Parametricism and Virtuality

Parametricism is pretty new style in architecture.  It arises not long ago, after post-fordism period, the period where everything is tailor-made, customized to fit everyone's need and preference.  Like post-fordism, parametricism offers customization, but even higher calibration by the aids of computerized softwares.  It features complex, free, organic forms that would be impossible to be made unless computer-generated.  The structures it offers are very attractive and interesting.

From my point of view, parametricism are not quite tangible yet.  Being new, there are only a few of parametric architectures nowadays.  Most of the style are being seen in digital forms, such as image renderings and 3d models.  It does show roughly what the building would look like, and a little of what the space feels like, but, I think, we need more.  It is still too virtual, and too much virtual, or in another word, simulation, can be misleading.  There is no prove that the real building could look exactly like in the simulation, because there really are a lot of restrictions in reality.
 To be fair, we could actually expect more of the style to come as it is being built, and it is no doubt that parametricism brings a whole new level in design and architecture to our world.

This is me and my friend, Sky, talking about various theories that we've learned in this semester, and discussing why people view things good or bad.

Objectifying Things

Object (n.) |ˈäbjəkt|: a material thing that can be seen and touched

Thing (n.) |THiNG|: an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being

From the meanings, we can see that the differences between object and thing is that objects are fundamentally everything we see and touchable, while things are objects, too, but the kinds that is lifeless.  Having no life, things can also affect and influence us humans in different ways.

We identify, define what is an object, what is a thing, and we give certain values to it.  Each thing has its own value in our mind, and we then use those things to, once again, define ourselves, making us unique, being apart from others, or blend in, get into the trends.  We say that hi-end gadgets like smartphones, expensive clothing, or sport cars makes us look richer, higher class, and more power, while, on the other hand, low-technologies or old cars would look lower status-wise.  In reality, those objects might not be much different from each other, but our values that we gave to them make we see it that way.

From my point of view, the theory on Things different from person to person, because it depends on perspectives.  What is extremely valuable for one guy could worth nothing for another one, and vise versa.  It depends, too, on cultures and social norms of people.  This theory is useful when designing because the perspective of people can shift when the design of objects are attractive, as we can see that this topic is seriously taken in the movie “Objectified”.

System on Deep Ecology

System means a set of things that connect to each other to form a network or a complex whole, while ecology deals with relationship of organisms and their surroundings.  So, in my opinion, systems on deep ecology is how you plan on ecological aspects of the architecture.  Eco-system does not work like a food chain where predators stay at the top and preys at the bottom, it works as interconnecting chains where each and every one of the organisms has its key role in the system, and if lacks even one of those, can affects the rest of the network.  So, planning a system of deep ecology requires everything to works well together, which in a lot of sense similar to the utopia theory, it is an ideal world where every parts of the system works.  

But it does not exist, yet.  Why?  Because right now things don't work that way.  The eco-system nowadays leans towards us humans.  Our buildings, technologies and innovations themselves cause disturbance to the whole system.  We made our existence too big that it shrinks others, thus unbalancing the system, turning it into a more dystopia.

Spaces or Places?

Normally, we would think that the word space and place are not different from one another.  When we use it in a sentence, the meaning is kind of the same, but it really is something different.  Even though they are close, we use it in a slightly distinct way.  From my point of view, space refers to physical aspects of this world.  The Earth is one big space that we are all in.  Spaces are more ambiguous and undefined.  On the other hand, place refers to a more psychological quality.  When we talk about a place, we already have some knowledge, some impressions, and some memories of that particular space.  Places are spaces, but not all spaces can be places.

Again, since this is a theory, it is according to one’s point of view.  A place for one person could be a space for another, because there is no attachment from that space towards the person.  Time can affect space/place concept, too, since users and environment change all the time.

The movie we watch in class, Powaqqatsi, is a great example of the concept.  First the movie showed different empty landscapes, and then people started to come in and live in those areas.  They build structures, inhabit in the area, doing various activities, so those originally spaces became places for these peoples.

Erotics of Theories

Most of us, by now, are familiar with the word erotics of architecture.  We have spent a whole semester exploring on the term.  Let us now recollect our thoughts a little bit.  Eroticism in architecture is an ephemeral phenomenon, which gives us feelings when we are exposed to it.  From my point of view, erotics could relate to most theories we have studied.

In phenomenology, the theory stimulated our strong emotional sense when we encounter the space.  It plays with experiences of the users in the same way as eroticism.  When we experience something, we got feelings towards it, and that feelings vary from person to person.  In simulation, the hyper reality state that we are in also gives us strong feelings.  It gives sense of something very real, yet it’s fake and we don’t know it.  Since erotics related to feelings, it is a personal experience, just like aesthetics, and the same as semiotics.

