NOTATIONS Luisa Martinez
SUMMER 2012 - SPRING 2013 Southern california institute of architecture
Steel framing
4
CONTENT 1 VIsual Studies
2 Design Studio
1.1 Musical Notations 1.2 Romain du Roi
2.1 Totally Tony 2.2 This is Not My Beautiful House
3 Applied Studies
4 Cultural Studies
3.0 Flocking Frame
4.0 Same As It Ever Was
5
INTRODUCTION
6
“If you’re not failing every now and again, it’s a sign you’re not doing anything very innovative.” It amazes me how long and short a year is. Both at the same time. Both with the same intensity. It seems to me I’m still entering SCIArc. I’m still as wide-eyed as when I was told to make dots and lines that first day of M+M. Yet so much has changed, so much has been learned. Yet there is still vast ground to conquer. The M.Arch 1 program is intended as a Master’s program for those without former experience in the world of architecture. What a feat. To be introduced to the world of architecture. The curricular structure of the year has been essential to this introduction. Not only is design studio complimented by essential seminars that provide feedback for one’s work, but the studio culture is of utmost importance to be able to develop at such expected speed. This portfolio is structured taking such feedback into account. It begins with the summer introductory program, Making+Meaning, which provided those of us who partook with a glimpse of what was to come. Visual studies follows, for I believe representation is of utmost importance in the architectural world, especially in a setting such as SCI-Arc. The built environment is but an aspect of architecture, thus, the representational must be conquered in order to successfully express one’s intent. One can go through this portfolio in a variety of ways. One can of course skim through the pages, skipping and returning at heart’s will. I have included most but left out some. I believe the work included demonstrates my comprehension of the requirements for traversing the world of architecture and is at the same time interesting to the third party. What I mean by this is that I have left out more technical, instructional assignments, such as environmental systems assignments, or structures work, not because they lack interest to me, but because I do not with for this portfolio to read as a textbook. The techniques learned during the year at SCI-Arc are represented in both image and text. This portfolio provides access to both a thought process and a manner of understanding Architecture. I hope to have been able to express my interest in the most diverse manner possible.
7
8
o.1
[M+M]
Essentials
This excercise entailed the creation of three distinct tri-plane drawing departing from the arbitrary positioning of seven points within each plane. The connection of points via lines, and the process of extrusion became a methodical excercise at first, which then allowed for an aesthetic editing. Space, in both positive and negative form, as well as the creation of a systematic progression was assessed within this excercise. The notion of exploration and discovery as forms of creativity were also confronted.
9
MAKING+MEANING 10
Participation in Making+Meaning Summer program, during which the process of design was evaluated culminating in various constructs from which a creative perspective was formed.
Making+Meaning allowed an indepth examination of creativity, cross-platform practice, systematic output and the questioning of such.
11
o.2
[M+M]
Constructs
Venturing from ‘essentials’, ‘constructs’ allowed an introduction to material as a form of fabrication. Three facets were chosen from the previous excercise in order to construct a guiding structure for the purpose of building a three-dimensional representation of the interaction of such planes. The abstract manner in which such fields intersect allowed for the implementation of a systematic approach to construction. As well as the appreciation of the material as a guiding force. The distinct behaviors of the applied material permitted diverse preocupations and outputs, while the departure from a same guiding structure and the implementation of a systematic building process allowed for coherence within the three resulting figures.
12
13
14
o.3
[M+M]
Volumetrix
In ‘volumetrix’ the systematic approach to the design process was amplified by physical constraints and building states. This excercise was undertaken in three stages: orthigonal volumes within a predefined perimeter, girating volumes, and scaling volumes. These timed stages allowed for the discovery of form and formality past the building process. Furthermore, the exploration of a continuous outer space, void of inner divisions, permitted the visualization of a complete volume, and the understanding of reciprocal spacial constructs. In addition to the exploration of a material form, the interaction between physical and digital modeling permited a self-evaluating design process that culminated in the organic development of a system of fabrication.
15
o.4
[M+M] Space
Parting from the physical model created in volumetrix, the following excercise requested a translation of the model into void space which through casting would later again be translated into positive space. The construct which resulted from this excercise expressed an entry and exit point, as well as an inner interactive space. The interpretation of both the digital and physical ‘volumetrix’ models produced a distinct form, yet retained the explorative and systematic qualities of the previous excercises.
16
17
18
o.5
[M+M]
Body Armatures
The practice of translation further developed with the culminating excercise of Making+Meaning from the previous excercise ‘space’, which in itself was a translation of ‘volumetrix’. A posture was derived as a team of four by considering our personal plaster models, then further developing them in a composition that took into account the notion of harmonic spatial resolution. The final model illustrated corporal interaction as well as figural expression.
