Autonomous Architecture

I first want to start with the definition of architecture:

au-ton-o-my.  noun, plural  1. independence or freedom; as of the will of one's actions.

Christopher Wood tells us in "Why Autonomy?" that "The vision on autonomous architecture descends from the early Romanistic idea that life itself may be thought of as a work of art and shaped accordingly to aesthetic principles."  He then goes on to discuss that artists of the time then began to attempt to teach the non-artists how to live according to their beliefs.  They did this mostly through their buildings rather than paintings and sculpture, leading to an epic failure in the field of architecture.  Failures of autonomous architects will be seen and discussed later in this blog.    
 "Autonomy should not be understood as involving architecture's separation from the social or the political.  Rather, autonomy becomes a way of locating architecture's potential both for development and for criticality.." ("Passing Through Deconstruction", 40).  Architecture seems to be a field that changes as said society changes; we begin to change our building strategies and designs according to what clients begin to wish for, what technological advances we have, and what the general public sees as successful architecture.  What is trying to be accomplished in autonomous architecture is the separation from this norm and expectancy that is dictated by the people who keep architecture alive, clients and the public.
     In "Passing Through Deconstruction" by Andrew Benjamin, we are given the definition of autonomy as:  "the condition in which architectural meaning exists solely in the object."  This quote was given by none other Peter Eisenman.  From examples, we know that Peter Eisenman may be the forefront of autonomous architecture.

Aside from being the typical ass, Peter Eisenman has formed his own style of autonomous architecture.  Eisenman is notorious for having a lack of concern for his clients and designing buildings that he wants to design.  How he has become a successful architect is a wonder in my eyes because he shows no concern for anyone; he's selfish and conceited.  As we know, many of his 'works', in fact, don't even work!  It is Eisenman's lack of concern that begins to describe his autonomous style of work.  Peter Eisenman works "on the will of one's actions", his own.


The Wexner Center for the Arts is thought to be a failure of a building by the majority of our professors; however, it is a perfect example of Eisenman showing his efforts to be autonomous in the field.  The Wexner Center has many flaws that seem to be a lack of concern for function, and a result of Eisenman's personal desire to be himself.  The staircase that ends at a window and the column that doesn't even make it to the ground are two major flaws of the design.  How you can seem to screw up a design that bad is mind-boggling.


  


House VI, is yet another work of Eisenman's that doesn't seem to function or even make any sense.  It is another building of his that is hard to be functional while inhabiting it.  In House VI, Eisenman creates a staircase with no handrail, a column that erects through the kitchen table, and a glass piece in the bedroom that prevents any better larger than a double bed to fit.

Although I have singled Peter Eisenman for his built work, I feel obliged to say that I do respect Eisenman as an architect, but only because of his understanding of the field and his efforts that have been put forth in the theory world of architecture.

I want to conclude by saying that I believe autonomous architecture is a great thing.  It is a great way to approach your works, because who wants to be like everyone else?  I feel that autonomous architecture allows individuality of each architect to separate him/herself from the norms of society and venture off on their own path of design.

Radicals

 

The radical architecture period is the period referred to as the neo avant-garde works of the late 1960s-1970s.  The leading group of radicals at the forefront of this movement was Archigram.  What Archigram was doing was unheard of for the field of architecture.  What they were doing was rethinking the entire field of architecture and they were stretching the boundaries of everything that architecture was at this point in history.  Whether or not you like or agree with what the radicals put forth as architecture, you must admire their efforts for looking at the field unlike all others.  The uniqueness of this group is what catches my eye and makes me at least look at their work because, quite frankly, I'm not fond of their works, but still admire them for being unique.

One project that I do despise is "Walking City".  I do not find "Walking City" to be an attractive work of architecture at any scale.  I do not see how this idea could possibly be functional at all either; however, going back to what I stated earlier:  I do have a level of respect for the ideas brought forth because it wasn't normal to the times.  I feel that people tend to accept what is normal too often and allow what others are doing to dictate what they will do as well.  What is exciting is that architecture is not a defined form or concept, but can be an endless amount of things.  The people that go beyond the norms of society are the ones who begin to change the profession in a new direction.  This isn't the case 100% of the times as seen here because the radicals quickly faded out, but there are some movements that started out as "radical" for the times, but were adopted by society as a new norm.

