HI
> OOPS! Once, when I mentioned I didn't feel I needed a study for a certain
> project, a classmate challenged, "But what about your PROCESS?" as though
> it didn't exist without the model. I had to laugh as her comment indicated
> that she had been sucked into believing what she had been told.
>
> Any thoughts out there on the value of physical process?
>
> Mark (been away for awhile) Darrall
Some people rely on the translation of initial architectural impulse to
physical form, and the inevitable "accidents", to produce "new" forms.
Some people think by doing stuff with their hands.
What I have noticed is a desire (both instructors and students) for more
"product" (=by product of some espoused design process that can not see itself
as the result of a deeper design).
I do not think we are allowed to create as architects earlier this century
have. That would commit us to a singular vision/theoretical position too
readily, which is seen as undesirable by some in this age of slippage,
trickery and convolution.
Process hides the actual product. Doesn't Eisenman hint that the architecture
he has produced at times was the inevitable result of a process?
It divorces the creator from the creation. The creation is its own thing.
Mat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matiu Carr
School of Architecture Property and Planning
University of Auckland email: m.carr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
New Zealand WWW: http://archpropplan.auckland.ac.nz/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> OOPS! Once, when I mentioned I didn't feel I needed a study for a certain
> project, a classmate challenged, "But what about your PROCESS?" as though
> it didn't exist without the model. I had to laugh as her comment indicated
> that she had been sucked into believing what she had been told.
>
> Any thoughts out there on the value of physical process?
>
> Mark (been away for awhile) Darrall
Some people rely on the translation of initial architectural impulse to
physical form, and the inevitable "accidents", to produce "new" forms.
Some people think by doing stuff with their hands.
What I have noticed is a desire (both instructors and students) for more
"product" (=by product of some espoused design process that can not see itself
as the result of a deeper design).
I do not think we are allowed to create as architects earlier this century
have. That would commit us to a singular vision/theoretical position too
readily, which is seen as undesirable by some in this age of slippage,
trickery and convolution.
Process hides the actual product. Doesn't Eisenman hint that the architecture
he has produced at times was the inevitable result of a process?
It divorces the creator from the creation. The creation is its own thing.
Mat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matiu Carr
School of Architecture Property and Planning
University of Auckland email: m.carr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
New Zealand WWW: http://archpropplan.auckland.ac.nz/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------