AIR journal week 1

STUDIO AIR: REFLECTIVE JOURNAL KURTBALLENER - 541042

My name is Kurt Ballener and I am in my third year of Architecture at UniMelb.

I am studying architecture because I first thought that it was about drawing buildings that looked cool but as I learnt more about it, it became aware to me that it had a lot to do about the spatial interaction with how the person experiences a space and that architecture was a journey through this spatial story. I have since learned of the experiential aspect of design which has played a great role in what I believe architecture to express and represent – consider the human experience of the user, rather than stringently adhering to the aesthetic or functional.

As an architecture student, my philosophy is comprised of a few of the things I have learned and what I believe. Firstly, what I believe is that Architecture is a client-based profession and that although the architect may have his or her own opinion on particular matters, it is up to the client to decide the final details – as they’re the ones financing and utilising the building. Therefore, the expression of a built structure must embody both the client and the architect harmoniously in order to achieve true success. Secondly, although the aesthetic of a building may have great significance to both the client and the architect, it must also have a sense of regionalism which takes into consideration the environment in which it sits - for example, a building which is 80 storeys tall may not necessarily belong in a shanty town, unless its presence was a sign of expression (i.e. protesting the large corporations who benefit from exploiting the poor etc.). Finally, the experience of the building – both internal and external – should reflect or communicate a message to those experiencing it, thus enriching the experience and enforcing the design idea.

My experience with Digital Design is limited to Rhino and very simplistic Vray renders. I have been able to produce primitive AutoCAD drawings from Visual Communication last year, but none as extensive as the Grasshopper plug-in for Rhino 5. I have not been able to extensively express my philosophy through the available technology yet – through lack of skill and inexperience – but soon, I don’t give up too easy!

Other than architecture, I am a dancer – since the age of six. I find that where words and pictures cannot express, movement and dance can. For the last seven years I have been break dancing and it has lead to a further appreciation for architectural function – such as variable ventilation and functionality and versatility of space and structure. For example, using a warehouse for a studio or an organisation headquarters is a rather versatile function for an otherwise mundane building. Dancing has enabled me for acquire a more spatial awareness – space is considered usable to me if it can be danced on. Dancing is something that is free and can be shared by all, and like so, I believe that although the building and its intended function may not be shared to all, the building’s experience should be free for all to share – the feel of bluestone hard against the foot, or the solid resistance of a polished granite pillar solemnly standing firm in place. When these experiences can be shared by all, the building gives so much more to so a lot more people – which catalytically push for change or further expression to occur.

ARCHITECTURE AS A DISCUSSION OR A CONVERSATION. What does it say? What does this building or the idea behind this building say to you?

Earlier on in my own life, architecture was buildings, and big buildings and little buildings and house buildings and white buildings and shiny buildings and tall buildings.

Having studied it now, these buildings expressed different things and said different things. Corbusier’s Villa Savoye said that the hygiene and order of humanity and civilisation could be found through rigidity and structural succinctness – minimalistic perfection.

Architecture as a discourse is parallel to the ever-continued debate of “who are we really?” or “why do we exist?” the discussion of architecture expresses what people of that time, area, technological era etc. could say about what it was to live in that time, area, technological era etc. Their buildings and now theoretical discourse address our growing concerns for a city’s consumption rate and a city’s ability to adapt to technological advances and social situations and even, where relevant, experiential aspects of design.

ARCHIGRAM’s unbuilt publications of the Plug-in city and the Walking city describe through imagery the need for building an adaptable and interchangeable city ready for change and ready for adhering to the needs of the ever-advancing city.

One building that seems to sit ever so obtrusively within its given environment is none other than the Gehry Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. This museum utilises the capability of computer-aided design software to assist in its production, but in such a way so irresponsibly. Admittedly its existence sparked innovation and the further exploration of digital design; however, it feels as though it sits like a diamond atop ancient ruins – shining bright but not necessarily a part of the city itself. This is my own personal opinion though, and I do not deny how it fulfils its functional purpose of monumentality and grandiose gesture.