Manifesto - Rejing

Architecture accommodates.

Maurice Merleau-Ponty:
"how would the painter or poet express anything other than his encounter with the world?"

it is the case for me.

Nurul's Manifesto on Architecture

Architecture in my mind should be adaptive, adaptive to the needs of users. It might not lie at the extreme end of the spectrum towards the user; however, it has to be close to it.

The very basic reason why we build architecture is because of the users need it in the first place. Therefore, it is important when we were designing, to think of the user in much detail. Otherwise, it could defeat the purpose of building it. One of a book title that recently has inspired me read ‘Design Like You Give a Damn’.

The Superficial by Javen

Architects are pretty much high-class whores. We can turn down projects the way they can turn down some clients, but we've both got to say yes to someone if we want to stay in business.

-Philip Johnson

At the end of the day it is the client who will decide on the design, not the architect. He who has the money, has the power. However, at this point in time while I am still a student, I have the power.

I title my manifesto as 'The Superficial' because I believe that architecture should be aesthetically pleasing. People judge buildings by the exterior appearance. If it looks good to the majority, it is considered to be good architecture. People don't judge by how well it functions as a building. They don't care about whatever thought process or theories that have been considered in designing a building. To me, architecture is superficial.

Function is the determinant of space. There are always requirements for functions. A meeting room in an office will require tables and chairs. A library will require shelves to contain books. However, I believe that function should never limit or determine the form.

Architecture and Michelle...

I admit myself to be architecturally naïve.

I am selfish in that architecture to me is none but a vehicle to understand humans and their demands.

I do not deserve architecture because what architecture provides I cannot return.

I have decided that architects are an intelligent but obsessive collection of professionals that are constantly imprisoned by their ideals.

I believe that the concept of architecture can be anything and everything.

I confess to mistreating architecture as merely a means to acceptance rather than a life-long friend.

I concede that my inspiration comes not from architecture itself but from the passion that manifested in my contemporaries.

I have come to accept that architecture has opened my eyes to the importance of epistemology but also cruelly gave me another set of panda eyes.

I think that the true essence of architecture will forever elude me.

Thoughts about architecture…(mami)

I think it will be a continuing question, and will be altered throughout the years…

These next few paragraphs are more scribbles of thoughts…The content may seem conflicting…

that may be why I do not currently have a clear vision on what it is or should be…

- Reflects/understanding culture and traditions…

- To ‘hint’:

an element to suggest,

to question, to surprise… to engage…

Ultimately somebody will inhabit and use what we design.

Architects in most cases cannot be present when it is occupied.

They cannot direct how these spaces ‘should’ be used.

Architecture merely creates a framework to stage ones activity; and to suggest how one may use it.

Then these suggestions should be engaging…playful…to provoke questioning and interpretation- creating chains of thought…

* The process in architecture

In the institutional world that currently cocoons me,

I have the luxury of putting energy to my interest of the process of architecture.

This may be a reflection of enjoying reading architect’s design statements/documents of the design process/stories behind the physically built form… That is not to say that I do not care about the output.

However the method and ‘concepts’ of a project is of great interest.

(an afterthought but this interest may have moulded from looking into archigram in 2nd year and taking set, series and suites in 4th year?)

Livino Cristiano's Manifesto_11 August 2009

MANIFESTO

-My architecture aims for SIMPLICITY and ELEGANCE.
-Be FUNCTIONAL, LOGICAL, PRACTICAL, and PLANNED for use.
-Meet the NEEDS and add the VALUE to make the WANTS they didn’t know.
-Evoke the SENSES – Make people FEEL something.
-Architecture includes/considers the PEOPLE who use the space and HOW.
-Consider CONSTRUCTION, but see NO LIMIT.
-Design for the SUSTAINABLE world we WANT, build it then so we HAVE it.
-The life lives on – Allow for LIFE value, MULTI-USE, NEW USE and LONG USE.
-EVERYTHING is POSSIBLE.

Position statement / Where I am now / Sharon

What differentiates 'architecture' from 'a building'?

Architecture asks questions beyond the initial conditions of the brief and it will

1. seek answers

2. seek to answer the question

Even though this process and the ‘answers’ may not be evidently reflected in the final outcome (in the eyes of the user). I appreciate and value the design process as much I do the outcome.

The initial question may come from the brief, from the site, from the social context, etc. From these initial questions the scope of enquiry then expands and in the process of attempting to address these questions (through research on precedents, on current trend, etc), the project itself is enriched and becomes meaningful and purposeful

Design is about making informed decisions.

What kind of questions do I ask in my design:

- from the brief : Is it what is required? Is it enough for what is required?

- from the site : what was there, what is there. Is there a context that I should address through my design – to inform what will be there

- how can my design be improved from the perspective of user sensitivity? (Not just the user of my building, but of adjacent neighbors too)

The parameters and priorities of my concerns fluctuate according to the project at stake. But as an ‘informed’ candidate of the profession I always endorse myself in adopting the responsibility of addressing public interests and concerns of urban issues.

Nevertheless, I am very liberal in the kinds of questions ‘architecture’ seeks to address. I.e. the questions I am concerned with I do not impose on others. Other designers may have completely different concerns than mine and the outcome may be anti-urban, unsustainable and completely unfeasible for the budget or inappropriate to the context but I will still consider them as architecture so long as they add to, or enable a platform of discussion in the discourse. This is the only conviction I have in judging the validity and value of a design. Whether it is good or bad or selfish design in my opinion does not discredit architecture for being ‘architecture’ and important.

Finally, from my last project, I learned that I like to identify the apparently paradoxical interests / conditions of my project. (This recognition comes with reflection in the later stage of my design process) Once I recognize it I like to emphasize and iterate it and by this point I don’t seek an answer but rather just want it to be apparent in my outcome, so that someone else would recognize my obsession and be as intrigued by the question(s).