Out of our readings on the radical architects of the 60s and 70s, I most liked the project by Superstudio called HIDDEN ARCHITECTURE.  I find this project to be really mysterious and sketchy all at once.  What Superstudio has done here is create an anxiety the people that read and follow their architecture.  I personally really wanted to know what project this was that was concealed in their box.  The anxiety that I have about this project is the fact that there is no telling what the project actually is, but it makes nosey people like me want to know even more.  

STEP ON EM ...BEFORE THEY STEP ON YOU!!

In my manifesto I have taken an anti-star system approach where I have used a propaganda method used by the British Army combatant corps.  The original propaganda slogan was urging men 30-50 to join the corps and defeat the Nazis.  Propaganda such as this was common in these times to coerce someone to make certain decisions.  

So my manifesto is as follows:
     ARCHITECTURE IS IN A DIRE NEED TO RESTORE THE BASIC FUNDAMENTALS OF DESIGN BACK INTO ITS MAIN FOCUS, BUILDINGS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO FUNCTION WITH SOME REGARD TO THE AESTHETIC EFFECT .  THE STARCHITECTS ARE RUINING THE FIELD Of ARCHITECTURE BY THEIR DESIGN METHODS THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED IN THE RECENT PAST.  WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IS ESTABLISHING A SIMILAR APPEALING SIGNATURE THAT IS PRACTICALLY SEEN IN MULTIPLE PROJECTS BY THE SAME ARCHITECT.  THESE ARCHITECTS ARE BEING HIRED BASED MORE ON DESIGN APPEAL AND SHOWING NO THOUGHT AS TO CONTEXT.  THE REASON FOR THIS IS BECAUSE ARCHITECTS ARE BECOMING FAMOUS FOR WHO THEY ARE AND CLIENTS BELIEVE THAT HIRING A CERTAIN ARCHITECT WILL GIVE THEIR BUILDING MORE VALUE.  IN THIS ESSENCE, STARCHITECTS ARE BECOMING A MORE WIDELY KNOWN PUBLIC IMAGE RATHER THAN A RESPECTED  ARCHITECT.  WITH THE FORTUNE AND FAME CAN YOU BLAME THEM?  HOWEVER, WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IN THE FUTURE IF WE CONTINUE DOWN THE CURRENT PATH IS A MEANINGLESS ARCHITECTURE THAT CANNOT BE ADMIRED AS TRUE ARCHITECTURE.  WHAT WE ARE SEEING AS A RESULT OF ALLOWING OUR PROFESSION TO VENTURE DOWN THIS ROAD IS LESS IMPORTANCE OF FUNDAMENTALS OF ARCHITECTURE SUCH AS THAT OF CONCEPT, DIAGRAM, PARTI, AND CONTEXT.   WHAT SEEMS TO BE OCCURRING IS ARCHITECTURE THAT HAS NO MEANING.  

AS FOR ME AND MY FUTURE IN ARCHITECTURE, I WILL CONTINUE TO DESIGN ACCORDING TO CONCEPT, DIAGRAM, PARTI, AND CONTEXT.  I FEEL THAT THIS IS WHAT ARCHITECTURE’S ROOTS ORIGINATED FROM AND I FEEL THAT IT IS THE RESPECTFUL WAY TO TREAT THE APPROACH TO DESIGN.  I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE STAR SYSTEM MAINLY BECAUSE IT IS QUICKLY RUINING THE VALUE OF ARCHITECTURE.  
   DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE!!

Team X

This week's readings were all about the studies and ideas that were brought to the table by Team X (mostly known as Team 10).  The past few weeks have been very difficult reads, and very difficult to blog about but I am still trying to wrap my mind around what we are trying to learn here from the works and ideas that we are studying from the CIAM and Team X.

