A Palimpsestic World

Perhaps I am missing the point of this blog entirely, but the way I took it was that I was supposed to look for graphic design ideas to use in my final project/presentation. Honestly, I can’t. If I see too many other designs, I will subconsciously use them in almost exact form, thinking I created something cool and original, only to happen upon the inspiration and think, "Oh, well that’s disappointing (and possibly illegal)." I realize that knowledge can always be gained from reviewing others’ art, but I have already seen a lot of graphic design (edited my high school newspaper and yearbook), and feel competent using graphic design software in an original way. In studying others’ buildings, it would be almost impossible to recycle ideas too much if attention is paid to form, site, and program. Ideas can be adapted to new projects, but still will evolve more. Graphic design, however, could be too closely copied, and since I value my originality (and value others’ originality), I would not want to copy someone else’s work. I realize, looking at my blog, that it is not the best laid out, but that is because I do not know how to get it to look that way, despite hours and hours of searching. Graphic design software, unlike blogging software, I know how to manipulate fairly well, and would like to do using the project to inspire the design, rather than being inspired to design by design. Well, this is how I feel on the topic, and know that, despite the fact that it is 5 AM (spent a lot of time thinking about how to best say this in a non-offensive manner), this is not a cop-out. If necessary, I will re-do this blog, but I really do not think that would be overly beneficial to the final project. For someone who has never worked with this stuff before, it is a good idea, but believe me, summer yearbook camp (which is about as fun as it sounds...) and newspaper seminars give some pretty intensive training. This is not at all because I am opposed to blogging (note that I have posted many non-required blogs), but that I just do not agree with the focus of this. I suppose I have said that already, but I really do mean it to be not offensive...

Posted by cour0097 at 04:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Reading 15

Search for Form

By Eliel Saarinen

Potential-All form has the potential to be beautiful. However, it often gets buried in superfluous artistic detailing. This does not mean, though, that form should follow function without adherence to art. What Saarinen says is that art and form should have meaning.

Organic Order-According to Saarinen, humans lost their connection to nature as they got higher up into the "fine arts," and that beauty and meaning only come from nature (and not in exact replication). The beauty of nature, he says, is in how things relate to each other and are proportioined. If nature and intuition are inspiration, form and function will be cohesive and beautiful.

Do you agree with Saarinen’s views on subconscious, conscious, and self-conscious art, or are these categories too mutually exclusive? Why?

Give an example of beauty in natural order, and how it can be applied to architecture.

Posted by cour0097 at 04:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Reading 12

“Architecture as Space”

By Bruno Zevi

Space

“Space is the protagonist of architecture,” states Zevi.He speaks of it in terms of dimensions, particularly 3^rd and 4^th.However, he says that the number of dimensions is really infinite, which brings me to the next keyword…

Interaction

People moving about the space and seeing it from different perspectives is closer to the true essence of architecture.However, the most important is the human interaction with the architecture, separating architecture from other forms of art.

How, in your opinion, can architects better represent space in their plans?

What do you think of adapting video game software to architectural uses to show movement through spaces?(maybe this has already been done…)

Reading 13

“Nature and the idea of a man-made world”

By Norman Crowe

Nature

What is nature?I think this question is essential to the piece.I like that it gives examples of the author’s ideas, but leaves room for interpretation.

Values

The way one culture values a place can often be far different from the way another culture does.This can cause conflict in the way each culture uses the land.Before building damaging properties, I think it is important to check the cultural significance.

What planes have you created (i.e.-how do you mentally envision certain environments where you reside)?

Give a good and a bad example of man relating with nature, and explain each.

Posted by cour0097 at 10:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think this picture says it all.

Ok, originally I did wish I would have gotten it on a clearer day, but after viewing it more, I decided that the misty bleakness adds to the intensity of the juxtaposition. How is it that two areas, so close together, can be so different? I mean, not only are the demographics of the population vastly disparate, but how about the buildings? I wonder how the built environment has affected these almost completely different populations...

Let’s start with the easy one first (a.k.a, the one where I fit)...

U of M (West Bank in particular):

demographics

• students (generally late teens to mid-twenties, if grad students are included)


• majority middle class or higher--as a whole, have at least moderate drive to do well


• some lower-income--typically above-average drive to do well


• not overly high crime rate


• on West Bank, three main groups

Business Majors-not typically well-liked by most non-business majors (I think it is because they will probably be making the most money)

Fine Arts Majors-Theater majors as a whole party a lot, when they are seen (Usually in rehearsal or going out--little sleep, I’d assume), while music majors tend to be far more quiet and reserved (I do not tend to see a lot of art or dance majors, so I cannot really comment on those)

Honor Students-some of these fit into the other categories as well, but there are basically two types--those who are in honors because they are smart and study a lot, rarely partying or procrastinating, and those who are in honors because they are smart, and because things come easily, party and procrastinate a moderate amount (procrastinate in particular). Most people do not fit completely in one or the other, but usually at least tend towards one side (and, let’s face it--demographics is a stylized form of stereotyping, anyway).

built environment

• relatively new buildings, since the West Bank is the newer part of campus
  
• pretty classy-looking (take, for example, Carlson)
  
• either brick or concrete
  
• subtle colors
  
• set up to be conducive to the arts
  
• flowers in neat, round, pots
  
• neatly encircled trees
  
• nicely clipped grass
  
• well-lit at night
  
• moderately high-density housing

Cedar-Riverside (crackstacks, in particular)

demographics

• almost solely poor immigrants


• little higher education


• very high crime rate


• the crackstacks got their name somehow...

built environment

• gaudy-colored buildings


• not well-lit


• very high-density housing


• not very nice landscaping (really not much landscaping at all)


• many older buildings


• "crackstacks" are newer--original idea was to have many different income levels, but it slowly moved to being almost all low-income, high crime housing

It hardly seems like these areas could be so close in space, but so far away in feel. I guess that goes with the whole idea of phenomena--and the built environment that supports it. The campus is designed to feel safe and foster leaning, while Cedar-Riverside, aside from having some cool music venues, has some buildings designed as afterthoughts, and some that just were not kept up the way they should be. Plus, I just do not think that the original idea of the crackstacks (I know, that is not their real name, but I bet far more people know this one), which was to have people of all income levels living in such high density can work in this society. People who have a lot of money can afford safer, nicer housing in areas with other rich people who desire safe, nice housing, so the idea that they would choose to live in basically the same conditions as the desperately poor does not seem very realistic to me. I guess this works in some European cities, but I just do not think it fits American ideals. However, if the built environment better supported safety, perhaps the richer would more voluntarily come, possibly bringing more stability (and property tax) to the area. Just a thought...

Posted by cour0097 at 08:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)