>what is first, [DUALITY in EXTREME]
(dichotomy?)
>what are first principles of architecture..? [the outside has to be
>different than the inside]
(is there still an outside-inside?)
>does architecture have any first (universal) principles.. [refrain]
(economy-efficiency-delight to...)
>what kind of architecture does.. [the great pyramid is an, if not the, prime
>example...there's not all that much architecture that is older except
>perhaps the ever evaporating igloo]
(extreme architecture - international space-station..?)
>[reading The Theory of Architecture by Paul-Alan Johnson] -- isn't Johnson
>more the editor? isn't his Theory of Architecture a "loose" albeit carefully
(well, it is an interesting book format. Johnson uses a technique
described in the introduction of grabbing quotes from many sources
regarding a wide range of architectural topics, then, looks into the
etymology of the keywords for the specific sections, giving a "trace"
of the word-concept in discourse, then, adds personal commentary. at
times the approach works, at times it is too much/not enough. but it
is worthwhile due to the scope of the book...)
>(his theory is that theory does not lead architectural practice,
>but that "Design-Talk" is the ultimate role of theory in relation
>to practice. that is, a critical discourse as theory-practice..) -- and
>please be specific here, i.e., provide some quotation(s)
'the main thesis of this book - that theory is a form of practice' p.35
'It is the main thesis of this book that if theory is construed as
design-talk it can be seen to permeate all architectural endeavor.
Theory's role in the practice of architecture has been thought to
~guide practice, but its effect has actually been to ~mediate the
day-to-day decisions of practice through discourse, either on the
broad leel of architectural media or the special dialogue that
occurs between designer and artifact. It mediates the practice
of architecture by intervening between a proposal or concept and
the history of all previous proposals and concepts, whether
fictional, unbuilt, or built. Design-talk has developed its
own language and has undergone stylistic changes in the manner
of its discourse, certain phrases, themes, and concepts finding
favor at one moment and being discarded the next. And it has
created its own mythos, the heros and villains of architecture,
the privelaged great architects and great works, the marked as
against the vast array of the unmarked." p.34
>does architecture value the pragmatics of theory/research in
>terms of Design-Talk? [i think architecture would definitely value
>Design-Talk, especially if the Design-Talk is well designed]
(my intution says that the Design-List is an example of Design-Talk,
a mediated architectural discourse between theory-practice)
>if I value the pragmatics of theory/design in terms of Design-Talk does that
>make me architecture?
(hah, sure. i wonder what the costumes for an architectural party
would be today- ? wearable computers with websites playing on a
screen hung around the neck? or, the ubiquitous architectural
fly-thru on VR goggles, engrossing the user while they trip
and bump into things in the actual room...)
(dichotomy?)
>what are first principles of architecture..? [the outside has to be
>different than the inside]
(is there still an outside-inside?)
>does architecture have any first (universal) principles.. [refrain]
(economy-efficiency-delight to...)
>what kind of architecture does.. [the great pyramid is an, if not the, prime
>example...there's not all that much architecture that is older except
>perhaps the ever evaporating igloo]
(extreme architecture - international space-station..?)
>[reading The Theory of Architecture by Paul-Alan Johnson] -- isn't Johnson
>more the editor? isn't his Theory of Architecture a "loose" albeit carefully
(well, it is an interesting book format. Johnson uses a technique
described in the introduction of grabbing quotes from many sources
regarding a wide range of architectural topics, then, looks into the
etymology of the keywords for the specific sections, giving a "trace"
of the word-concept in discourse, then, adds personal commentary. at
times the approach works, at times it is too much/not enough. but it
is worthwhile due to the scope of the book...)
>(his theory is that theory does not lead architectural practice,
>but that "Design-Talk" is the ultimate role of theory in relation
>to practice. that is, a critical discourse as theory-practice..) -- and
>please be specific here, i.e., provide some quotation(s)
'the main thesis of this book - that theory is a form of practice' p.35
'It is the main thesis of this book that if theory is construed as
design-talk it can be seen to permeate all architectural endeavor.
Theory's role in the practice of architecture has been thought to
~guide practice, but its effect has actually been to ~mediate the
day-to-day decisions of practice through discourse, either on the
broad leel of architectural media or the special dialogue that
occurs between designer and artifact. It mediates the practice
of architecture by intervening between a proposal or concept and
the history of all previous proposals and concepts, whether
fictional, unbuilt, or built. Design-talk has developed its
own language and has undergone stylistic changes in the manner
of its discourse, certain phrases, themes, and concepts finding
favor at one moment and being discarded the next. And it has
created its own mythos, the heros and villains of architecture,
the privelaged great architects and great works, the marked as
against the vast array of the unmarked." p.34
>does architecture value the pragmatics of theory/research in
>terms of Design-Talk? [i think architecture would definitely value
>Design-Talk, especially if the Design-Talk is well designed]
(my intution says that the Design-List is an example of Design-Talk,
a mediated architectural discourse between theory-practice)
>if I value the pragmatics of theory/design in terms of Design-Talk does that
>make me architecture?
(hah, sure. i wonder what the costumes for an architectural party
would be today- ? wearable computers with websites playing on a
screen hung around the neck? or, the ubiquitous architectural
fly-thru on VR goggles, engrossing the user while they trip
and bump into things in the actual room...)