After a discussion during class it was found that the model (below), like the original Ben Nicholson Painting, was about objects being ambiguous about their placement in space. Ambiguity in this sense means it can be viewed equally in two ways. The Model:
Study Sketches:
Watercolor Interpretation:
Both articles by Wang and Plowright, Stevens, and Adhya advocate using research to improve the design process, however in different ways. While they equally speak to the need of research Wang’s “Design in Relation to Research” seeks to prove that design and research are integral parts of one another. In contrast, Plowright, Stevens and Adhya’s “A Study of Process in Design: Curatorship, cloud intelligence and applied research” seeks to prove the need to share and use research in a society that demands more professional integration with architecture. Wang seeks to create a more successful design outcome by combining different methods of research. He cites an example of the method already in use “a multi method research approach that includes, at the tactical level, ethnographic, survey, participant design, and experimental methods” (Wang 1945, 125). In contrast, Plowright, Stevens and Adhya advocate the use of an inter-disciplinary transfer of knowledge to move the task of designing away from one designer and to a group of specialists. “Traditional disciplinary barriers often inhibit the acquisition of knowledge from beyond the boundaries of that discipline by defining territorial control, however openness is important” (Plowright et al. 2010, 3). They believe this combination of useful information will create an outcome that is in the best interest of the group of specialists. They argue to move design in a direction away from a sole designer and have only one objective of fulfilling the needs of the general public.
Both articles discuss how there is a scientific method that outlines how research is conducted and used in design. Wang focuses on how the person reaches out to gather information and test it against people and previous knowledge in the design process. He states, “the generative design process, on the other hand, emerges from other workings within human reason, workings that cannot be fully explained in a propositional way.” (Wang 1945, 105). In contrast,Plowright, Stevens and Adhya oppose the top down model and support the use of a free flowing organization to help spread needed resources. “Most structured organizations are, by definition, not able to be fully innovative as their own rigid structural shortcomings limit the range of possible answers before the question is even asked” (Plowright et al. 2010, 2). The views on how the design hierarchy is structured differ between the two articles and in how they see it impacting the design process.
After gathering information about the design process Wang and Plowright, Stevens and Adhya split on how they deal with this information. Wang describes methods to include and combine research results to create the most thorough design. He discusses how it is used to improve the designer himself, “Groat means to shift away from the model of the architect as sole technician or sole artist toward one that is sensitive to a larger communal mission of well-being” (Wang 1945, 117). On the other hand, Plowright, Stevens and Adhya, use case studies and run their own tests to show the benefits of a social network of information. “The goal is to allow for an environment of innovation by transferring research and knowledge from the periphery, where knowledge traditionally is housed in architecture, in a non-rigid structure” (Plowright et al. 2010, 5). In other words, the author wishes to create a combined professional field.
As discussed design and research are not living symbiotically as they should. Both articles support the increase and more careful use of information drawn from research. However, Wang advocates the personal use of combined research in order to improve design, while Plowright, Stevens and Adhya wish to see research spread with technology to inform the masses and to incorporate larger professional fields. They both advocate the need for research but differ on how to use it most effectively. Their ideas clash by their focus to improve the designer versus having teams of specialist combine a network of information to procure the best result. They differ in their views of who should be learning and contributing to the design. Wang advocates the practice of a more informed sole designer while Plowright, Stevens, and Adhya argue for a larger team of specialists. Both agree that research is vitally important and that it should contribute to the field.
Bibliography
David Wang, “Design in Relation to Research,” Architectural Research Methods by Linda Groat and David Wang. (New York, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1945), 99-131
Philip Plowright, James Stevens, and Dr. Anirban Adhya, “A Study of Process in Design: Curatorship, cloud intelligence and applied research” (2010). http://info.aia.org/arcc/program/program.html
Massing models, form and space. What is architecture really? Well a wall is a wall and we can all agree to that, but the wall isn’t the most important part of the space, the part we reside in, the part we notice, the part we move through, is the void. When people enter a space they comment on the feel of it, the openness, the light, the smallness of it. Rarely a comment is “I like the direction of the walls” more of how the wall influence the nothingness of the space. The walls may direct your eye but the focus is usually to a space beyond, next to, or around it. It’s placement, position, and form all influence on how the space is shaped. It can be used to frame, block or embellish various spaces. Indeed mass and void engage in a symbiotic relationship but it is within the void that creates the notable change in a person’s reaction to it. Doors and windows are appreciated because they transition us through space, either physically or visually. But they also are a non-entity; besides the windowpane and door that act as protection from the outside they still are the void in the wall or roof of which they reside.
In terms of Urbanism:
People appreciate what is not there; a park is a park because it is a break in the forest, an open patch of grass. A plaza is appreciated because it is a break in the urban fabric, people can move, gather, and use the nothingness that is the open space in urban fabric. The ability to have nothing there allows for the inhabitants to fill it in any way they see fit (laws permitting), with carts for selling items, chairs for viewing the surrounding activities, or an area to run and catch a Frisbee.
Arial view of Roman Campe de Fiori (Center) and Piazza Farnese (Bottom Left)
Camp de fiori after market clean up. Getting ready for the nightlife.
On the contrary too much void can be distressing for people. Structured open spaces are appreciated because of their break in the dense fabric surrounding it. Overly wide-open spaces can pull away from the human scale. Trees vegetation and other “human scale” elements may work vertically but not horizontally. For example it is much easier to walk twenty NYC block then it is to walk from one farm to the next a mile away.
So architecture needs the mass to create the void and the mass must be carefully crafted and detailed, but the mass must also serve as the means to mold a well thought out void.
it would seem in more and more some graphic design is leaning towards not using capitals. i like it, it does seem modern for some reason. but after all, modern usually is breaking the rules. look at renoir, monet, van gogh, and picasso to name a few, all were painters who decided to look upon their approach to art differently and break away from the traditional idea of how a painting should be. so what if this really takes off? would we really see the disappearance of capitals? well not for a while these things take time but i would not be surprised if we did see them go the way of the dodo bird. architects would be mad, after all they exclusively write in caps. although when professions outside the construction field use all caps it seems like they are yelling. i'd like to meet the person who initiated that idea, it probably went down like this:
"ok write the letter to them and i want them to know i'm mad!"
"alright, and how do i write it mad?"
"i don't know... uh put it all in caps.. yeah no one uses all caps they definitely will know i'm yelling; use a lot of exclamation points!"
on the receiving end - "hey.. uh this guy sent the letter to us, all in caps.. why's that?"
"eh his caps lock is probably on"
"no.. i think he's mad.. maybe yelling. big words = say them loud.. should i yell the message to you then?"
"no just put him in the junk folder.."
all things considered this post has been much easier to write without having to capitalize anything. my pinky fingers are at ease not having to stretch the odious 1/8 of an inch to reach the godforsaken shift key. say, i might even be able to do the "dr. evil pose" more effectively with my pinky finger so rested!
well except for the punctuation problem, in which quotes, exclamation points, and a number of others still require the shift key. well, i'm sure new keys will come later.
plus as a bonus it makes everything look cool and casual. so casual in fact i am writing this in a hawaiian t-shirt, making margaritas, and talking to my parrot!
ok i don't actually have a talking parrot..