19
20
1.1
[VS]
Musical Notations
21
This study called for an analysis of the geometric rigor displayed by musical instruments. The flute was decomposed into measurements gaining complexity as the project moved forward. Through line and point a figure emerged from within strict dimensions.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1.2
[VS]
Romain du Roi
29
This study was composed of two complimentary yet very distinct parts. First, the rigor with which the characters within the Romain du Roi were formed was studied and replicated keeping in mind the ever-guiding grid. A basic transformation was proposed when merging two distinct characters. In the second stage a discussion of legibility was explored allowing the characters to be rendered in various manners.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
2.1
[DS]
Totally Tony
43
The first studio project at SCI-Arc began with an evaluation of one of sculptor Tony Smith’s pieces. By analyzing, modeling, and diagraming one of his sculptures, we began to decipher the geometric relations embedded in the piece.
44
45
46
47
A second precedent was later introduced in the form of Baroque Architecture, specifically in my case Berninii’s Santa Maria dei Miracoli. From these church studies we derived transformation strategies and an understanding of pochÊ as a space-making tactic. The following stage of the process required us to apply the transformation strategies observed in the Baroque churches to our Tony Smith derived models.
48
49
50
51
The marriage of the strict geometric relationships found in Tony Smith and the transformations found in the Baroque allowed us to develop a form for the proposal of a library. As program was introduced into the project we began further transforming our forms arriving at various strategies for the understanding of space.
52
53
54
55
The library I proposed intended to firstly misread the diagrams achieved from the study of the Tony and the Baroque and also provide an alternative understanding of pochĂŠ. By having minimal wall thickness I strived to allow exterior spaces to act as pochĂŠ creating interior spaces. This reading of pochĂŠ allowed it not only to create space but to act as space in itself.
56
57
2
3
4
5
20
19
11
15 1
12 15
17
6
16
18
15 13
21
7
1
8 15
1. Entry 2. Meeting Room 3. Friend’s Room 4. Book Drop 5. Restroom 6.Circulation Desk 7. Communication Room
58
10
15
14
9
15. Patio/Courtyard 16. Reference Desk 17. Adult’s Collection 18. Adult’s reading area 19. Children’s Collection 20. Children’s reading area 21. Young Adult’s Collection
59
60
61
62
2.2
[DS]
This Is Not My Beautiful House
63
What is a house and how do we make one was the initial inquiry proposed by the 1GB studio. What is Architecture and how do we achieve it was the real question. For this studio we departed from a close study of a house precedent. In my particular case, Eileen Gray’s E1027 was put in question. By redrawing the houses plans and sections, and later carefully and repeatedly diagraming these drawings we strove to achieve an understanding of the basic mechanisms put forth by the architect in order to achieve their form.
64
65
66
67
68
69
Process was key we were told. Beginning with commonly known forms, such as the square, we attempted to allow process to shine and aid us in arriving at a carefully crafted objective form. This process was repeated over and over arriving at many failed attempts.
70
71
72
73
74
75
Once a step was taken back from process and the architect was better understood, or at least studied, I realized my initial form was not to be a shape, but the site itself. When my derived process was applied on the site I arrived at a house that was very fragmented in the typical sense of what a home is to be, but very united with it’s site. The circulation of the house proposed was both inside and outside. The site became part of the house as the house became part of the site.
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
3.0
[AS]
Flocking Frame
83
The final project for the Fall semester Materials and Tectonics class called for an evaluation and experimentation of building materials. As part of a group I explored the possibilities of creating a flock-like structure from metal framing and a stand-in for curtain walls.
84
85
Each structure supports each other to create a counterbalanced system
Steel frame connected with galvanized steel joints (round bars + steel connectors)
Curtain Wall System Glass panels and steel “L” brackets
Steel framing and curtain walls combined Joints resolved by welding
Steel Frame System
Conection Type A
Detail Drawings
Curtain Wall System
Steel Frame Detail C
Galvanized steel conectors Conection Type B
“L” profiles
Brackets Steel Bolts
Steel Frame welded to the “L” profiles
C
Joints Curtains walls composed by glass panels and interlaced with a steel frame
Glass panels connected with mechanical joints
Exploded Axonometric
86
Steel Frame
Galvanized steel connectors Type A x 61 Type B x 21
Steel framing interlaced with the curtain wall oints resolved by welding
Steel Framing Round bars
Curtain Wall System
87
88
3.0
[CS]
Same As It Ever Was Fucking Architecture
89
discipline |ˈdisәplin| noun 1 the practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to correct disobedience: a lack of proper parental and school discipline. • the controlled behavior resulting from such training: he was able to maintain discipline among his men. • activity or experience that provides mental or physical training: the tariqa offered spiritual discipline | Kung fu is a discipline open to old and young. • a system of rules of conduct: he doesn’t have to submit to normal disciplines. 2 a branch of knowledge, typically one studied in higher education: sociology is a fairly new discipline.
