Sierra Rasberry

The quest for autonomy in architecture is a futile search. How can one expect to be completely autonomous when one has had a lifetime of external stimuli of influences exerted on us. Without even being completely conscious of our surroundings, we as humans are incapable to not have the things around us affect our taste, perceptions, opinions, or ideas. This reverts back to the age old debate of nature vs nurture (I'm in favor of a synthesis of the two). We are not born architects. We have to go to school to learn the practice of design. We study precedents, history, and contemporaries alike to develop ideas for our own designs. The only “autonomous” architecture would have to be designed by someone who has never spent time in or around architecture of any kind. Even if you took a someone who has never experienced any type of building, for example, a tribal native, that person has still some conception of what “shelter” means to them. If you asked them to design a building, they may make some kind of simple structure to keep the rain off.
     I believe this fruitless quest for autonomy is present in art as well. Originality does not equal autonomy. One can look at history and see that every movement in art is basically a reaction to a previous movement. One artist doesn't like the way things are going, they change their style, create a new trend, and voila—new art movement. Autonomy has to do with a certain sense of isolation. But how much?  The only true autonomous being was that first caveman that decided to take pigment to cave-wall and depict his surroundings. Can a person even conceive what art/architecture is if they have never been exposed to it?  It would be like trying to explain color to the blind. Although every society has an “artistic impulse” does a human being (as an individual) have a primal need to create? I agree in some sense, but it is with external influences that this is harnessed. Maybe one day a computer program can be created where all we have to do is tell it a program and it generates a building that meets all requirements regardless of outside influences. Even then, complete autonomy may not be achieved in this sense, depending upon the way the program is written. We are a social creature. Architecture is a social thing (it takes many people to create a building). All people are results of their culture, time, and place.       So complete autonomy can never be achieved, oh well... But what degree of autonomy is important? To some architects, not at all—others, it may be what they strive for in their practice every day. Becoming autonomous in some ways is to recreate not only the formal design, but reinvent the methodologies that govern how a design is generated. We analyzed a number of architects in class that were considered “autonomous.” Boulee, LeDoux, Schinkel, Loos, Kaufmann, Johnson, etc.. I found it very interesting that we also spoke on Robert Venturi's work. It is impossible to be a post-modernist and not utilize past works as a part of the design. So, is post-modernism autonomous? Even if it is a collection of “things” grabbed from the past, I see it as an autonomous way of thinking. Just like with most other ideas and theories studied in this class, I think it comes down to a synthesis. Balance is important. Complete autonomy may not necessarily create a good thing, but then again, we are taught to think independently in school—but with the help of precedents. We cannot allow to see only the precedent. We must learn to extrapolate knowledge from every aspect of our life (this is starting to remind me of the Rojkind lecture) in order to be a well-rounded, creative, and successful designer.

Starchitects: is this the ultimatedream? Where do I want to go in my career in architecture? 

A necessary evil? Is it an inevitable  result of globalization?

Are we (as architects) constantlystriving to create something truly original?

I have mixed feelings about theso-called “star” system in which architecture has evolved into inmy generation. Someone not formally educated in architecture wouldmost likely say that the works of major starchitects are impressiveand that I should some day want to strive to produce works like that.To those versed in the world of architecture, this system is somewhatlooked down upon. This could be due to many things. Starchitecture(for the most part) is primarily designed with the goal of producingan iconographic (signature) aesthetic. If form is the driving forceof design, many other factors (such as site, social, historicalcontexts, etc..) are disregarded. In Witold Rybcynski's The BilbaoEffect, he says, “greatarchitecture carries many messages, about society and individuals,about our values and our dreams. It should have more to say to usthan 'look at me'.”


