Blog
We are always looking at theoretical discussions on architecture and architectural design. We are encouraged to start dialogue concerning architectural theory in forums/studio and participate in any on going discussions. In an effort to try and entice theoretical dialogue, I am posting a bit of a dialogue with Diego del Castillo (a.k.a. ddelcast).
Russell L. Thomas: If you take basic classical Greek architecture such as found at the 'Acropolis', the experience is controlled by forced pathways and controlled view ports. It is my opinion for the discussion here, that this is an early form of sequential art and if you take the concepts you can apply them to graphic novels (i.e. comic books), animation and even cinematography for a stylistic experience. You could even reach and make comparisons to work by Asian action director John Wu and his combat scenes. Before I get off track, I was wondering if anyone has thought along these lines or used the technique in any of their designs, and if so how, or refer to works by others such as Louis Kahn's Salk Institute.
Diego del Castillo: The Greeks were very conscious about POV but I think that that is a spin-off of their major concern which was perspective or should I say "correcting" perspective. That is why their columns where fatter at the bottom (to correct perspective distortion…Arch 101). I personally think that in order to control POVs you have to apply aggressive framing techniques, which not many architects apply (not so much to control the movement of the user but to control what they look at). These framing techniques are pretty apparent in Richard Neutra’s California houses, which resemble techniques used in photography and cinema.
Nowadays the most “cinematic” architect is probably Rem Koolhaas (not surprisingly since he used to be a movie director before becoming and architect) but he uses it in a much more subjective manner (maybe surreal is a better word).
Another great example of POV control Is Corbu’s Ronchamp where when seen from certain angles, certain object complete themselves (like the bell towers).
A friend of mine during grad school started experimenting with that issue and with the conditions of 3d software. She would design only using the perspective view and without ever changing the POV. When the design was finished, it only made sense from that specific POV since if you moved just a little bit, you would start seeing gaps between the planes (in reality everything was distorted and scattered around the virtual modeling space). I am not sure what that means but it was certainly interesting.
Russell L. Thomas: I think Richard Neutra's projects seemed to blur the line between the outside to inside relationship, which perhaps inadvertently created framed view ports. Of course I am not well versed in his design philosophy and maybe forced view ports were one of his goals. I personally think it is a kind of conundrum of modern architecture in relationship to the organic outdoors, from inside, the glass box looks at peace with the natural outdoors, but from outside the hard lined geometry seems at odds. I am not saying contradiction or the modernist theory is wrong, I am just saying the typical modernistic white box and glazing on a grid system comes across at odds with the organics of nature. I of course as well as you can point out different forms of modern architecture that do not, my comment is in response to work of a certain genre that Neutra is at least in part a practioner. That is not a negative comment on his work just an observation on my part on the contradictions from inside looking out, to outside looking in. The end result is definitely sequential view ports for the observer from within.
Rem Koolhass has some very interesting work. Recently he designed the Seattle's Central Library, I have not visited it yet (I live in Seattle, shame on me), and I watched it as it was erected. I am more impressed with his past work than the aesthetics of the library. This is subjective of course, but I find the structure and the glass support system heavy handed and the over all form intuitively at odds with my personal aesthetic preferences. That said, I think you are right in your assessment that he is a good practitioner of the use of forced view corridors and has some fantastic work celebrating modern construction and sincere design.
Ronchamp, I will go off topic here and comment on a certain genius I see with Le Corbusier in regards to this piece. I believe that there is a certain set of parameters that gives something a 'ness', there is dog'ness', a certain set of qualities that make every dog apparent that they are a dog, and it applies to almost all things. What is amazing about this church is that it looks like no other church really, but has the church'ness' qualities that make it apparent that it is a church. This ability to take the essence of something and create a new form encompassing those qualities yet having a unique appearance all it’s own is amazing to me and I see it as pure genius.
Taking your friends exercise on step further, wouldn't it be entertaining to create a project that as you viewed it from different angles it appeared to be a totally different form of architecture all together?
I will admit that I am more interested in the forced pathway and controlled view ports in relationship to the experience outside of the building. I know that we experience architecture more intimately from the inside, but there is something exciting to me about approaching and experiencing architecture from the outside, building up the anticipation to what lays within......