90
When thinking of Architecture, one typically utilizes the second proposed definition of discipline, I urge us to look at the primary one. Discipline is limiting. Discipline can also be productive at times, of course, but there is no debate: discipline is limiting. In different manners Lavin, Zago, Somol & Whiting, and Meredith, all point toward the limitless, or at least towards a loosening up of boundaries. Judging by my short experience in the world of Architecture, that of one sleepless semester, and my previous experience in other realms, mostly electronic music and sociology, Architecture is too preoccupied with being Architecture. Architecture could be so much more! Guiding my thoughts with the works of Lavin, Zago, Somol & Whiting, and Meredith, I see an open field. I see postmedium, or Po’Me, as the cool kids like to call it. Earlier this semester, during one of the Wednesday intellectual soirees where I pray I’ll remember ten percent of what is discussed, Kipnis said something along the lines of “be wary of when kids realize that Rhino is easier to use than Ableton.” I was upset, surprised, confused, more tired than anything. Yes, this essay will include endless hints at how sleepdeprived we’ve all been. I know it’s the first semester, so I’m letting it pass, attempting to not complain, but one cannot treat one’s self like this for three years. As I was saying, Kipnis said something along the lines of, quote nonquote, be wary of when kids realize that Rhino is easier to use than Ableton. I was upset, surprised, confused. Firstly because, as I alluded to before, I’m part of the originating group, and cultural backbone of a new wave of Mexican musical artists, who have flourished precisely because of the burgeoning possibilities bedroom producing allows. His suggestion that the use of Ableton and other digital audio workstations, is detrimental, is below my expectations of such an educated, openminded man. Distress aside, his thought allowed me to begin to think of the possibilities cyberculture can allow architecture. We have seen the possibilities the computer has allowed architecture, bringing into question the extents of what we understand as an architectural body of work. But I feel we are still far, and wary, as Kipnis put it, or didn’t, of a true progression beyond the realms of what we now understand as architectural structures and a tightly constructed and monitored discipline. Discipline is limiting. I say we are wary, not only because of Kipnis’ statement, but also due to the fact that as I work and walk around this supposedly architectural frontierland that is SCIArc, I hear, once and again, students, the new generation, the shouldbe innovators, sneer at what they call “installations” (with tone of disdain), or “architecturAL” emphasizing the fact that it’s not ArchitectURE. Ure as in pure, I imagine. So? Why are we so cautious? Why is this Architecture castle / bubble so precious? A lineage constantly evokes an original, supposedly “pure” form. This is obviously misleading. As Craig Owens points out “Nietzsche criticized History as an attempt to capture essences.” Genealogy reveals “the ‘secret’ that things have no essence.” Essences are, in fact, historical constructions. Thus, any lineage must also be a fabrication. Therefore, any attempt to preserve a lineage, such as Greenberg would strive for, is faulty, it is the preservation of a
91
fabrication inhibiting other fabrications from any form of validity. As Plato also suggests, they strive to impose limits on a growth that although perilous, could very well give way to new unencountered forms. Unencountered forms are good / productive / what we need. Orthodoxy toward the medium of architecture [is] more impediment than opportunity” suggests Meredith in his antimanifesto. (I’ve read “For the Absurd” a couple times and have yet to understand if he’s applauding the absurd or ridiculing it. The applauding works for me.) I’d like to point out that this quote speaks of architecture as a medium. Medium seams like a much more flexible understanding than discipline. Somol &Whiting suggest something similar when they write that “architecture is not an isolated medium” and “it involves questions more difficult than those of form or style.” Good, we all agree. Being fascistic about delimitating an idealized field of Architecture can be nothing but detrimental. I enjoy Somol & Whiting’s explanation of projective architecture, and how it neither claims expertise in other fields, nor limits itself to the supposed knowledge encapsulated by its field. And how Design is understood as the driving force behind their interactions with other fields. There’s not enough time to study everything. There’s not even enough time to study architecture. Thus, unless you’re striving for the neoreinassance man typeofthing, which we all should (but that’s another paper), you obviously need to focus your cerebral capabilities toward a somewhat collected field of study. Thus, I am not saying to rid ourselves of the category “architecture,” I do not intend to propose a shattering of the architectural castle. I propose a remodeling, maybe an annex or two. “More significantly, practice is not a static construct, but is defined precisely by its movements and trajectories. There is no theory, there is no practice. There are only practices, which consist in action and agency. They unfold in time, and their repetitions are never identical. It is for this reason that the ‘knowhow’ of practice (whether of writing or design) is a continual source of innovation and change,” wrote Somol & Whiting. Gilles Deleuze’s account of Platonism broadly defines its scope within the practice of demarcation. It is a question of