It is my duty as a student of architecture to not only define these four elements of designing for my architectural theory class, but to continue to develop and refine these things throughout my professional career. To keep things simple, I have first found a few generic definitions via Oxford English Dictionary...
Concept
Etymology: Chiefly < Latin concept-um (a thing) conceived, from past participle of Latin concip-ĕre to conceive v.; the participle had also the sense ‘formal, in set form’; in late medieval Latin the n. had the sense ‘draft or abstract’, whence 16th cent. French concept, German concept: see sense 3. In some early uses it was a refashioning of conceit n. (conceipt) after Latin.
a. A thought, idea
b. Disposition, frame of mind;
c. Imagination, fancy;
d. Opinion;
Diagram -
Etymology: < French diagramme, or < Latin diagramma, Greek διάγραμμα that which is marked out by lines, a geometrical figure, written list, register, the gamut or scale in music, < διαγράϕειν to mark out by lines, draw, draw out, write in a register, < δια- through + γράϕειν to write
1. Geom. A figure composed of lines, serving to illustrate a definition or statement, or to aid in the proof of a proposition. 2. An illustrative figure which, without representing the exact appearance of an object, gives an outline or general scheme of it, so as to exhibit the shape and relations of its various parts. 4a. A set of lines, marks, or tracings which represent symbolically the course or results of any action or process, or the variations which characterize it; e.g. the intensity of action or quality, the rise and fall of temperature or pressure, of the death-rate, rate of emigration, rate of exchange, the derivation and mutual relation of languages, etc.4b. A delineation used to symbolize related abstract propositions or mental processes.
Parti -
Oxford English Dictionary contained no submissions for the word parti/parti pris/prendre parti. A quick google of “parti” led me to wikipedia as the only means of defining in the context of architecture:
A Parti or Parti pris [1] / from the French Prendre parti meaning " to make a decision " [2], often referred to as the big idea [3] , is the chief organizing thought or decision behind an architect's design presented in the form of a basic diagram and / or a simple statement.[4]
Context -
Etymology: < Latin contextus (u-stem) connection, < participial stem of contexĕre to weave together, connect (see above). Compare modern Frenchcontexte (in Cotgrave)
1. The weaving together of words and sentences; construction of speech, literary composition. Obs.2. The connected structure of a writing or composition; a continuous text or composition with parts duly connected. Obs. 3. The connection or coherence between the parts of a discourse. Obs.
4a. concr. The whole structure of a connected passage regarded in its bearing upon any of the parts which constitute it; the parts which immediately precede or follow any particular passage or ‘text’ and determine its meaning.
In defining these terms, I do this in no specific order, just as they came to me. I will continue to expound upon each item in my own words in this order.
Conceptual thinking is something that must be learned. I do not believe it is an biological trait found within human beings to be able to form complex ideas that bridge one area of thought to another to make analogies, references, etc. Imagination is the release of constrictive thoughts so as to let ideas run “wild” in a sense, and in order to conceptualize, one must have imagination. A concept itself is more than a wild idea, it is structured in a sense to relate things. When one says that a “fish” is their concept, they do not make a fish in their design, but they abstract the metaphysical elements that make up what “fish” means to them personally. So, concept is contained within the mind and is limited to the designer's own experiences. With Frank Gehry's impression of fishes, he experienced seeing a fish swim in his bathtub when he was a child and was mesmerized by its shape and movement. He was able to translate some of the conceptual elements into physical architecture. This example, however, is one of many ways to execute the use concept with architecture.
