The Idea of "Architecture"
The first article I managed to force myself through was by Neil Gershenfeld on the revolution of innovation that is sweeping our technologically focused country (the more and more we adapt to a computerized life). The article, "Fab", verbalizes the tools we are creating, why we are creating them, how it is being done technologically, and what we hope to accomplish because of it. I am completely intrigued by the idea that we create in the name of what we *want*, and not necessarily by need. I love that we can cross the boundary between being technologically challenged (as artists or the rest of us who have limited knowledge in the math and science area) in order to make inventions. I also like that our inspiration is personal--the best thing for you is created by you (for no one else can anticipate your needs better).
But really...this idea could hold the possibility for great things if you think about it; we have third world countries that we struggle to provide aid for...but what if we allowed them their own technologies to come up with innovations driven by their own needs? As Gershenfeld states in the article, "...the learning process was ddriven by the demand for, rather than supply of, knowledge." I also think about the pity of how impersonal mass produced objects are; what happend to the home-spun knit sweater that grandma used to make (but was not always the most popular item in the closet)? You think about the most expensive items of clothing, that are "engineered to fit your body type," which needless to say, isn't particularily true. Or perhaps like in Ozayr's lecture on Architecture and Technology when he mentioned the fight between grandma's home-made donuts and the Krispy Kreme empire. When you think about it, creativity is kind of like an economical process as well (with the supply and demand aspect).
The last article I read was by Louis Kahn, and frankly, I never thought I would reach the end of the article. Thick with intellectual jargon, I felt like I was wading through a pool of philosophy, fishing for random meaningful phrases. Titled "Silence and Sunlight", I found myself trying to imagine the architectural significance behind their definitions. Repeatedly, it is mentioned that silence is the feeling from which man's desire to express themselves. It's fascinating to think that profound thoughts belong to those that are not always the most vocal--what if we got more accomplished by trying to think through things more thoroughly, rather than trying to jump the gun right away? Have we lost the time and patience to think things through? It is possible, then, that architecture is the freedom of expression in the most physical form (hence, Kahn's definition of architecture as being an idea rather than something existent). Or at least, that being the idea he's trying to convey.
Light is then best depicted created by the structure--or the giver of all presences. It makes sense, when you think about it. We "see" objects because of the reflection of light. Without it, we would be in darkness. But even then, you wonder at how we can still see darkness with light all around (also known in layman's term, shadow). The shadows seem to belong to this concept of light as well, for they are cast as the spaces between lighted things. Yet again, architecture does not exist without the light illuminating it's presence; in darkness, what can we truly see? And is it there if it can't be proven? The notion sounds ridiculous...and really...I could be making this stuff up and pulling it out of the air...or I have just seriously overanalyzed the refraction of light on buildings. Or both. Have I seriously accomplished any original thoughts? Probably not beyond anything that hasn't been thought of before. I like the idea of being able to see as the "release of light," rather than the perception of the eyes. It seems a slightly more artistic definition.