving’ building, interrupting his lecture to mimic the route of the main walkway by leaping sideways across the stage. What it brought to mind here was another aspect of sensory experience that David Leatherbarrow did not develop in any detail, one which lies somewhere in that other middle-ground in architecture between the macro and the micro scales. In the space between the ‘iconic’ flourishes of Gehry’s napkin-sketch formalism and Carlo Scarpa’s often indigestibly forensic detailing there is a level of thinking that architects are notoriously reluctant (or ill-equipped) to explore – the ergonomic scale of everyday interaction between buildings and the bodies of their users. Ironically this is an area that is often left for other ‘experts’ to deal with, whether via the pseudo-scientific strictures of the New Metric Handbook or the prosaic pie-graphs of ‘post-occupancy evaluation’. But here, I would argue, is where architecture really begins to make sense, in the realm of what the psychologist James J. Gibson referred to as the ‘affordances’ offered by it. [2]

As Gibson – along with Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger before him – described, we navigate through the world as a structured field of possibilities for action, within a framework of motor-perceptual expectations based on our previous bodily experiences. This ability is based on the range of bodily skills that we begin to develop in the first few years of life, by a combination of imitation and trial-and-error much as we learn to speak our native language. As we continually refine these ‘bodily schemas’ through the course of our everyday dealings with the world, we are constantly striving to match our behaviour to what seems to be ‘called up’ by our situation. As the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu has described in the concept of the habitus, the body is therefore able to act as the mediator of physical, social and cultural forces, which all become ‘encoded’ in patterns of behaviour that constitute a repertoire of responses to the world around us. [3]

A common criticism of phenomenology is that it appeared to want to return us to a time of a supposedly meaning-rich ‘primal oneness’, a time before our apparent alienation from the world brought about by the ‘modern project’. By contrast, it could also be argued that phenomenology today, in all its contemporary manifestations, allows us to confront the process by which meaning itself arises, and to consider this emergence historically across three different timescales: firstly, the phylogenetic (relating to the species, drawing on evolutionary psychology, cognitive archaeology, systems theory and cybernetics) [4]; secondly, the ontogenetic (concerning the individual, and drawing on developmental psychology); and thirdly in the experience of ‘the present moment’ as we perceive the world unfolding around us (drawing on cognitive psychology and neuroscience, including the new techniques of brain-imaging). This last idea suggests that at each moment we effectively re-stage the historical emergence of meaning out of our embodied interaction with the world, and it is this process that phenomenological description attempts to help us grasp, as it “seek(s) a philosophy which explains the upsurge of reason in a world not of its making..”. [5]

To return to the opening theme of the talk regarding the role of meaning in architecture, there was a final piece of advice that signalled a progressive and forward-looking message: wherever we try to situate ourselves as designers along the spectrum between sense and non-sense, we should at least be always aiming to ‘expand the limits of what had previously seemed sensible’. [6]

References:

[1] R. Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1966.
[2] J. J. Gibson, “The Theory of Affordances”, in The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986, pp. 127-143.
[3] P. Bourdieu, “Structures, Habitus, Practices”, in The Logic of Practice, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990, pp. 52-65.
[4] See, for example: E. Thompson, Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology and the Sciences of the Mind, Cambridge MA: Belknap Press, 2007.
[5] M. Merleau-Ponty, Sense and Non-Sense, trans. H. L. & P. A. Dreyfus, Evanston IL: Northwestern University Press, 1964, p. x.
[6] D. Leatherbarrow, “Sense and Non-Sense in Contemporary Architecture”, lecture presented at Dept of Architecture & Built Environment, University of Nottingham, 6 March 2012 (sponsored by T&G).
name :  p/w : comment
+ - 1 [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]..[10][next 8]
   

 

 


       
Copyright 1999-2018 Zeroboard / skin by JaKK