- - The original note follows - -
Path: psuvm!news.ysu.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!
sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.ed
u!athena.mit.edu!tsuchiya
From: tsuchiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (N John Tsuchiya)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: Re: Revised Design
Date: 4 Oct 1993 05:27:12 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 33
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <28oc7g$n0a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <27vg5e$68v@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<gibsonf1CE1wvo.3px@xxxxxxxxxx> <1993Sep29.214911.20213@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: m66-080-4.mit.edu
I definitely agree with the rebuttals that Weston Blaney made to Fred Gibson's
posting.
But to add to this, I would like to say that the function of architecture
manifests itself as a form most often as what most people consider to be a
"building", but it is not limited to buildings. As for the definition of
"artificial environment," I'm not sure exactly how one would define an
"environment", except as everything around you? Anyway, by "artificial", I
was referring to its most basic meaning, which is "man-made." The point
of using "artificial environment" was to be really encompassing, but I think
that the definition was sufficient enough to filter out things that are
universally considered ludicrous.
By the way, I would like to emphasize that precisely speaking, the definition is
not a definition of architecture, but a definition of the FUNCTION of
architecture. Architecture, then, are the FORMS that result from this function.
Blaney also brought up the point about "art" being a separate tool for
designing.
I see art as being part of the broad "psychological" considerations, since isn't
that what art is really based upon? (i.e., how we perceive and react to
things?)
Blaney mentioned "history" being a design consideration as well. It is true
that
history is often used as a tool in design, but I feel that it is not
"axiomatic."
That is, it is not at all necessary, even though it is EXTREMELY useful. For
example, if someone builds a vernacular house somewhere, it is practically
entirely based upon previous experience by others in the past; however, all the
elements passed down through this form of history are forms of the three
previously mentioned tools. And... it's probably better "designed" than most
other buildings.
John Tsuchiya
Path: psuvm!news.ysu.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!
sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.ed
u!athena.mit.edu!tsuchiya
From: tsuchiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (N John Tsuchiya)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: Re: Revised Design
Date: 4 Oct 1993 05:27:12 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 33
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <28oc7g$n0a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <27vg5e$68v@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<gibsonf1CE1wvo.3px@xxxxxxxxxx> <1993Sep29.214911.20213@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: m66-080-4.mit.edu
I definitely agree with the rebuttals that Weston Blaney made to Fred Gibson's
posting.
But to add to this, I would like to say that the function of architecture
manifests itself as a form most often as what most people consider to be a
"building", but it is not limited to buildings. As for the definition of
"artificial environment," I'm not sure exactly how one would define an
"environment", except as everything around you? Anyway, by "artificial", I
was referring to its most basic meaning, which is "man-made." The point
of using "artificial environment" was to be really encompassing, but I think
that the definition was sufficient enough to filter out things that are
universally considered ludicrous.
By the way, I would like to emphasize that precisely speaking, the definition is
not a definition of architecture, but a definition of the FUNCTION of
architecture. Architecture, then, are the FORMS that result from this function.
Blaney also brought up the point about "art" being a separate tool for
designing.
I see art as being part of the broad "psychological" considerations, since isn't
that what art is really based upon? (i.e., how we perceive and react to
things?)
Blaney mentioned "history" being a design consideration as well. It is true
that
history is often used as a tool in design, but I feel that it is not
"axiomatic."
That is, it is not at all necessary, even though it is EXTREMELY useful. For
example, if someone builds a vernacular house somewhere, it is practically
entirely based upon previous experience by others in the past; however, all the
elements passed down through this form of history are forms of the three
previously mentioned tools. And... it's probably better "designed" than most
other buildings.
John Tsuchiya