distinction, to be sure, one which occurs in relation to a point of origin: a myth, a foundation. All claimants are regarded on this premise, existing either as copieswhose resemblance is justified within the confines of their lineageor as simulacra. The latter’s genealogical relation to the model is one of rupture and dissent. Its semblance, superficial. What is at stake in the simulacra is the very legitimacy of the origin myth, the basis on which claimants are understood. “Folded within the simulacrum,” Deleuze states, “there is a process of going mad, a process of limitlessness.” Platonism’s chief design is thusly to “impose a limit on this development.” It is probably safe to affirm that since the rise of the 21st century, part of our mind has migrated to the digital realm, compartmentalized in the various networks that constitute our social existence. Part of what this entails is a shift away from the regional and a move
92
towards a postgeographical landscape, albeit through the navigation of cyberspace. As Lavin has keenly pointed out, our lack of attention towards architecture comes, greatly, from the fact that our attention is mostly going to our digital devices. Why then do I not find lauded examples, or nonlauded examples, that acknowledge our new way of life. My exroommate stopped paying the internet and not thirty minutes go by without me thinking about the fact that I am not connected to cyberspace. I’ve been hanging out at school all weekend. This is the way we live now. Food. Water. Sleep. Bathroom. Internet. (In reverse order). Oh, and Architecture, of course. Architecture meets cyberspace posts a difficult problematic. Architecture, for many, is about building IRL. Architecture is seemingly about creating spacial experiences. And while the word space is in the name cyberspace, it doesn’t seem like forms of cyberarchitecture, whatever they may be, will be easily digested any time soon. If, twentyyearold SCIArc students can’t cope with the fact that their teacher “only draws” what’s the hope of them acknowledging, much less admiring, a piece of work put forth via youtube, created by a 23year-old non architect. Zero. Reductive thinking is the enemy of the absurd. Reductive thinking is the utmost absurdity. Said Michael Meredith. There are, of course, possible problematics that can emerge from this loosening up of parameters. Such as in music, one will most l ikely be encountered with unfruitful over production, and lack of traditional craft. I believe these issues are worth encountering, and as Zago suggests, allowing the awkward, or the accident, a place will open up exciting possibilities for redefining the field. I wish to clarify that I do not propose a disregard for a field of Architecture. As mentioned, I propose an opening up of it’s parameters. An opening so extreme the category could very well crumble, but will, with best luck, redefine itself as a resilient, openminded, superarchitecture of sorts. This has been clear to me since the initial conversation proposed in essay numero uno. Such as Kipnis’ DeFormation operates under the auspices of certain formal criteria that if debunked could potentially threaten its practical functionality, much in the same manner that the simulacrum compromises the copy as well as the origin myth. A “freeing up” could result in new, fresh forms, and also in a revitalization of the practice as a whole, but it could very likely end up dismantling the edifice, so to speak. It behooves us to question whether it is the category in itself tenuous as it may bewhich is worth preserving. “Avoid the construction of absolute ideas,” writes Zago. In “Kissing Architecture” Silvia Lavin utilizes the idea of the kiss to explain a meeting ground between architecture and other mediums. She suggests that kissing is about “enveloping the increasingly archaic figure of the architect in an entirely new cultural project.” She discusses how other mediums, such as video, interact with architecture in what she labels “super architecture.” For the most part, I agree. Her writing makes me feel that this opening up
93
of traditional parameters is possibie, she claims its already happening. I sure hope so. But I believe we need more energy. Kissing is nice. Kids can kiss. I believe architecture should go to bed with other fields. If it’s awkward in the morning, we’ll pretend it never happened. But it could very well turn into a very satisfying “thing” (arrangement). We might even fall in love and get married. Fucking allows for an aggressive defiance of the self, both one’s self and the other. Fucking is pleasure, fucking is birth. As Lavin says, “ bringing architecture and kissing together is therefore not only to reconsider architecture’s relation to other mediums but to think beyond prevailing models of the critical.” Imagine if we got to third base! (Is it fourth?) The main idea I’m attempting to arrive at, call it kissing, or fucking, super architecture, or postmedium, is that it is of utmost importance for us, the ones attempting to venture into architectural frontier land, to regard architectural practice abstractly. To reimagine a world of architectural thinking, tools, and strategies. Note all these word denote process and transformation, never stasis. This architectural thinking can be applied to any problematic, and result in any given product, not strictly building. Once we begin to think of fields as pools of knowledge that will allow us to bring forth diverse strategies to any issue, and not treehouse clubs with passwords and gender issues, we can begin to re imagine a myriad of fields, allowing us to “reconsider disciplinarily, expertise, and medium specificity” as Lavin suggested. ‘Til the end of times. Amen.
94