The star system ispromoted by the media. Never has society been more connected thanright now. We live in a society of commodity and spectacle. Commoditypromotes desensitization and laziness. Television, radio, magazines,billboards, and the internet are constantly blasting us with “thenext big thing.” Rarely do we truly find satisfaction; this hastranslated and is exemplified with the star system. As unauthentic asthese architects may look, there is a lot of good that comes out ofbeing a starchitect. For one thing, architecture is promoted. Likethey say in Hollywood, any publicity is good publicity. Architectureis slowly starting to creep into the realm of “cool” and “hip;”what the intellectuals should strive to know more about. The funnything about it is that “cool” is often temporary. In my studioclass, I read an essay called How Architecture Stopped being the97-Pound Weakling and Became Cool by Sylvia Lavin. She statesthat “coolness is the product of a slippery relation between anobject, its use, its mode of production, and its mode of reception. Acool person can make an uncool object cool, but an uncool person mayor may not be cooled up by a cool object.” To become a “cool”starchitect, one must find the right fit of a project that not onlygets the attention of many, but be able to pull it off with just theright combination of innovation and spectacle. Coolness istimeliness; timelessness, on the other hand, is not always cool buttends to outlive most any trend. Hadid's fluid curves certainly havespectacular look (especially in photographs), but how is theexperience in person? Is it much like when you realize Santa Claus isjust another old fat guy in a big red suit? Architecture is createdto be experienced, lived, worked, and played in-- not viewed likeartwork.


I do believe thestar system will continue to live on—only because of the waysociety is fascinated to put things on a 90 second display. When yousee something flash across the news, do you have a full understand ofthe thing happening with that event? Probably not. Architecture is aworld of contradictions, and to most people, they do not care todelve into the things we are interested in talking about. Take theessay written by Anne Choi. Here is a pretty accurate description ofsomeone who honestly could care less about the things we do. It's notthat she's a bad person, she's just being brutally honest in herletter. Put yourself in her position, where you spend all of yourtime with a group of people, that only hang out with others that arelike them, speak their own jargon, and surround themselves with thatone thing. Sounds to me like a pretty intense clique. I understandwhere she is coming from, and the ignorance of people like her thatfuel the fire for the star system. For as long as people don't reallycare to delve into architecture for more than just its surface,people will always be fascinated with formal aesthetics, and nothingelse.

      “Whatever space and time mean, place and occasion mean more. 
      For space in the image of man is place, and time in the image of man is occasion.” 


       When reading the information on the CIAM and the transition and evolution to Team 10, it shows that the architects that were participating in this movement began to realize their mistakes of their absolute-like philosophies. In almost any architectural theory discussion, we have discussed extremes in order to better understand the ideas.  For example, Pruitt Igoe was an extreme in the sense that Modernism failed completely in order to provide basic living conditions for people, not just to provide a formal language. Another example was the movie that was discussed by Tati’s Playtime. I found it very interesting to think that the International style of Modernism was so far disconnected from humanity.  The relationship of the CIAM and Team 10 sounds pretty similar to the relationship between the structuralists and the post-structuralists.  The second could not exist without the first. Team 10 seems to realize the importance of finding balance with many things, not finding an absolute truth that should be applied to any building in any situation. 

“A large world in a small world. A house like a city. A city like a house. A home for children.”
      Aldo van Eyck’s children orphanage exemplifies his theories of architecture in practice, not just in words. It is easily seen the care that was taken to create articulate each space on many different levels-- the building,, the room, the area, the small moments.  He was able to articulate the “in-betweens” with finesse and care. He stressed that a house is not disconnected from the room, the room is not disconnected from other rooms, and that each of these things overlaps and transitions. It’s hard for me to remember that space is a continuum, not a series of singular units that I am able to move about. I walk from outside to inside…. The difference is my appreciation of space. Seeing the “homecoming” procession he designed really impressed me.  Overlapping areas of transition help create an atmosphere for each person that makes their way through the courtyard. Clearly, the in-between area is the most critical, so he celebrates it. 

I have had the opportunity to attend a few interesting local events in the last few weeks. They include the Miss Louisiana Tech Pageant, the 2011 Louisiana Agriculture Expo, and the lecture by architect Michel Rojkind. 

    The Miss Louisiana Tech Pageant was really interesting seeing the variety of talent of the women that were brave enough to make it to the stage.  When I was young, my mother put me in child pageants (I wasn't one of those kids that's forced into it by their crazy stage-mothers) and I can remember the impact that it had on me. It was definitely a positive experience. Also, my sister competed for the Miss Louisiana title when she was 19. Let me tell you, that is not something easy to do! (Jenny, if you're reading this, you know what I'm talking about) Being able to have complete confidence in yourself in front of so many people can be frightening to many.  Something as small as making the slightest mistake in the way you walk can hinder your chances of winning. Winning pageants is not just about looking good, or being really talented; it is about the total package and the confidence you have in yourself. I do believe this relates to architecture in many ways. During critique, the instructor is not only looking at just the design, or only how well your craft is on your model, the teacher is judging you a lot on how well your ideas are communicated. If you don't have complete confidence in your design (or don't appear to) that can affect your grade. Even in the real world, architects have to make their designs marketable to clients. The better a salesperson you are, the more attention your project will receive. Although, its not just about presentation, ultimately the content should be the most important factor in any project, but its easy to see that the presentation is a critical factor in the reception of your ideas.