The following is a description of what Team X's goals are and why they initially chose to start meeting.
Aim of Team 10 has been described as follows:
Team 10 is a group of architects who have sought each other out because each has found the help of the others necessary to the development and understanding of their own individual work. But it is more than that.
They came together in the first place, certainly because of mutual realization of the inadequacies of the processes of architectural thought which they had inherited from the modern movement as a whole, but more important, each sensed that the other had already found same way towards a new beginning.
This new beginning, and the long build-up that followed, has been concerned with inducing, as it were, into the bloodstream of the architect an understanding and feeling for the patterns, the aspirations, the artefacts, the tools, the modes of transportation and communications of present-day society, so that he can as a natural thing build towards that society's realization-of-itself.
In this sense Team 10 is Utopian, but Utopian about the present. Thus their aim is not to theorize but to build, for only through con-struction can a Utopia of the present be realized.
For them 'to build' has a special meaning in that the architect's responsibility towards the individual or groups he builds for, and towards the cohesion and convenience of the collective structure to which they belong, is taken as being an absolute responsibility. No abstract Master Plan stands between him and what he has to do, only the 'human facts' and the logistics of the situation.
To accept such responsibility where none is trying to direct others to perform acts which his control techniques cannot encompass. requires the invention of a working-together-technique where each pays attention to the other and to the whole insofar as he is able.
Team 10 is of the opinion that only in such a way may meaningful groupings of buildings come into being, where each building is a live thing and a natural extension of the others. Together they will make places where a man can realize what he wishes to be.
Team 10 would like to develop their thought processes and language of building to a point where a collective demonstration (perhaps a little self-conscious) could be made at a scale which would be really effective in terms of the modes of life and the structure of a community.
It must be said that this point is still some way oft.

The first thing that I want to discuss is a quote from Kenneth Frampton's Team 10 Book Review.  I am very interested in the thought from the following passage that comes after some talk from Frampton in response to Van Eyck's question:  "how an architect can build a counter-form to a society without form.."  What Frampton has here is another quote in regards to Van Eyck but this one is from Alison and Peter Smithson:

"The social structure of which the town planner has to give form is not only different but much more complex than ever before.  The various public services make the family more and more independent of actual physical contact with the rest of the community and turned in on itself.  Such factors would seem to make incomprehensible the continued acceptance of forms of dwellings and their means of access which differ very little from those which satisfied the social reformer's dream before the first world war."

This passage brings out a lot of truths about today's society and what is accepted still today when we talk about social environments and the way we access our public spaces.  As Lamb even included in today's discussion he talked about the article which he read about how Generation X does not accept most of the buildings that have been left to us.  This leaves us with a lot of unused/unwanted buildings.  I find truth in this as well because we are on a direction of contemporary architectural style in our designs today so what we have left from the modernist/post-modernist and structuralists generation are no longer accepted or wanted.  

So back to the idea of today's civic organization and how we access it, I am reminded of Kenzo Tange's A Plan for Tokyo: Toward a Structural Reorganization.  Kenzo Tange talks about his attempts to restructure and reorganize Tokyo because at the rate of growth the city faces, they must adapt and change their ways of circulation and the ways in which they access the public spaces in the city.  I feel that we have, in fact, become more independent on the physical contact of with the rest of our communities and I blame this problem on technology.  I feel that we as a civilization and as humans have over complicated our lives through technology and I firmly believe that technology will be the ultimate demise of our species.  I love to daydream on the days of the late 19th century and early 20th century where it was required to interact socially and it was necessary to physically make something happen because we have completely lost that aspect in our lives.  I feel that we will only continue to get worse and as we do this we will yet again look at our situation and have to restructure and reorganize our cities and our transportation methods just as Kenzo Tange was working on for Tokyo.

This link is to a video of Kenzo Tange's firm and a building done in Tokyo.  I like this mainly because they briefly talk about methods that are required for today's building.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHU_zVM968s 

Structuralism

To begin, I wish to quote my fellow classmate, Chrissy Short: "There seems to be many thoughts on the idea of structuralism and not one clear definition."


I completely agree with Chrissy and that there doesn't seem to be one solid idea about structuralism, the thoughts on structuralism seem to be blurred.  I do like the definition presented in the readings: "Structuralism is a way of looking at the world that focuses on the recognition of permanent structure and the relationships between them." What seems to be confusing as well while reading about structuralism is the difference in what is thought to be structuralism and post-structuralism; however, in reading through our selected essays, I find a recurring statement that signifies the difference between these two.  I conclude from the readings that post-structuralism in merely the opposite of structuralism and its main focus is that anything in design goes. "The architect is no longer responsible to his or her audience...people can respond to however they wish." is the quoted words that I see fit to best describe this period. 


