Sunday, August 9, 2009
Yanchen's manifesto
Architecture, like painting and music, is a tool for communication and sometimes an abode of memories. it has the ability, as a tangible and emotive force, to convey feeling, meaning, and awareness.
An architectural space can evoke from us the same response as any good work of art. From the cutting edge architecture that is widely published and talked about, down to the everyday, successful practice architecture which is completed with satisfied clients, but little fanfare; from major buildings, to small houses; from iconic structures to the limited budget, limited scope projects, good architecture can serve well. It can make us feel happy, sad, relaxed, stressed , excited, nervous, powerful, or powerless.
Contemporary architecture's task is not only to create interesting forms, but to focus on architecture's fundamental role as a stimulus for human response.
An architectural space can evoke from us the same response as any good work of art. From the cutting edge architecture that is widely published and talked about, down to the everyday, successful practice architecture which is completed with satisfied clients, but little fanfare; from major buildings, to small houses; from iconic structures to the limited budget, limited scope projects, good architecture can serve well. It can make us feel happy, sad, relaxed, stressed , excited, nervous, powerful, or powerless.
Contemporary architecture's task is not only to create interesting forms, but to focus on architecture's fundamental role as a stimulus for human response.
A Typical Design Agenda by Sukhjit
An agenda for me is always an ideal situation. However, when it comes to Architecture, having an ideal to begin with is always a noble thing to do. Judging from the impact that it will eventually have on the environment and the greater public.
Ultimately, Architects are slaves to function. The site, program, economy, and especially bodies other than the architect's own, build up a kind of tension. This tension is either a positive or a negative one. A negative outcome would be that of risk and anxiety, which may result in an architecture that is not responsive to the brief, lacking any obvious principle of organization or not contributing to an urban context. A positive outcome is an object of play. Having a concept may be crucial to a successful outcome, however, it is not always necessary. Accidental experimentation could also yield a positive outcome.
The race for a positive outcome is always ongoing, especially in Architecture school. Moreover, it is set against a strict time line of events. My agenda is to create a socially viable public space that will sit comfortably within a greater urban context. A public library is a dramatic enclosure of knowledge dissemination, research and learning. Also, it is a community library, which will host public events and proceedings. A new generation library in a contemporary style, that its shape, might be formulated by accident, nevertheless, will represent this changing nature of library Architecture.
Ultimately, Architects are slaves to function. The site, program, economy, and especially bodies other than the architect's own, build up a kind of tension. This tension is either a positive or a negative one. A negative outcome would be that of risk and anxiety, which may result in an architecture that is not responsive to the brief, lacking any obvious principle of organization or not contributing to an urban context. A positive outcome is an object of play. Having a concept may be crucial to a successful outcome, however, it is not always necessary. Accidental experimentation could also yield a positive outcome.
The race for a positive outcome is always ongoing, especially in Architecture school. Moreover, it is set against a strict time line of events. My agenda is to create a socially viable public space that will sit comfortably within a greater urban context. A public library is a dramatic enclosure of knowledge dissemination, research and learning. Also, it is a community library, which will host public events and proceedings. A new generation library in a contemporary style, that its shape, might be formulated by accident, nevertheless, will represent this changing nature of library Architecture.
Max's Manifesto
architecture exists in the collective mind only as an accumulation of moments and situations. It extends its meaning beyond the limit of materiality and form by inevitably becoming a ritual.
when such rituals are practised repetitiously, certain meanings are carried forward to the future and upon a wider audience, hence become visible. This is the only meaningful way, I consider, for architecture to offer commentary to the society, the brief, or the client.
it should be noted that such commentaries are inevitably autobiographical on the one hand, projection of the framented ego (individual/collective; the lack of perfect coordination between theory and reality) onto a physical, consistent form (e.g. archi theory, the built object); and on the other hand, completely alienated from the original context as it becomes spreaded through simplification as symbols.
my vision of architecture is therefore a series of parts loosely bound together by a symbolic order, not so much as a statement (technical, social, formal.....) but more as dialectics, conversations that are artificially put on stage (ritualized?) and which are incapable of finding an end.
when such rituals are practised repetitiously, certain meanings are carried forward to the future and upon a wider audience, hence become visible. This is the only meaningful way, I consider, for architecture to offer commentary to the society, the brief, or the client.
it should be noted that such commentaries are inevitably autobiographical on the one hand, projection of the framented ego (individual/collective; the lack of perfect coordination between theory and reality) onto a physical, consistent form (e.g. archi theory, the built object); and on the other hand, completely alienated from the original context as it becomes spreaded through simplification as symbols.
my vision of architecture is therefore a series of parts loosely bound together by a symbolic order, not so much as a statement (technical, social, formal.....) but more as dialectics, conversations that are artificially put on stage (ritualized?) and which are incapable of finding an end.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Shuk's manifesto at this point in time
I believe that architecture is part of the natural order, it is the result of a need created by humans – like how animals would create burrows. I think organic architectural forms serve better to remind people that architecture is part of this order. Consequently design would be almost like a link between humans and nature; part of that invisible force that links everyone, everything, every element in the world together. I suppose that is why existing contextual influences will always affect any new elements I bring into a site - to attempt to turn the new elements into an evolved form of the context.
