Sarah j villareal graduate works 2014 2015 by sjvillareal

SARAH J. VILLAREAL Graduate Works 2014-2015

Sci-Arc

SARAH J. VILLAREAL Graduate Works 2014-2015

Sci-Arc

Contents

3 Studio Projects Tony Smith Smoke Hybrid Geometries Library Tessellations House 44 Writing Contemporary Architecture: Theory Architecture Cultures 58 Applied Studies Environmental Systems Lighting Project 64 Visual Representation Cast Scans Letter Form

Studio

4|5

Tony Smith Smoke Geometry Drawing Studies

Tony Smith Smoke Geometry Hybrid Wire Frame Model

6|7

Tony Smith Smoke Model

8|9

Hybrid Geometry Family Diagram

Hybrid Geometry Family Massing Models

10 | 11

Library Hybrid Massing Model Study

12 | 13

Nested Geometries Massing Model Interior of Nested Geometries Massing Model

Library Section Model

14 | 15

Library First Floor Plan

Library Second Floor Plan Library Site Plan

16 | 17

(L): Library Massing Interior/Exterior Diagrams (R): Library Elevations (t) Front; (b) Left

Library Section A-A Library Section B-B

18 | 19

Tessellation Studies Diagram Part 1

Tessellation Studies Diagram Part 2

20 | 21

Tessellation Studies Diagram Part 3

Tessellation Studies Diagram Part 4

22 | 23

Tessellation Studies Diagram Part 5

Tessellation Studies Diagram Part 6

24 | 25

Tessellation Mat Typology Diagram

Tessellation Nested Cube House Genesis Diagram

26 | 27

Tessellation House Massing Model Studies (t) Ludus1; (b) Padia1

Tessellation House Massing Model Studies (t) Ludus2; (b) Padia2

28 | 29

Tessellation House Massing Model Studies (L): (t) Perch; (b) Nest (R): (t) Melt Extend; (b) Unveiled Cover

Tessellation House Mid-Review Massing Model Nest Extend

30 | 31

Tessellation Parts (t-parts) Genesis Diagram

Tessellation Parts (t-parts) t-parts Placed in Grid Studies

32 | 33

Tessellation Diagram: Planes

Segmented House Program Diagram

34 | 35

Segmented House Floor Plan

Segmented House Program Diagrams

36 | 37

Segmented House Massing Model

38| 39

Segmented House Section A-A Segmented House Section B-B Segmented House Section C-C

Segmented House Axonometric Segmented House Site Plan Segmented House Elevations

40 | 41

Segmented House Section Model

Writing

44 | 45

On the Production of ‘New’ by Sarah J. Villareal Intro to Contemporary Architecture Instructor: Todd Gannon Sci Arc M.Arch 1 Fall 2014

AS AN ASPIRING architect attending the foremost forward thinking school of architecture, my inclination towards the writings of Deluze, Benjamin and Krauss is strong because their positions in the production of new work encourages the freedom to push the boundaries of the status quo in art, pushing the limits of how art is defined and what art has done in the past and what it can do in the future. In the present age where the tired saying of, “everything has been done before,” I feel empowered, rather than daunted by this clichéd adage. Deluze in, “Plato and the Simulacrum,” astutely makes his argument for the overthrow of Platonism in favor of simulacrum. In doing so, Deluze commands that the “overthrow of Platonism” is the overthrow of the icon. He uses Plato’s own techniques to demonstrate Plato’s motives in categorizing and selecting art, thus revealing the nature of this motive; to idealize knowledge and ultimately hold the power in dictating what is a good copy and what is a bad copy. Deluze has a profound disagreement with the “privileged position” or the precedence set by Plato or what the ruling tastemakers constitutes as good art. It is detrimental to the production of innovation. It limits revealing the latent content that is hidden beneath the manifest content. The idea that in art there is limitlessness and endless possibilities threatens Plato’s narrow ideals of the boundaries of art. In the attempt to maintain power Plato casts away the outliers—the bad copies: the simulacrum. The simulacrum is Deluze’s answer to subvert and challenge this position. The simulacrum is a positive and powerful tool to subvert the existing world of representation. While it bears the appearance or image of the original it bears no internal resemblance to the original. Bearing to mind our current examination of Tony Smith’s work as a starting point for our investigations, Deluze’s concept of the simulacrum resonates in my introduction to the profession and practice of architecture. In the past four weeks we have been immersed in the seemingly simple and yet complex and intricate geometries of the sculpture “Smoke.” I understand that is a vehicle to teach us about the challenges of two-dimensional drawings and gain an understanding of how plans and elevations work. But also more importantly with in this framework rather than make Pl progress through the stages of the assignment we are getting further away from the resemblance of smoke. Bringing latent content forward while examining the manifest content in “Smoke,” we produce the image with out the resemblance of the work. In this process we are learning and creating a novel visual experience through technique unencumbered by Plato’s rigid boundaries.