As a student, I really want to express my dislike for the structuralist/post-structuralist studies.  Furthermore, I am a student at Louisiana Tech where we seem to be a more theoretically-based institution that focuses more on conceptual design than pure functional and perhaps even "green" buildings.  With this being said, I firmly believe that concept is the driving force behind a building and it molds what a building becomes.  I believe that concept is mandatory in architecture and without it a building is meaningless, regardless of its beauty.  What structuralism seemed to do was ignore all existence of a concept and all of its inhabitants.   Structuralists seemed to be only worried about how to make a building strong and ever-lasting.  Thinking of what the structuralists did in regards to design is embarrassing to the field of architecture.  Buildings require structure that is planned to last forever, but why ignore all concept and the experience of inhabitants?


Even though I do not agree with the structuralists' practices and design methods, I do believe that structuralism is mandatory for us to review and study.  I believe that buildings should be designed with the intentions of being ever-lasting as structuralists tried to accomplish, but I believe that once you begin to focus on how to make a building last forever while still being directed by a concept you begin to make a sound project.  Once again, without concept I feel a building is meaningless. 


 I view the building below (the Pompidou Center) as a building that focuses on structure, but contains a concept and helps focus on the inhabitants simultaneously.  This building is considered a high-tech design, but it shows small characteristics of structuralist architecture, with how much concern is shown in the structure of the building.

                                                                                    
   

Michel Rojkind Lecture

Last Tuesday, Mexican architect, Michel Rojkind, gave us our first lecture for the new 2011 year.  This lecture was an incredible start to the new year!  Michel is a very extraordinary architect, and in his own ways.  What intrigued me about his style of work wasn't even the work itself but the way that Michel accomplished his projects.



Take the Nestle museum for example.  Michel wanted the job for the walk around the Nestle factory, but was given only two and a half months to complete the project.  So what did Rojkind do?  He moved his firm to the site and hired staff to work 24 hour shifts for the full two and a half months.  This was just one of his projects that he went to an extreme to complete.  I admired Michel for his efforts for a project, even though it wasn't that large of one.




I absolutely love that Michel Rojkind is thinking outside of the box and finding out new ways to accomplish projects and design projects that most architects aren't doing.  Michel made a comment along the lines of: "People are always sitting around waiting for someone to make a move so that they can follow that move.  I want to be the guy is who making the move and others are following."  I know that's not word for word, but similar to what he said.  This may be the one quote that any architect has ever said that I wish I could be like. Michel is the guy who people laugh at because he has these big dreams and big ideas that seem impossible to reach; however, what separates Rojkind from others is his desire and passion to actually accomplish them.  He goes above and beyond others to make sure that these things happen.  This is what makes Rojkind an amazing architect and one that I will always look to for inspiration.

Workshop 1

CONCEPT- I believe a concept to be the solution the designer uses to solve his problem.  It is the underlying, driving force behind a project. When fronted with a project, you have a problem that is to be solved, and the concept is this solution.  The concept of a project also helps dictate form and materials used throughout the project.

DIAGRAM-The diagram is formed once one solidifies a concept; it is a visual picture of a system.  The diagram is used to show relationships in spaces and their forms.  A diagram shows progress as well.  The diagram can show things important to a design like circulation, hierarchy, repetition, symmetry, etc.  

PARTI- A parti show hierarchy that is formed while formulating diagrams.  It is usually one solid line that is seen throughout the entire plan.  The parti can be a solid, noticeable wall that even turns into a void that is noticeable as well.  In one project of my own, for example, there was one line that showed hierarchy, and this wall separated the two main spaces, but where the was ended, there was a skylight that continued in plan.  Where the parti hit the exterior wall, it continues as a retaining wall for a small garden area outside.  In section, this parti served as a wall, a skylight, and a small retaining wall.

I still feel strongly toward creating a video that allows us to integrate animations of how to formulate concepts, diagrams, and partis.  Along with animations, we would be able to integrate recorded interviews of professors, and even other architects and their belief of our words.  To top off  all the possibilities with a video, we would be able to integrate music that would lead to inspire the students, as that is what music is great for.