I think that materials should be utilised in a way that is both structural and for aesthetic purposes because it seems to become a waste of materials to have one separated for structure alone and one for looks, why not show the structure? To strive for this in design is my aim in order to explore and attain a better understanding of the material – to see if I can find potential further uses.
I think an empty space utilized properly is important the immaterialness of the space can enhance the other spaces around; it is a break from any complexities in the design bombarding a person. I like creating spaces where people can stand still for a while and it would be wonderful if they could feel a temporal personalization of that space around them. I feel that the experience of the spaces is more important than the actual overall look of the building – though aesthetics generally would contribute to that experience as it builds a certain expectation of a space even before entry, once inside how usable a space is would be more important. Eg – a building could have a great concept which has walls running at 50° angles rather than at right angles and it looks great from the outside. But for the users within that form who are constantly looking at 50° angle the experience goes from being unique and interesting to perhaps dizzying.
Most of the time people won’t experience a building the same way as the designer does because they are different people. They would not know the same information as the designer so even when it is explained why something is done the way it is, no one else can fully understand and experience it the exact same way. It is not a bad thing, just simply different. You can never control how someone feels about a space because we are all different. So I feel that if I am happy with the building I’ve designed, even if no one else really sees it the way I do, it’s alright (unless it harms people or something that represents a repression of people’s rights). If other people like my design for whatever their own reasons, I’ll be happy enough. They can just enjoy it and I would be able to enjoy it knowing why it is I enjoy it.
I’ll probably never come up with the ultimately perfect design because I think how I see my designs will constantly change as I change but I guess that process of design development and taking an idea as far as I can bring it is where the fun is.
I think that materials should be utilised in a way that is both structural and for aesthetic purposes because it seems to become a waste of materials to have one separated for structure alone and one for looks, why not show the structure? To strive for this in design is my aim in order to explore and attain a better understanding of the material – to see if I can find potential further uses.
I think an empty space utilized properly is important the immaterialness of the space can enhance the other spaces around; it is a break from any complexities in the design bombarding a person. I like creating spaces where people can stand still for a while and it would be wonderful if they could feel a temporal personalization of that space around them. I feel that the experience of the spaces is more important than the actual overall look of the building – though aesthetics generally would contribute to that experience as it builds a certain expectation of a space even before entry, once inside how usable a space is would be more important. Eg – a building could have a great concept which has walls running at 50° angles rather than at right angles and it looks great from the outside. But for the users within that form who are constantly looking at 50° angle the experience goes from being unique and interesting to perhaps dizzying.
Most of the time people won’t experience a building the same way as the designer does because they are different people. They would not know the same information as the designer so even when it is explained why something is done the way it is, no one else can fully understand and experience it the exact same way. It is not a bad thing, just simply different. You can never control how someone feels about a space because we are all different. So I feel that if I am happy with the building I’ve designed, even if no one else really sees it the way I do, it’s alright (unless it harms people or something that represents a repression of people’s rights). If other people like my design for whatever their own reasons, I’ll be happy enough. They can just enjoy it and I would be able to enjoy it knowing why it is I enjoy it.
I’ll probably never come up with the ultimately perfect design because I think how I see my designs will constantly change as I change but I guess that process of design development and taking an idea as far as I can bring it is where the fun is.
A Design Manifesto by Sindy
An architecture for people rather than one for architects and critics.
It should not be a thing of fashion that are merely artifacts on the latest covers of glossy architectural magazines.
A responsible and responsive architecture which engages in most if not all of human senses thus transforming from a singular dimension approach to multi dimensions.
It should not be a form making exercise whereby architecture is reduced to a sculpture. The responsibility of an architect is to serve not only the basic need of shelter but create a place whereby it enables the possibilities yet unforeseen as opposed to adherence to a strict set of rules to create the perfect image.
Architecture should be about people and not dead objects - the material things which makes up the physical aspect of architecture are only means to an end and not the end itself. One may choose to express the qualities of wood not because of the qualities in themselves but of what effect it will have on the people experiencing the architecture.
From taking such a stand point - it is hoped that the resultant architecture is not only functional/aesthetically pleasing/cost effective etc. but ultimately allows the flourishing of the better qualities that resides within each of us. It should make us smile if not happy in the least.
Therefore I propose a happy architecture.
It should not be a thing of fashion that are merely artifacts on the latest covers of glossy architectural magazines.
A responsible and responsive architecture which engages in most if not all of human senses thus transforming from a singular dimension approach to multi dimensions.
It should not be a form making exercise whereby architecture is reduced to a sculpture. The responsibility of an architect is to serve not only the basic need of shelter but create a place whereby it enables the possibilities yet unforeseen as opposed to adherence to a strict set of rules to create the perfect image.
Architecture should be about people and not dead objects - the material things which makes up the physical aspect of architecture are only means to an end and not the end itself. One may choose to express the qualities of wood not because of the qualities in themselves but of what effect it will have on the people experiencing the architecture.
From taking such a stand point - it is hoped that the resultant architecture is not only functional/aesthetically pleasing/cost effective etc. but ultimately allows the flourishing of the better qualities that resides within each of us. It should make us smile if not happy in the least.
Therefore I propose a happy architecture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)