That said, erotics is more like an additional theory that we can play with, but we couldn’t use it alone.  It is really hard to tell what is the real meaning of erotics, but it is something that we could use to support our theory

Aesthetics and a cup of tea

aesthetics |esˈTHetiks| (n.): a set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty, esp. in art.

The term aesthetics refers to feeling beauty towards something.  Again, it is feeling so it varies from person to person.  What is super beautiful in one’s eyes might be super awful in others’.  However, some aesthetic qualities were taught to us, suggested to us, or embedded into our brains, because aesthetics can be like a trend. You may want to like something because it is what the mainstream like, or you like it because the majority of people do.  Like fashion, you might not like how you dress, but you dress like that anyway because that’s what other people like.  One of the examples of aesthetic trends is the TWG Tea Company.  This English brand once used the land conquered over by English colonization to grow tea leafs.  Back then everyone hated colonization.  It took away the defeated countries rights, freedom, and their territory.  Now, in the 21^st century, TWG comes back again, not as a conqueror, but as restaurants.  Lots of TWG branches opened in Southeast Asia recently.  This is also the act of colonization, but now everyone likes it, because it is a trend.  The aesthetics of being a high-class, sitting in a nicely decorated café and drinking an English tea, is now likable.

As for architecture, I think aesthetics is a very hard quality to play with.  Since perfect architecture does not exist, it is nearly impossible to please everyone’s eyes with just one design.  Of course, there are ‘international style’ that most of the people in the world agreed it looks neat, but not all of us like the so-called ‘glass box’.  From my point of view, a good architecture raises contradictions.  It gives different people questions that have a lot of answers.  As imperfect as it is, it still success in grabbing attentions and comments.

Profanity and Architecture

Profane \Pro*fane"\: To violate, as anything sacred; to treat with abuse,
        irreverence, obloquy, or contempt; to desecrate; to
        pollute; as, to profane the name of God; to profane the
        Scriptures, or the ordinance of God.
From the definition, 'profanity' is the act of disrespect to supremacy or divine figures, including religions , kings, and gods.  Claiming someone to be profane is quite serious, meaning that that someone must have done something highly inappropriate.
We were taught what is wrong and what is right since we were kids, but our teachings vary to from each culture to one another.  Thus, the view of profanity highly depends on cultures, so there are cases that someone are being profane unintentionally.
In Thailand we would never see someone draws a cartoon pictures on a banknote just like Americans do.  This is because Thais highly value the King, and making fun of His Majesty is highly profane.  On every Thai Baht banknote and every coin is a picture of the King, so even just stepping on it is already inappropriate.  We would also never see a house made to look like a temple, because temples are sacred and we should not play with its holiness.




Nevertheless, in my opinion, the concept of profanity does not go well with architecture.  If we build something and, by interacting with it, makes profanity, that architecture would be dull and boring.  From my perspective, an architecture would be more successful if it makes people interact with it by their feelings and interpretations.  That way there will be a lot of possibilities to play with the structure, making the building a whole lot more interesting.

Empty Spaces, Empty forms

From my understanding, ‘empty space’ and ‘empty form’ are not the same thing, but very closely related.  These terminologies are derived from a theory, so there are no exact meanings to them, depending on each person’s interpretation.

Empty space, from my point of view, refers more to the physical characteristic, like empty room, abandoned buildings, etc. this can be caused from many factors, such as restrictions made (like IIT Crown Hall that have a lot of confinement to the users), but the main reason, I think, is that its function ceased to exist.  Buildings that were designed using “form follows function” way almost always have a couple of specific uses.  If those uses disappear, the buildings usually cannot survive.  Examples are old factories that are abandoned due to the use of outsource in modern world.

Empty forms, again, from my point of view, refer to a more abstract field.  They are forms that have no specific use or function, but they were created to be ambiguous, leaving the usage open for users renditions. One of the examples would be the ‘Memorial to the murdered Jews of Europe’ by Peter Eisenman.  It is indeed built in memories to the Jews murdered during the World War II, but since its form is just clusters of rectangles in a big field, there are so many possibilities of what these forms can be

Nevertheless, empty spaces can be empty forms.  Looking back at those abandoned factories, many of them were reused and renovated, but not as functioning factories anymore, but as houses, shops, and condominiums.  In this case the user decided to look for the new function, new interpretation, of the existing structure and completely changed the use of it.

From my point of view, empty forms are a better design goal for us architects.  Since functions of architecture can change over time, designing an empty form is an interesting solution to make sure the architecture we design is built to last.