Monday, February 28, 2011
BP7[2/28/11]: architecture of happiness
When one thinks of happiness, and what derives or cause it, what might you think of? Is it a certain object, an object recollected from a memory? Or could it be a certain space or place that brings about certain memories in your past that create happiness? I find that spaces or places create happiness for me. When asked in class to think about a favorite place, space, and object, I actually found it easier to think of the place and space as opposed to an object. Personally, places leave a stronger mark, they bring about certain emotions by heightening senses you received while in the space. When asked to then think about a specific place or space on campus that makes you happy I thought of a few, but they are moreso places, specifically outdoor, rather than interior spaces. One place in particular is the Foust park. The simplicity of the landscape, the way the hills flow across the land is relaxing, a place to enjoy, to create memories, whether they be solitude or with the company of others. A place to sketch, to read, a place to illuminate internal struggles. The openness allows one to find a space for themselves, whether it be under a tree or on a bench. Above (left) is a sketch I actually did last year for myself.
Another place on campus I thoroughly enjoy is the bridge leading one to the music building. I find it simply fascinating. I never venture over there as much as I would like, but whenever I do, all I want is to explore, to imagine this epic adventure scene using the bridge and it's surroundings. One interesting thing about the nature around the music building is the authenticity of it. No one is allowed to build or destroy the landscape, which I think is well fit, considering the beauty and overall atmosphere it creates. Above (right) is a sketch of the bridge I did the other day for class.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
digital rendering [photoshop]
For this assignment, we were given a wireframe of a perspective to render solely in photoshop. I choose to render the space given, but focus solely on light, shadow, and texture in the space, as opposed to the space created through form and furniture.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
RR5_2/14/11_adaption or evolution
adaption or evolution.
Transformation occurs with everything, and occurs differently according to the subject undergoing change. When observing transformation in architecture, one must begin to think about form and function, and how they must evolve with the context surrounding it during the time. Considering the Roman Empire for example, the function of their architecture began to shift according to what was going on in their society, how they began to view the world. Purpose that began for comfort and pleasure then transformed into a purpose centered around religion. Qualities of architecture such as details and elaboration began to be replaced by simplicity, a reflection of their new views of themselves and the world.
"This emphasis of Roman life on the here and now was gradually replaced with a very different concern for the hereafter through the influence of a new religion that reshaped the way Romans began to think about the world and themselves."
Now is this new change considered an evolution, as previously discussed, or simply adaption? Thinking of how the world of architecture has changed since then, there is still bits and pieces of influences you can see from previous objects, buildings, places, and spaces, so then is it simply change through adaption with precedents? I believe that adaption and evolution go hand and hand. In order to go through change, whether it be structural or spiritual, one must do so in consideration of their surroundings, and the time period in which they choose to, or don't choose to, go through. The Roman empire, however, it appeared they had no choice. With Constantine as the new ruler, the Christian faith was the new development, the new life. And with this change, came adaption, the people then had to adjust in order to fulfill their new purpose of life with religious experience.
When considering a change dealing with something as personal as religion, the time one takes to think about what the space is used for is enhanced just the same, only in a different sense. The exterior grew less detailed, the focus becoming the interior and it's relation to the personal religious experience one would feel within the space. A creation of an atmosphere, one with a intricate exposure and connection between this world and heaven. Adjusting to the time period they were exposed to at the time. Adaption. And transforming the form and function of such a building, place, or space. Evolution.
Transformation occurs with everything, and occurs differently according to the subject undergoing change. When observing transformation in architecture, one must begin to think about form and function, and how they must evolve with the context surrounding it during the time. Considering the Roman Empire for example, the function of their architecture began to shift according to what was going on in their society, how they began to view the world. Purpose that began for comfort and pleasure then transformed into a purpose centered around religion. Qualities of architecture such as details and elaboration began to be replaced by simplicity, a reflection of their new views of themselves and the world.
"This emphasis of Roman life on the here and now was gradually replaced with a very different concern for the hereafter through the influence of a new religion that reshaped the way Romans began to think about the world and themselves."
Now is this new change considered an evolution, as previously discussed, or simply adaption? Thinking of how the world of architecture has changed since then, there is still bits and pieces of influences you can see from previous objects, buildings, places, and spaces, so then is it simply change through adaption with precedents? I believe that adaption and evolution go hand and hand. In order to go through change, whether it be structural or spiritual, one must do so in consideration of their surroundings, and the time period in which they choose to, or don't choose to, go through. The Roman empire, however, it appeared they had no choice. With Constantine as the new ruler, the Christian faith was the new development, the new life. And with this change, came adaption, the people then had to adjust in order to fulfill their new purpose of life with religious experience.
When considering a change dealing with something as personal as religion, the time one takes to think about what the space is used for is enhanced just the same, only in a different sense. The exterior grew less detailed, the focus becoming the interior and it's relation to the personal religious experience one would feel within the space. A creation of an atmosphere, one with a intricate exposure and connection between this world and heaven. Adjusting to the time period they were exposed to at the time. Adaption. And transforming the form and function of such a building, place, or space. Evolution.
Friday, February 11, 2011
BP5 [2/14/11]
Dancing, linear in form.
Colors.
Vibrations born, in random repetition.
Noise.
Pipes, layered, intriguing and curious.
Movement.
A chaotic momentum, an odyssey ever-changing.