      The second event I attended was the 2011 Louisiana Ag-Expo. I found out about this event through my sister. She was wanting to bring my nephew to go see the "miniature cows." My nephew is two-years-old and he seemed pretty excited to see all the animals. When we arrived, this place was packed! I had no idea what I was getting myself into. I must say, I grew up in a decent, mid-high income home in Monroe; its not the biggest city in the world, but its not what most would consider a "country" town. The Ag-Expo was the gathering place of just about every stereotypical "country farmer" type within a 200 mile radius. Its really incredible to witness such a sub-culture in my own area. These people spend their entire lives dedicated to the care and business of livestock and farming. I was so fascinated with people-watching in this environment. The outfits, accents, smells, and overall content of the conversations buzzing around me were so alien to me. After about 20 minutes of fighting the crowd to visit booth to booth, my boyfriend and I decided to go outside to see the livestock events happening...
    We found an area of bleachers that weren't too packed and took a seat to observe what was going on in front of us. I had never seen a "cattle-show" before this, so I had no preconceived notions of what should be happening. The most shocking thing about these cattle were the people that were handling them with such grace and strength; they were children. These kids ranged in age from 6-12 years old (both boys and girls). It was so impressive mainly due to the size and strength of the cattle. According to the couple sitting next to me, these cattle were called Brahmas, they range from 1,000-2,200 pounds. 

Here's a picture I took of a girl as she was leading her heifer to the show. One of the things I found interesting in how the cows are judged is that the more "feminine" and "beautiful" the heifer, the better she will score. Other positive characteristics of the females are length, balance, massing, structure, and color harmony. This to me started relating to architecture more and more. It shows that there seems to be a universal aesthetic that is transcendent into almost any realm. If you think about the Vitruvian ideals of order and proportion. Its amazing to see that genetics plays a part in your perception of beauty/health. A cow that is "beautiful" to judges is said to be a much better breeder and overall healthier animal than one that is not. Although beauty/attractiveness is usually thought of as a surface characteristic, it can be read as something much deeper and positive. If a building is beautiful, it may mean that it is structurally sound, or provides excellent circulation. Although you may not be aware of everything that is going on inside, the outside signifier of beauty is a mechanism that almost any creature develops to aid in our judgement of the world around us. 
     The third event I attended was the lecture of Michel Rojkind in Wyly Auditorium for the school of architecture. This lecture was one of the most refreshing and inspirational I have ever seen. His philosophy was so geared towards living life richly and bringing together human through architecture.  He abandoned most of the theories in which I have been studying in this class and based his designs more upon the contextual elements of each project. Mr. Rojkind was about to spend a few minutes with me to answer some questions for the website I helped create for Architectural Theory: Special Topics. (wespeakarchitecture.com). In his interview, he says how he does use a specific formula to develop his designs, but more focuses on the client to generate ideas. He said that does very intensive research for all aspects of the project before he even thinks to about what the design is going to look like. I loved how he was able to take his experiences outside of the world of architecture and abstract ideas for his designs. I agree with him when he said "you cannot isolate yourself from the world when you design, instead, embrace all of the things going on around you."  He's absolutely right. If we as architects only took other architecture as precedents, we would not be able to generate anything other than  reshuffling past works. I'm not saying that all inspiration should be derived from all non-architectural things, but you must be wise in how you approach each individual project. One of the hardest things I have found in designing is learning how to think on an experiential level, not just iconographic.  My critique in studio this morning with Mr. Caldwell consisted mostly of him reexplaining how you can't design things to "look like" or "represent" other things visually. It's about taking experiences you have had in your life, abstracting those ideas, and translating them into a formal language that achieves those same concepts.

