Additional Blog Prompt
Read Architecture As Space by Bruno Zevi....draw out 5 key points (or questions that arise) from the reading and expand on them.
1) Are there better means for representing proposed architecture to the casual observer?
2) What role does the architect currently play in portraying work?
3) What is it about architecture which is so difficult to represent?
4) What falls beyond the 4th dimension?
5) If interior space is the protagonist of architecture, then what is our criteria for understanding it?
Prior to taking this class I have noticed that you can look at photos, floorplans, and models of a building, but they do not inform you about the quality of the space in an complete way. When proposing a new work, the architect uses a combination of the above representations along with his own description and imagination to portray his or her ideas. In a way, the architect both sees the future and designs it.
Some architects are begining to use virtual reality to preview and represent their work.
When I first heard of this I began to wonder if this is just another thing that will replace seeing a work firsthand, yet not suffice. I felt this way, until I read Architecture As Space.
The text proposes that time is the 4th Dimension in architecture, but this 4th dimesion "is sufficient to define the architectural volume. But the space itself-the essence of architecture-transcends the limits of four dimensions." The text then hints at what may be beyond the 4th dimension.
If I were to guess, my guess would be that what falls beyond the 4th dimension is the interaction each person has with a particular space. I feel that architecture is so difficult to represent and compare because each person experiences it so differently from the next person. This idea brings us back to virtual reality.
If you view what is beyond the 4th dimension in the way that I mentioned, then perhaps it is possible that virtual reality could come closer than past techniques which represent space. Virtual reality gives the viewer the opportunity to interact with space in a personal way that is not possible with photographs or blueprints.
The text touched on criteria for understanding the volume, but criteria for understanding space are still illusive. I feel this is because the criteria changes depending on the viewer.