Old School! OK, I know a lot of architectural designers will scoff at relying on historic vocabularies, citing that we should be creating a fresh new language unfettering our shackles of the past and creating architecture for the new world order. Those of you who fall under that category can just move along, nothing to see here, this is for those of you who like to have some fun and don't take themselves to seriously or over intellectualize everything.
Note: I wrote this a few years back so some of the references to patterns in related industries are a little dated.
Tell Us More! I did my architectural thesis on abstracting and alluding to historical architecture, so the concept is of interest to me. I am also into vintage automobiles, so in a minute you will see how my sub-concious led me to this idea/concept.
Revelation #1: Lately the auto makers, particularly Chrysler, have been getting nostalgic and creating some great cars (IMHO). Currently everyone seems to be jumping on the old bandwagon and there will be a legends series to add to the Prowlers, PT Cruisers and T-birds.
Revelation #2: I finally got around to playing Diablo 2 and really got into the abstracted architecture the Blizzard people came up with. I thought hey this is cool, why can't real architecture follow along with what the game industry and the automotive industry is doing?
Eureka!
I will develop this design idea as an exercise that relates to multiple disciplines. A form of design inspiration to those who have a predisposition to the imagery I am referring to. I am not suggesting that we create architecture that looks like it came from a game, I am suggesting that we could reference historic architecture that we like and abstract it into contemporary building materials and construction techniques. Yes, I know Post Modernism and the 80's and 90's have come and gone, but I think they missed the boat to some extent. I think at times the profession abstracted for the sake of abstracting, or on the opposite end celebrated the complexities and contradictions in an exercise of academics.
Refinement of the Idea. I looked at what was done in the past such as the Neo-classical Radicals like Ledoux, John Nash's work on Regent's Street or even the Federalist style of John Russell Pope, with a flavoring of Mckim Mead & White and mixed them up with some Post Modernist like Grave's and Stern. I then referenced neo-classical and the Renaissance architecture to add flavor to my own ideas. What I found is that I have a fondness for the playfullness of the cemetary architecture of the renaissance and the design of mosoleum's. I saw an interesting mix of Classical and Egyptian architecture mixed in a playfull vocabulary that even seemed to have a hint of what we call Art Deco today. It seemed an interesting and unusual mix for the purposes it was intended for.
Where is this guy going with all this stuff he is all over the board without any apparent focus.
I think we don't need to be purist for this exercise and should find that which visually attracts us on an intuitve level, with all the above referenced inspiration, I think I can grab a wide variety of examples and run with them without being hindered by strong boundaries. This leads into the design challenge I have chosen as my first attempt at implementing the design idea.
Design Challenge:
Take your image (mental or otherwise) of what either Neo-classical, Egyptian, Aztec, Inca, Mayan or a mixture of some or all, and create an actual image/sketch of what that is. (I personally mocked up a tomb since the renaissance era had an amazing and eclectic collection of tombs/museleums with a lot of egyptian influence.) Now take that image and abstract it into an up to date architectural structure. (In my example I created a high-rise, but the building type is up to you.)
The goal is to create something that looks like it is being built today and current construction techniques and materials are encouraged. I really don't want to see an exact replica of the pyramids of Giza, I want to see something that has the flavor of ancient egypt developed into/throughout a state of the art facility! OR Something that would blow you away if you stumbled acrossed it within a game level.
This exercise is not as much about architecture as it is of abstracting something and making it your own. Have fun and if you have no interest in architecture, think of it as practice for game level design! This was just a first attempt at the exercise, I did not capture the essence of what I was after, but I had fun in pursuing it!
Conclusion: The whole idea is to have fun and apply it to some creative outlet, not to define a direction architecture should take, instead to allow the wonder of how we saw things as a youth or as we came across a fantastic scene in a game, take over and inspire us to create something different. In the world of day to day project management or construction administration, I found it fun to partake of a little guilty pleasure and grasp at that which made me want to do architecture in the first place, to allude to a picturesque wonder and try to capture my imagination.
