On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:40:56 +0100, Ken Friedman <ken.friedman@xxxxx>
concerning the Subject: Paper architecture ... origins and uses of the
term, stated, in part, the following:
". . .Thus it is that I have no idea whether I originated the term "paper
architecture." If a citation of this term can be found predating
1968, then I definitely did not originate the term. . ."
In response, I would comment that at Berkeley in the 1960s, the term was
used to mean architecture that could not be built. I remember Joseph
Esherick using this term.
However, one might comment that most school architecture could not be
built, or, at least, it is never built. That is, the process of design for
applied design is mostly not achieved in any complete way in schools of
architecture. The one exception is the process of design for basic design,
where products can be built. Thus, it is in basic design that a sense of
the total process of design is sensed, and sometimes learned.
The implication of this is significant.
In school, the theoretical architecture is experienced. It could be
experienced more deeply by a broader involvement with the whole university
and the whole world. Rather, it is focused on existing notions of
architecture. A research basis for the development of new architectures
could be a much more interesting approach to basic design learning.
In practice, the application of theory may or may not occur. The emphasis
of applied design usually fails to reach into the depths of the formerly
theoretical basic design research, if it ever existed. There is both an
intellectual problem with that approach as well as an overriding commercial
interest in the business of architecture. Both stand in the way of success
in applied design.
concerning the Subject: Paper architecture ... origins and uses of the
term, stated, in part, the following:
". . .Thus it is that I have no idea whether I originated the term "paper
architecture." If a citation of this term can be found predating
1968, then I definitely did not originate the term. . ."
In response, I would comment that at Berkeley in the 1960s, the term was
used to mean architecture that could not be built. I remember Joseph
Esherick using this term.
However, one might comment that most school architecture could not be
built, or, at least, it is never built. That is, the process of design for
applied design is mostly not achieved in any complete way in schools of
architecture. The one exception is the process of design for basic design,
where products can be built. Thus, it is in basic design that a sense of
the total process of design is sensed, and sometimes learned.
The implication of this is significant.
In school, the theoretical architecture is experienced. It could be
experienced more deeply by a broader involvement with the whole university
and the whole world. Rather, it is focused on existing notions of
architecture. A research basis for the development of new architectures
could be a much more interesting approach to basic design learning.
In practice, the application of theory may or may not occur. The emphasis
of applied design usually fails to reach into the depths of the formerly
theoretical basic design research, if it ever existed. There is both an
intellectual problem with that approach as well as an overriding commercial
interest in the business of architecture. Both stand in the way of success
in applied design.