I believe it is good practice to render a strong concept before the design begins to take form. Since it is contained and limited to the mind, conceptualizing can become a driving force of form (like in the example above), but we (as designers) are not always lucky enough to form a strong concept from the beginning. Many designers' concept may just to execute the form effectively (for the client, budget, program, etc...). Post conceptualizing can often times prove to be a bad thing within the design process. You might be able to design beautiful or interesting forms, but without the concept (unless form is your ONLY base for concept, like Eisenman's work) there is no conviction and explanation you can give to why you did the things you did. Sometimes (I've had this experience a number of times during projects in school) your original concept evolves or changes completely is the design process. When I first receive my objective (the program, square footage, site, etc..) my mind begins to race with new ideas on how these things can be achieved. As I begin to make connections from my own experiences, I try to find that driving force to be the core of my project. If I'm able to formulate a strong concept, I begin to find ways in which form can best exemplify and portray my thoughts. The only problem with this is the idea is quite literally “idealized” and found within a perfect world in my mind. It is not until I put pen to paper and really start to work out the technicalities that come with creating buildings (such as structural integrity, site analysis, weather, circulation, etc...) that I begin to run into problems. Yesterday I was listening to Professor Caldwell talk about the dangers of renderings. He was saying that a person can make an incredibly beautiful and “glamorous” rendering of a building, but the actual physical building may look completely different. It's not until you see the telephone poles, the homeless people walking around, surrounding structures, etc.., that you realize its not all it was hoped to be. I think of this in the same way that concepts may begin in one's mind, but having those same ideas realized in the finished work is quite a challenge.
The next topic is diagram. This, to me, is very much related to concept (and the rest of the topics for that matter) in a way that its found within the mind and bridges ideas together. Although a diagram is a physical thing, its meaning is based upon signs and symbols to relate ideas. So, with one's experiences with the symbols, one will interpret the relationships a diagram represents individually.
As stated above, a diagram is illustrative, representational, and abstracted—as simplified this might be, it still can convey extremely complex thoughts and relationships. Diagrams can be made in many ways. Common diagrams (used in almost any subject) include graphs, tree diagrams, flow charts, Venn diagrams, pie charts, scatter plots, etc.. For architecture, many times it can be any one of these things, hybrids of many, or its own unique design. Concept can be illustrated with a diagram, but a diagram itself is merely a tool for communication. A concept itself is more dynamic in the sense that it drives the diagram. Just like you can create two different looking buildings with the same concept, you can create different diagrams that convey the same information. Diagramming is an essential tool in the formation of architecture and architectural theory because it compresses a lot of information in an easy to read illustration.
Partí and diagram are both similar to me, but contain many differences as well. Both of these things are illustrative, representational, and abstracted. They both also reinforce and exemplify the concept. The way parti and concept are alike is that they both can be created pre-, during, or post-design; although it's still better to create the parti from the beginning. The difference between a parti and a diagram is that the parti is more for formulation rather than explanation. The first requirement with many architecture projects is to create a number of partis. This can be a sketch, drawing, model, animation, or almost anything graphic to convey your idea. The parti is much more concerned with formal qualities than the concept. A parti allows the designer to work out different ideas like mass, tectonics, transparency, entrance, public vs private, placement, materiality, etc.. Even though these things are formal, they may still act like a diagram in the way they convey information and ideas and reinforce the concept.
The last subject is context. This is much like the “umbrella” of the design. Its there from the beginning and lasts until the end of the design (or if its built, it lives as long as the building does!). Its the thing that covers everything and controls how all parts fit together. The context of a night club is quite different in the context of a library, and even if many parameters of the program were the same (same site, square footage, number of rooms, etc...) the way in which the design is executed would be different. Its more challenging for me to put a generic architectural explanation and definition on context. Maybe because it is more a state of being rather than a thing. Context is quite similar to the site in that is an absolute (unless you want to be like Mies van der Rohe's project for the Chicago convention center where site is disregarded and flattened out) and rarely changes completely. The context of building something in Arizona would be different in Northern Canada considering the differences in the weather. Context is the anchor of the project and (should be) the same with anyone that design's with said project. Its not like a concept in how it changes from person to person. Context is the the mesh of massive amounts of information the form a state of being. The context is found also in the diagram and parti. Even if its not evident, it has control over everything in the project. Take for example a crime like theft. A man steals someone's car. Normally, this would result in punishment, the context has to be taken into account. A man steals someone's car in order to get his sick wife to the hospital before she collapses. The context of this situation has evolved from a man doing harm to a man doing good. It is human nature to use contextual processing as a way to find meaning in things everyday. Each situation is different just like each project is different. There are motives behind the way a designer creates. Although the design is affected and guided by a context, architecture itself generates a new context. Without architecture, we would not have the context of urban versus rural.
To sum things up, concept is a force—diagram is a communicative formula—parti is a simplified expression and explanation—and context is the situation. All of these things work together in the design process. Each is unique, but also related to one another. -
RSS Feed