Main

March 30, 2008

Reading 16

innovation: As are many of our readings, this reading was about innovation. It is an important topic in the design world, obviously, and this reading was incredibly interesting in its propositions. To learn from nature about how better to live our lives is a stellar idea.

scientific: We don't get many readings about science in the architecture major. I think this writer did a great job making it interesting and entertaining, rather than a drag to read. It got me a little bit interested in biology, in addition to biomimicry. The way she used specific examples from nature to prove her point was very effective.

Questions: How do we go about using biomimicry at this point in our education? We learn a lot about sustainability, but we never actually learn how to design sustainably. Are there really set rules for sustainability, or is it pretty much about innovation and trial-and-error at this point?

March 10, 2008

Reading 15

anti-history: I have been in architectural history courses this whole year, and it always seems like the philosophers are either advocates of copying antiquity or totally against it. Saarinen can't stand the imitation of historical forms, which I think is a little sad.

single-minded: Saarinen just doesn't want to admit that anyone else could possibly be right in this matter. I think this hurts him, because I am such a huge enthusiast of historical archictecture. Argument-wise, he might lose his readers early on as he lost me.

Questions: Everyone is very single-minded when it comes to historical forms. Would it be possible to carve a niche stylistically by combining modern concepts with the classical forms of the past? Would he think that studying architectural history is a bad thing for students? Isn't that invaluable to our education?

Reading 15

anti-history: I have been in architectural history courses this whole year, and it always seems like the philosophers are either advocates of copying antiquity or totally against it. Saarinen can't stand the imitation of historical forms, which I think is a little sad.

single-minded: Saarinen just doesn't want to admit that anyone else could possibly be right in this matter. I think this hurts him, because I am such a huge enthusiast of historical archictecture. Argument-wise, he might lose his readers early on as he lost me.

Questions: Everyone is very single-minded when it comes to historical forms. Would it be possible to carve a niche stylistically by combining modern concepts with the classical forms of the past? Would he think that studying architectural history is a bad thing for students? Isn't that invaluable to our education?

March 3, 2008

Readings 12 and 13

Okay, here's my third try...

Reading 12

renderings: This piece discussed the difficulties in accurately rendering our architectural designs and concepts. In our 2D presentations, it is really hard to depict the essence of a building.

frustration: The author was endlessly frustrated with all the possible ways to render a design on paper. He decided there was no truly great way to depict our designs.

Questions: In the modern age, do computer programs such as Google Sketchup negate this issue? Shouldn't architecture schools spend more energy on bringing their students to famous buildings that they study?

Reading 13

environmentalism: This reading had a strong eco-friendly lean. It dealt with the ethical questions of nature and man-made nature. It discussed how our values must be totally re-evaluated if we want to change the impact we're having on the environment.

questioning: The reading asked us how much we should control nature in order to please ourselves. It ultimately decided it is a personal question and is subject to our values.

Questions: How much should we dominate or influence the environment? Where is the line between dominating and influencing? Is it worth it to have a pretty landscape?

February 24, 2008

Readings 9 and 10

Reading 9

Phenomena: This big theory was very appealing to me, at least the way it was explained and analyzed. It was a great Reductio ad Absurdum argument, which is the type of argument paper I am studying now. Ozayr’s lesson on phenomena seemed very relevant to this theory, where all experiences are interconnected in your “image? of the world. I loved it.

Webs: The way all was interconnected in this paper in this paper made me think of giant webs of intangible associations we make for all the tangible things we encounter. It was a nice way to think of our world.

Questions: How does this affect our thinking as designers? When have you encountered something that caused a fundamental change in your “image??

Reading 10

Over-analysis: While this reading does have its bits of wisdom, I felt like it sounded absurd at times. Obviously, we don’t exist purely because the sunset’s reflection needs someone to look at it. The over-analysis in this reading made it lose its credibility with me.

Questioning: The character in this piece, Mr. Palomar, questions his surroundings with insane detail. Personally, I’m glad I can just look around me and accept my surroundings. I would rather accept them and let them add to my “image,? as in the first reading.

Questions: The part about the topless girl at the beach was very interesting, even in its paranoia. Doesn’t this prove that you can’t remove the emotional meaning of an object and treat it apathetically? What is the value of trying to do this? This all proves Ozayr’s lesson on phenomena. Can a thing ever truly be disconnected from all its frameworks?

February 10, 2008

Reading 7 & 8

Reading 7

indistinction: This reading clarified the distinction between professional and academic architecture, then showed how they should really rely on each other. In the end, it asserted that it is most beneficial to combine the two and find a happy medium, or at least a happy intersection.

uncertainty: There is clearly a discrepency between the views of the different academics, as demonstrated by Julia Robinson's opposing views in this article. They can't seem to decide where academic architecture should fit in, and there is no clear answer.

Questions: Does side research enrich your education, or can too much of it burn out a potentially great designer? How much value should we place on research this early in our education? Are we equipped with the knowledge possible to gain new knowledge for the field?


Reading 8

encouragement: This was obviously written by someone who is very familiar with how design school works. As a probably survivor of it, the writer offered words of encouragement to a current design student. Most of it was sort of obvious, but it's not a bad thing to hear it again. Sometimes we forget how important it is to give it our all in school.

realism: This reading didn't glorify design school. It told us how it really is, and how hard we will have to work if we want to excel at it. Most academic architects admit that architecture school is demanding, but they rarely acknowledge all the extra work we will have to do if we want to be the best.

Questions: The reading doesn't account for those of us that have other academic priorities, say a minor in another subject. Will those other commitments be worth it in the end? Will they help/hurt us in architecture school? It also doesn't address having a personal life outside of design school. How much do they expect us to put into it? Won't we be better designers if we spend significant amounts of time outside of the design world?