A few thoughts on an interesting post: a wide spectrum of
ideas many of which could give definition to aspects of
design. But specifically with regard to image and language,
I add my pinch of salt:
Architects have for centuries used drawings, speech, text
and physical models to represent their design intentions -
representations of physical structures and spatial
environments that are to be created with a specific purpose
or meaning in mind.
Only in a very wide sense can buildings be described as
'language'. They are more closely analagous to
'writing', where ideas are communicated via reproducible
signs, and which are widely distributable. However, the use
of
pictorial depiction to convey meaning precedes writing by
many centuries+ADs- most authorities agree that writing
systems began as pictures, using depictive icons in linear
arrays to convey a sequence of thoughts and words.
The inherent graphic/visual bias of architectural
representation can give rise to an aesthetic formalism in
image
making+ADs- it stems from the visual thinking employed by
architects in the cognitive manipulation of graphic elements
in creating representations of their building proposals.
In an age of image-consumerism these representations have
become the objects of design in themselves, with
iconographic references to the designer's and viewer's value
systems and life-styles. French sociologist Jean Baudrillard
has advanced the conclusion that the distinction between
representation and that which is represented in reality,
evolves to a stage of break down where the image bears no
relation to any reality outside of itself: the image is then
its own 'simulacrum'.
Where the representation of building-intentions is
composed as a design-object in itself, it is often the
architect's implicit assumption that building-design is
occurring nonetheless: if the image is well-designed, the
building will accordingly be well- designed. The role of tv,
films, digital media +ACY- +IBg-glossy' architectural
magazines in
portraying well lit, skillfully composed (and often
unpeopled) images reinforces a view among many architects,
students and designers in which +IBg-good' architecture is
visually successful architecture with a high rating in media
impact potential.
Other 'ways of the architect' I discern in your post, and
which have relevance to the design of 'real' buildings:
1.The physical manifestation of 'Platonic Ideal'+ADs- the
expression of abstract concept.
2.The analysis and assembly of functional parts and volumes.
3.The interconnectedness of buildings in a wider whole:
context, distributed design, collaborative design. This
implies that there is indeed reality outside of our
subjective selves.
I believe that these methods and approaches may also be
valid in the creation of architecture.
Michael Mullins
+AD4- .. that was my intention in my previous comparison
between
signs
+AD4- of an actual as juxtaposed with a virtual building..
what
is the
+AD4- difference/similarity between the two.. what
oppositions
create
+AD4- architectural tensions..
+AD4- what i propose is that the architectural
+ACo-sign+ACo-, today, is
more
+AD4- powerful than the actual +ACo-work+ACo- itself, or,
that the
prescient
+AD4- dimension of architecture is not based on its actual
space
but
+AD4- of the virtual, removed space. this is to propose that
a
great
+AD4- work of architecture is not one that is visited, but
one
which
+AD4- shows up as an iconic sign of the times in movies and
books as
+AD4- representative of great/real/true Architecture with a
capital A.
ideas many of which could give definition to aspects of
design. But specifically with regard to image and language,
I add my pinch of salt:
Architects have for centuries used drawings, speech, text
and physical models to represent their design intentions -
representations of physical structures and spatial
environments that are to be created with a specific purpose
or meaning in mind.
Only in a very wide sense can buildings be described as
'language'. They are more closely analagous to
'writing', where ideas are communicated via reproducible
signs, and which are widely distributable. However, the use
of
pictorial depiction to convey meaning precedes writing by
many centuries+ADs- most authorities agree that writing
systems began as pictures, using depictive icons in linear
arrays to convey a sequence of thoughts and words.
The inherent graphic/visual bias of architectural
representation can give rise to an aesthetic formalism in
image
making+ADs- it stems from the visual thinking employed by
architects in the cognitive manipulation of graphic elements
in creating representations of their building proposals.
In an age of image-consumerism these representations have
become the objects of design in themselves, with
iconographic references to the designer's and viewer's value
systems and life-styles. French sociologist Jean Baudrillard
has advanced the conclusion that the distinction between
representation and that which is represented in reality,
evolves to a stage of break down where the image bears no
relation to any reality outside of itself: the image is then
its own 'simulacrum'.
Where the representation of building-intentions is
composed as a design-object in itself, it is often the
architect's implicit assumption that building-design is
occurring nonetheless: if the image is well-designed, the
building will accordingly be well- designed. The role of tv,
films, digital media +ACY- +IBg-glossy' architectural
magazines in
portraying well lit, skillfully composed (and often
unpeopled) images reinforces a view among many architects,
students and designers in which +IBg-good' architecture is
visually successful architecture with a high rating in media
impact potential.
Other 'ways of the architect' I discern in your post, and
which have relevance to the design of 'real' buildings:
1.The physical manifestation of 'Platonic Ideal'+ADs- the
expression of abstract concept.
2.The analysis and assembly of functional parts and volumes.
3.The interconnectedness of buildings in a wider whole:
context, distributed design, collaborative design. This
implies that there is indeed reality outside of our
subjective selves.
I believe that these methods and approaches may also be
valid in the creation of architecture.
Michael Mullins
+AD4- .. that was my intention in my previous comparison
between
signs
+AD4- of an actual as juxtaposed with a virtual building..
what
is the
+AD4- difference/similarity between the two.. what
oppositions
create
+AD4- architectural tensions..
+AD4- what i propose is that the architectural
+ACo-sign+ACo-, today, is
more
+AD4- powerful than the actual +ACo-work+ACo- itself, or,
that the
prescient
+AD4- dimension of architecture is not based on its actual
space
but
+AD4- of the virtual, removed space. this is to propose that
a
great
+AD4- work of architecture is not one that is visited, but
one
which
+AD4- shows up as an iconic sign of the times in movies and
books as
+AD4- representative of great/real/true Architecture with a
capital A.