It is clear to me that the essays I have chosen to support my argument in the production of new work are not advocating abandoning precedence entirely but rather learning from it and by navigating through the motivations of precedence that have been set and working to innovate and formulate other ways of tackling new projects. In Walter Benjamin’s, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” he also talks about innovation but in the context of the paradigm shift of the notion of art with the advent of mechanical reproduction and the inevitable destruction of war. For Benjamin the idealized view of art after the war had no place in modernism. Unlike Clement Greenberg who was trying to preserve the hegemony of high art, Benjamin thought that it was already gone. I respect this view and, not because I hate high art and Greenberg’s elitist views of art, but because his reasoning is logical. It is a backward way of thinking to continue a precedence that can no longer be maintained. Benjamin’s views on art and the production of new work was heavily influenced and motivated by the political climate of his time. He saw the power, and most importantly the destructive power the implications of mechanical reproduction and modernism has. He warns against the danger of propaganda and politicized art but he also sees the value in art’s power to fight political threats, particularly Fascism. Mechanical reproduction gave way to certain sort of ease of the consumption of art and he saw the power in that. Rosalind Krauss also points out a paradigm shift in art—the breakdown of the classification of art, or rather the expanding of the definition of what sculpture is in, “Sculpture in the Expanding Field.” Krauss calls for the broadening of the definition of art, specifically sculpture. Krauss appeals to logic in her argument. She posits that there is a way of discerning art not governed by taste or through the “high priests” of art critics, but rather according to a system to of logic. Like Benjamin and Deluze, Krauss treats precedence in the context of what is happening in their contemporary time. What I mean to say is, rather than, holding on to an old truth or in Greenberg and Fried’s sense a tired old truth, examining what is happening to art now and how it will affect the future of art. Precedence should be used as guideline in the production of work, not to hinder it, but rather to push it to new limits. Is innovation with in established conventions still innovation? This is a question that I hope to investigate at my time here in Sci Arc.

46 | 47

The Disillusion by Sarah Villareal Intro to Contemporary Architecture Instructor: Todd Gannon Sci Arc M.Arch 1 Fall 2014

WHAT WAS THE recourse in the implications of the growing skepticism of Modernism during the 1950s to the 1970s? In the constant quest to interrogate what is known about the profession, the discourse on Modern architecture from the readings during the 1950s to the 1970s grappled with the relationship between architecture and language. These two decades were marked with skepticism of modernism and gave rise to the search for a new architectural expression and the necessary role language played to communicate ideas; thus, the implications of the decline of Modernism lead to the reinvention of the field of architecture as a theoretical discipline. Architectural discourse aligned itself with the traditional scholarly disciplines of literary criticism, poetry, writings of French theorists, and semiotics. The early Modernist architects, pre World War II, viewed history skeptically and had a desire for functional, clear, unified and honest work. This simplification in architectural expression aimed to turn away from classicism and this simplification was also reflected in their straightforward language in talking about architecture; flat roofs, glass, exposed structure, etc. In Reynor Banham’s The New Brutualism, he advocates for an alternative to Colin Rowe’s justification of the stripped down approach of the early modernist architects. Modernism’s initial rejection of the classical notion, that Hayes champions through carefully crafted manipulation of details in Literal and Phenomenal, Banham counters that it had a tendency to devolve back into classism. The introduction of the new language Brutalism offered—namely the work of the Smithsons—was a way to combat modernisms proclivity to align with classicism. He felt the need to break with classicism and classical geometry and the brutality of what you see is what you get in Brutalism was a reaction to the grimness of post war. He struggles to find “Une Architecture Autre,” in modern architecture as the iterations of a new kind or other kind of architecture always seems to fall short in his view. At the end of this reading he intimates that so long as architects are no longer in dialogue with the classicism of Paladio or Alberti, the contemporary architecture of the time and the future of architecture is better off. Robert Venturi offers a nuanced criticism of modernism in his Gentle Manifesto in, Complexity and Contradition in Architecture. He infamously sullied Mies van der Rohe’s adage “less is more,” with “less is a bore,” arguing that modernism isn’t complex enough. It lacked a certain kind of ambiguity that allowed for double meaning in architecture—what he calls “both and” in architecture. The ambiguity in a double meaning is the use of form and substance where an element of archi-

