the damage discussion continues. i realize this will sound strange, but the projects are slowly becoming more schematic and less abstract. this has actually increased my excitement about the project because it's allowed us to visualize our projects more architecturally, although i still have not figured out how to resolve it. i am hoping that at some point i will accept the fact that there is no right answer to this problem.
we have also been attempting to create our own program for the institute. this isn't programming in the traditional sense, but there is still some consideration of potential spatial relationships between different 'uses' within the institute, and even square footages. the difficulty is avoiding the trap of recreating a conventional art gallery. because we are inventing our own rules for the institute we must be completely aware of what each architectural and art-display gesture means.
at the moment (and it's likely this is the direction i am headed. mid-reviews are next week.) my institute will be an experiment with the density and organization of damaged art. while this was initially borne out of a desire to display the damaged art as a forensic study, i've begun to sense that the project will be more successful if i can conceive of a space(s) considerably more delirious and spatially complex than a display of forensic evidence. the notion of a "delirious" space has stuck with me, and this appears to be a good target to work towards.
ideally, as a spatial, organizational and programmatic experiment this would allow people to view the artwork in a different state, and by changing the density of the space as well as the distance between the fragments, the art would take on a different identity. this becomes even more exciting when one considers the implications of displaying objects that are either enormous or microscopic. are they contained or dispersed within the space? are they simply thrown on the floor? are they in ventilation system? mark is really encouraging me to think more experimentally about the display, which involves using a logic that has been largely absent from the design process that was taught at kansas state and adhered to in the professional world. this has been a tremendous challenge. what's more, i still need to decide how the architecture will respond to the display of the art, if it will at all.
[ arguments ]
this week we had a lively discussion of pavilions, focusing primarily on the barcelona pavilion, the melnikov pavilion, ps1, and SANAA conceptual installation for the barcelona pavilion. we considered the identity of the pavilion, what it means, and whether it is even necessary. because the pavilion is of a temporal nature, it allows the designer to take more risks and display advanced technologies that would otherwise be unknown. the idea is to both be a showcase and display something new. what's more the scale of the pavilion allows the designer to narrow their focus onto a very small idea or technology. it was also interesting to discuss the political implications of pavilions, and how they have effectively served as propaganda or a metaphor for the state that sponsored its construction. the pavilions we discussed seemed to fall into two categories; retrospective and prospective.
[ metropolis ]
this week we wrote the first draft of a paper that examines the argument in a specific building. i chose tschumi's Blue in the lower east side. i chose this building because of it's superficiality, as well as it's obvious response (or dismissal) of the context. his intent was deliberately simplistic - because the sky is blue, the building is blue, and because the neighborhood is vibrant is mixed and diverse the curtain must be pixelated. what's more, it strictly adhered to the zoning regulations and thus the shape and proportion is a direct result of these limitations.
this argument is two things; first, it's a new territory for tschumi because of the lack of theoretical basis, and second it's completely fascinating how earnestly he describes his process. still, the best part about this project is that by acknowledging the forces that shaped the building with complete honesty, the building manages to subvert that context entirely. hopefully i will have some more feedback from my TA about the draft soon, although i'm not sure if was successful in discovering a new argument within the building. i fear i may have stuck to closely to what tschumi's intent was.
[ digital craft ]
the digital craft project that was due this tuesday was to create several images that allow us to understand the details and assembly of a built or unbuilt project. i created a sectional perspective, an exploded axon of the building, and an axon that shows the assembly of the pivoting curtain wall system. i chose the utrecht university library by wiel arets.
we've started to learn grasshopper, which is both exciting and terrifying. it's a shame that i was dead-tired during the lecture, having stayed up until 6.30 finishing my digital craft project, because i want to understand this program. it's both useful and powerful, but is nevertheless still a tool.