      It seems that new movements in architecture have almost always been prompted by trying to fix the current “state” architecture is in. In the last 100 years, with the world technologically advancing all the time, and with the global network becoming more and more autonomous, there have been a number of architectural revolutions. One of the most well-known architectural movements was of the Modernists. Modernism was characterized by the simplification of form and creation of ornament from the structure and theme of the building [1]. The problem with modernism is that it disregarded social implications in order to promote pure forms. This downfall was most exemplified with the demolition of the Pruitt-Igoe building on March 16, 1972. This event is known as the “death of Modernism”. This building was destroyed because it had become a breeding ground for corruption and violence. As good the form may have been, it was designed with little or no regard for the people living within. In response to this event, structuralism was among many of the anti-modernist movements to gain recognition.




Structuralism does not have a signature style or formal qualities, but is more oriented as a system of thinking. Structuralism is similar to ways in which DNA control the form of the human body. If one piece of DNA is manipulated, that change creates a change with the system as a whole. It is concerned with the interrelationships of all parts to a whole. Particularly, the way in which a social system occurs on a daily basis in our lives. Humans sleep at night, they eat at certain intervals in the day, and move within their environment. For Structuralists, design is a process in searching for the relationship between elements. Structuralists are also interested in the social structures and mental processes that contributed to the design [2].

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.  - 

Before I started architecture school, I had this notion of the glamorous life an architect would live. I expected to have total creativity and power over the designs I developed, to honestly make a lot of money, and for school to be a lot of fun! (like arts and crafts on steroids)

Since then I have grown and developed my interpretation of what the reality of architecture has become to me. The denotation of architecture/architecture school/the practice of architecture is quite different to the connotation of these things to an actual architect versus someone not versed in the practice of architecture. From the time we are born, our minds are sponges that absorb the information and experiences that we are subjected to. No two people are exactly alike, (even twins live individual lives, though almost biologically identical) and therefore each person is entitled to their own opinions and interpretations of the signs and symbols around them.

Like Mr. Willoughby explained in class, something as simple as the function of a chair shouldn't have to be interpreted or contemplated over in order for you to understand “sit here”. On the other hand, a throne is still a chair, but sitting isn't the primary function. It represents “regalness” or “royalty” to whoever sits there. It is only through the associated symbols and signs that a throne portrays can one derive such meanings. A caveman would not know that the significant differences between a simple chair and a throne. Although he would be able to tell a difference between them, and most likely figure that its a the right height to sit upon, but since he would have no past cultural experiences, he would not know.

Over the Christmas break, I was commissioned to draw two portraits for a family. My goal as the artist is to portray the given images of the family as realistically and accurately as possible. If I took total artistic freedom with it and did whatever I felt like doing, I would not get paid. Although this is a technical skill (to be able to graphically portray someone through means of media accurately) I don't consider it very artistic. As I began to sketch out the faint outlines of the face, I noticed that I was drawing what features I liked best first. First the eyes, the mouth, the nose, etc... As I contemplated why I was doing this, it was because I had an association with these things. Because I have seen thousands of faces in my life, and because when I talk to someone, I usually am watching their eyes and mouth, I was subconsciously drawing what I knew best first. Now, my goal was to do the same job as a copy machine, but the difference between a copy machine and myself is that subjectively know what it is I am drawing and not just objectively. I stopped about halfway through the process of my sketch, and turned both my canvas and the image I was copying from upside down (a technique we used in Mr. Green's freehand drawing class). Although its the same exact image, it appeared completely different because my brain was no longer processing it as “face, eyes, nose”. It was now processing it as shapes, lines, and values—the way I should be processing it. This proved to be very helpful indeed.

If for some reason a person that had never seen a face before was asked to copy a photograph similar to the one I had to do, he may not have had the same dilemma I faced since he had no experiences with the human face to begin with. Although an architect may have an idea or concept that drives the design of a building, the only way for one to be able to derive those same ideas or concepts is to have had similar experiences that the architect had. Architects have to figure out what it is everyone can relate to and translate that into his/her own conceptual expression. When Louis Kahn says “In the end, the beginning must be felt” he really means to say “In the end you must feel what I felt in the beginning”--a cultural bridge of human experience. Take a show life Family Guy; most of the humor is based upon referencing recent events in American society. In one episode Stewie and Brian try to get discharged from the army. Their first idea is to display their homosexual interest in one-another—If this joke were presented two years ago, it wouldn't be socially acceptable, but since the lift on the “don't ask don't tell” policy, its now very public in the media. Through referencing such events in our culture, we are able to find common ground with one another.