Illumination.
image: pompidou center | paris, france
Monday, February 7, 2011
RR4_2/7/11_"commoditie"
Utility, firmness, and beauty. According to Vitruvius, those are the pathway to good architecture. It must include balance through arrangement, and such arrangement in relation to its site. The foundation itself must be solid. And simply the appearance, is it visually pleasing? Doing these things well results in bringing a building to life. "When you make a building, you make it a life. It comes out of life, and you really make a life. It talks to you. When you have only the comprehension of the function of a building, it would not become an environment of a life" (Louis I. Kahn). When relating this quote to the architecture from Rome, one can discuss how they satisfied, or attempted to satisfy, commodity through diversity. One always hears how form must fit function. But if you think about it, function is always changing. Nothing is constant. Things repeat themselves in history, but the world is ever changing. This leads to the question of what we are designing for. Is the intent solely for structure within a certain site, or is it purely function? Have we seen this before, and can it be repeated? Thinking about architecture from the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, the concept of appearance versus reality is seen. It makes one question the hierarchy of their thoughts. Which is more important, the function or the visual? Or is it simply the symbolism cooresponding between what we see and what we think we see. All of these things can be brought up when one designs. Questions lead to more questions. One question I came to after I allowed my thoughts to wander, manipulated by the progression from their origin concerning Vitruvius, to Greek and Roman ideals, is simply why question if the space follows firmness, beauty, and utility? Shouldn't the moment the space reveals when experiencing it be the greater factor?
BP4_[2/7/11]
This past Friday, we took another campus tour to observe how Roman architecture is seen in our campus. Walking around, I asked myself a few questions. Is there a sense of balance? Is it through form and material? And is there a essence of power through hierarchy?
I noticed that our campus was designed, in a sense, on a grid. Four main buildings mark the four corners of campus, all lining up, spread around college avenue. The library across from the economics building; the music building across from education. Thinking about this, I asked myself, why these four buildings? This hierarchy through selection shows what what seen as most important buildings for our school. At first, economics seems silly to be placed in the category among it, but when you think back to when UNC-G was first built, it was intended to be an all-women school, which makes it's place among the others seem fit.
Another thing I noticed while observing our campus was the repetition of circles throughout. Some make sense and are purposeful in their location, such as the circle on college av that marks the spot between the library and the economics building along the axis. Others along college av however, made me question their intent, because they seemed random. There are also quite a few circles in the EUC, in the representation of domes. These relate well with what we are studying in class because of the relation with light and sky. On the floor directly below the dome in the building, there is a design marking of a sun. This increases a viewers experience while entering the building, creating a moment that reminds me of the Pantheon. I do not think, however, the two should be compared in any sense, for the dome in the EUC, I feel, was randomly placed there to, in a sense, look pleasing.
The MHRA building I found most interesting in comparison to the others I previously discussed. There is a definite balance and order when entering, aligned on an axis. The design markings on the floor of the lobby intrigued me with their gradation as you enter. This relates back to Roman architecture with the fact that it provides a sense of power, giving direction to the one entering the space. This building also had interesting details in material, including the use of columns. The set on the outside of the building were ionic in detail. This pattern was also brought inside to the lobby, but were less detailed and more for a structural purpose.
To spend an hour or so and observe our surroundings, we can definitely uncover precedents around us that we would generally walk right past. I think what is most intriguing about exercises like this is to see their relation (does it fail or succeed?) and how various concepts of design have evolved over the years.
I noticed that our campus was designed, in a sense, on a grid. Four main buildings mark the four corners of campus, all lining up, spread around college avenue. The library across from the economics building; the music building across from education. Thinking about this, I asked myself, why these four buildings? This hierarchy through selection shows what what seen as most important buildings for our school. At first, economics seems silly to be placed in the category among it, but when you think back to when UNC-G was first built, it was intended to be an all-women school, which makes it's place among the others seem fit.
Another thing I noticed while observing our campus was the repetition of circles throughout. Some make sense and are purposeful in their location, such as the circle on college av that marks the spot between the library and the economics building along the axis. Others along college av however, made me question their intent, because they seemed random. There are also quite a few circles in the EUC, in the representation of domes. These relate well with what we are studying in class because of the relation with light and sky. On the floor directly below the dome in the building, there is a design marking of a sun. This increases a viewers experience while entering the building, creating a moment that reminds me of the Pantheon. I do not think, however, the two should be compared in any sense, for the dome in the EUC, I feel, was randomly placed there to, in a sense, look pleasing.
The MHRA building I found most interesting in comparison to the others I previously discussed. There is a definite balance and order when entering, aligned on an axis. The design markings on the floor of the lobby intrigued me with their gradation as you enter. This relates back to Roman architecture with the fact that it provides a sense of power, giving direction to the one entering the space. This building also had interesting details in material, including the use of columns. The set on the outside of the building were ionic in detail. This pattern was also brought inside to the lobby, but were less detailed and more for a structural purpose.
To spend an hour or so and observe our surroundings, we can definitely uncover precedents around us that we would generally walk right past. I think what is most intriguing about exercises like this is to see their relation (does it fail or succeed?) and how various concepts of design have evolved over the years.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
chaos is bliss
chaos is bliss
The idea of chaos is for some... an unnerving concept. For others, it is the only way to survive in a world where structure is an unattainable goal. Pain is inevitable, so why not strive forward, have everyone suffer? Equality, in the sickest way possible. In this sense, everyone is even; no hierarchy, no power, no control.
...but maybe, a chaotic WORLD isn't the answer. Maybe what we should desire is the discovery of a chaotic person, someone who is chaos to your own personal structure. Because then, together, we will have unity in our solitude.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