Kahn-




Louis Kahn is known as one of the most influential architectural practitioner, theorist, and philosopher of the 20th century. He is highly revered by his peers, as well as by the general public for his “masterpieces” such as the Exeter Library, Dhaka Assembly Center in Bangladesh, The Salk Institute, and the Kimbell Art Museum. His style was one that did not fit a particular category, but he took the ideas and theories behind many important works and meshed them into his own unique brand.

Idea, light, geometry, materiality, and “monumentality” were his most important ideals when it came to designing. I found it interesting that instead of hard lining most of his drawings, he would take softer leads like charcoal and smear them to create deep shadows in his sketches and drawings. He was more concerned with the atmospheric qualities that light could have within the spaces he designed than the minute detail that thin lines showed.

He was trained in the Academy of Beaux Arts, and therefore was aware of the importance of the parti and centralizing idea and concept. His executed these profound ideas with organizing spaces with geometry. This can easily be seen with almost any of his major works. The plan for the Exeter Library is basically a square broken up into a smaller grid. As simple of this may sound, the spaces he created were fairly complex.

Neither a minimalist, a modernist, nor a classicist—he was in his own field, but utilized the lessons and ideals he learned from each of these things. He received a scholarship to travel to Rome for one year to study; this is where he would forever be changed. He was taken throughout the ancient ruins of Roman civilization. This is where his core belief was formed: ancient buildings have a monumental quality about them; monumentality is spirituality; this is achieved through using massive material (like stone) and designed with geometrical rigor. When he returned to his home, the modernist movement was beginning to take off. Le Corbusier, Mies Van der Rohe, and Walter Gropius had begun to make names for themselves for their new style. Kahn was very observant of what was going on in the world of architecture and began to synthesize his ideas of the Monumentality of the Roman ruins, and the ideas and constructions techniques of the new movement. Here is what Kahn says in his essay, “Monumentality”:

No architect can rebuild a cathedral of another epoch embodying the desires, the aspirations, the love and hate of the people whose heritage it became. Therefore the images we have before us of monumental structures of the past cannot live again with the same intensity and meaning. Their faithful duplication is unreconcilable. But we dare not discard the lessons these buildings teach for they have the common characteristics of greatness upon which the buildings of our future must, in one sense of another, rely. 

Architecture Lecture : went to check out Mr. Sean Coulter and his talk about the interesting projects that he worked on in and around the Las Vegas area. Neat stuff


Northeast Louisiana Celtic Festival: Got my dose of Irish folk tales and awesome music. Learned about leprechans. Hooray for green beer!


LaTech Alumnus of the Year Lecture: A U. S. ambassador-at-large Clint Williamson gave a killer lecture in GTM about his work with prosecuting war criminals. This dude was beasst. Secret Agent man!


Voodoofest in New Orleans: Ok, so this could be debatable as a "cultural" experience, but trust me... there was definitely plenty of culture, good food, and awesome music!

Evoke feelings and/or emotions within the human spirit. It should arouse the senses; to transport a person to that exact place in that exact moment. To “stop and smell the roses” is the phrase in which I like to begin:

Most of the time we are all too busy with our lives to give a moment to appreciate our surroundings. We work on "autopilot" all too often. Television, radio, cell phones, texting, friends, family, responsibility--do you allow yourself 30 minutes of silence a day to reflect on the things that are buzzing around you? Western culture has little appreciation for the values of focusing on the "here" and "now".

Great architecture, to me, is able to demand my attention in such a way that I am fixed in that space. Imagine if you walk into a cathedral such as the Winchester Cathedral in England. The close attention paid to the craft, the lighting, and the space generated from the design absolutely demands that you stop, take a breath, look down the central nave, and view the height—the delicate ornamentation, etc… That room grabs you by the throat and says “TAKE A MOMENT......................”

To create a series of these “moments” throughout the building would indeed make for an exquisite building. When you go to an art museum that’s filled with many pieces, many times you cannot give every single work of art the same amount of undivided attention—so you shut your brain off for a while and let your eyes take over. Your thoughts roam around meaninglessly until a spark—a particular piece of art captures your eye. You can’t help but find it intriguing. You may have found a common value with the artist that he/she put into their work. If you were to go to a gallery with many pieces of art that you found enjoyable, I’d imagine you would have some sense of enlightenment after leaving that particular museum. Architecture that is able to leave with you that same sense of enlightenment, in my opinion, is darn good architecture. This is not to say that I find certain styles more attractive than others, I feel that many types of architecture are able to do this—it is all in how the designer/artist/architect wants to transport the viewer.

There is a relationship between the architect and the person(s) experiencing the building made in good architecture. The architect has to put them self into the shoes of the person and think “what is this entrance like? What do I see? How does this make me feel?”  The person experiencing the building stops and says “What was the architect trying to achieve here? How and why did they create this entrance this way?” Through this disjointed communication, the glue that joins the viewer and the creator is the concept. Without concept, there is no foundation for spirit.  

The architect projects these future experiences and controls them through the concept. If a building’s concept is to “isolate” then the architect must know what isolation feels like firsthand—and recreate those feelings within that imaginary building that he/she forms.  Everything within the design should ultimately reference isolation in one way or another. This is the path in which everything in the design is governed. The function of a building is important, but function can be achieved in through infinitely variable ways.  There’s more than one way to skin a cat. Although there are “better” ways to accommodate functionality, I believe the feelings that a building generate are superior to merely the function.

  Good architects pay close attention to the exploration of materials, the craft, lighting and space--these things to me are what affect the spirit of a place more than anything else. When I begin designing a building, I first explore the site given.  Depending on the building type, client, and other important factors that play a role in the program I derive some sort of concept.  With the concept, I am able to begin explorations of forms, materials, and light. The more specialized the design becomes, the stronger the spirit becomes. Like I said before, a generic space that only accommodates the function has no spirit. I must put myself in the shoes of the client and derive the feelings and/or emotions that the building ensues within me.

Architecture should be poetry--it should create a desire for us to interpret it and relate to it in our own way.

Analysis of the site is the most important factor when beginning a design. It is not just the particular plot or site that the architect builds upon--the architect should take in ALL of the surroundings--the surrounding buildings (if there are any), and the communication of one building to another. One of the most irritating things I see just about everyday in my own town are individual parking lots down a road. Most small American towns have a main road or street that contains gas stations, fast food restaurants, and small businesses.  Have you ever noticed that if you need to go into the building beside the one you're at, you have to turn out onto a street into busy traffic, get into a turning lane and make your turn into the next parking lot. Wouldn't it be much easier if you could just drive right to it? Now, I'm not saying that every business should be like a mini mall with huge parking lots, but there should be a connection and communication between each building. It should accommodate a human being--not a consumer that owns 1 car and 2.5 children. There are social contexts in which to examine that are incredibly important that are very often overlooked in mainstream building design. Maybe this is due to the fact that there is a skewed system already in place and one individual does not have the power in which to change it by him/her-self. A good architect should want to create a good community, not just a good building.

Daniel Libeskind says in his lecture above: “architecture is not the language of words. It’s a language, but it’s not a language that can be reduced to programmatic notes that we can verbally write. Too many buildings that you see outside that are so banal tell a story, but the story is very short: it says ‘we have no story to tell you’”.  I feel that he hits the nail on the head with this. He is saying that there is a lack of spirit and expression in many buildings.  Why is architecture so hard to change? The revolution in art (from artist that did commissioned works only to support a salary versus artists that did works to express themselves and in-turn made a salary) happened over a century ago. We (as Americans) drive mostly new vehicles, have the latest technology, and adhere by the current fashion--but why are buildings still being designed now with the same notions as what we had 50 years ago?  Maybe since architecture is a permanent fixture in space, or that architecture has a much longer functional life than many other types of art...
And I digress— I would like for architecture to bring us out of the industrial ditch that we have dug ourselves into and to revert back to nature.  This brings me back to the theme of meditation and reflection.  My favorite time of the day is right when I crawl into bed and am able to stop and remind myself of everything that had happened to me throughout the day. It brings me together to a sense of wholeness. There are buildings that I feel achieve this same type of feeling.

An exquisite work of architecture, to me, is Peter Zumthor's Thermal Baths located in Graubünden, Switzerland. Zumthor was able to create spaces that communicated wonderfully with the site, he explored the importance of using earthly materials (such as the stone), the craft was executed very well (notice the connection between the wall and ceiling as to let light creep in), and viewed how human beings would interact in these spaces. He created rooms in which many people could bathe and enjoy the geothermal water, but he also created small pools in which 1 or 2 individuals could relax on their own. He paid close attention to craft, the lighting, the spaces, and most importantly—the spirit that the building was going to create.