tecture such as pre-cast concrete can be both structural and textural. This duality in meaning afforded architecture with more complexity. He further asserts that the pious rhetoric and architectural language of the early modernists impoverished architecture with its fidelity to purism, and honesty—as a result this simplicity forced architecture to forfeit its intellectual portfolio. According to Venturi, though the early modernists achieved clarity in architecture, it lacked depth. Venturi called for an interference of careful non-clarity. This gray area or in between is good because it is loaded with substance and can hold your attention. In holding ideas in suspension with the interest of multiple meanings, ambiguity can exist and there is more than meets the eye. As such architecture is acting like a language with smart flips of expectations. It is playing with the rules and distorting on purpose and making a controlled deliberate mistake. Venturi reminds his colleagues that you can be playful in architecture and sites extensive examples from history of architects employing similar methods of ambiguity and playfulness. He makes an aggressive argument by aligning himself with literary figures such as T.S. Elliot and Joseph Albers invoking poetry and painting. If in literature and painting complexity, contradiction and ambiguity are achieved, it can also be achieved in architecture. Peter Eisenman’s “Aspects of Modernism: Maison Dom-ino and the Self-Referential Sign,” further illustrates architecture’s reinvention as a theoretical discipline and revealing the complex relationship between architecture and language. He starts by quoting French theorist Michel Foucault and further asserts architecture into the realm of theoretical discipline with the work of French linguist and semiotician Ferdinand de Saussure, who not so coincidently is regarded as one of the fathers of 20th century linguistics. He talks about the notion of how like syntax in language, according to Saussure, as, “words tend to divide a conceptual spectrum in arbitrary and specific ways,” so too does the representation and conceptualization of architecture in plan, section and elevation determines and obscures many aspects of architecture. He was interested in the structure of meaning. For Eisenmen these sorts of ruptures are an interesting break and one can’t go back to continuity of the humanists. Eisenmen changed how architecture is represented by changing the medium through which he made the argument; switching from plan to axonometric. He was able to examine and present the way one looks at a building differently by representing it in drawing differently. Eisenman goes on to reexamine Le Corbusier’s Maison Dom-ino in an aggressive counterargument to his mentor Colin Rowe’s previous examination of Le

Corbusier’s work. Using his own devices and motivations Eisenman offers a non-humanist version to understand modernism—though never defining it but instead offering that architecture is moving towards what he calls post functionalism. He needs function to overcome function. This is Eisenman’s attempt to quantify modernism’s place in his contemporary time. He thinks modernism is good, it’s the humanism that is oftentimes found in modernism that he thinks is bad. With the use of language he asserts that abstraction is displacing the new opportunity to create new meaning beyond modernism. Furthermore, he calls for a self-referentiality in architecture, an architecture about architecture. Contrary to Rowe’s belief that the abstraction in Dom-ino is a variant of the machine, Eisenman posits that it doesn’t have to justify itself because it is not just geometry but rather it has intentionality. This intentionality in geometry distinguishes real architecture—the distinction from mere building—and this is a true break from tradition. As a response to the disillusionment with the state of modernism during the 1950s and 1970s, Banham, Venturi and Eisenmen’s seminal essays intimated what it had hoped for modernism; shifting the discussion of the future and current state of architecture by examining how architecture gets communicated through language; thereby, establishing a theoretical discipline within architecture. This discussion opened up new possibilities in the way architecture is engaged with language, making way for new opportunities and revealing latent content in the production of new work.

48 | 49

Collective Critical Skepticism in Architecutre by Sarah J. Villareal Intro to Contemporary Architecture Instructor: Todd Gannon Sci Arc M.Arch 1 Fall 2014

IT IS EVIDENT in the readings from this seminar course that architecture proliferates and moves forward through the insatiable need to challenge and question itself. This constant flux is what makes architecture so appealing and keeps the practitioners of the discipline on its toes with the quest to generate questions and offer (in many instances assert) possible answers—making paramount the importance of a collective critical skepticism and the dogged habit amongst the cognoscenti of questioning everything in the discipline in hopes to inform and have a greater influence on the profession. In using the terminologies discipline and profession in regards to architecture, it is requisite to offer Zago and Gannon’s argument for the classification due to the unprecedented expansion of the field of architecture in Tabloid Transparency. They elaborate on the unwavering obsession with the re-definition of architecture by making a clear distinction between the profession and the discipline—asserting the vital differentiation of the profession as a commodity and the discipline as an art form. Zago and Gannon make a case for the importance of the hierarchy within the field of architecture, stressing the role of the discipline. The duo does not dismiss the role of the profession, but rather emphasize the significant role the discipline plays in the evolution and innovation of architecture. Though the implication of this emphasis implies that the discipline is more important; thus, establishing a somewhat elitist view, I tend to agree with Zago and Gannon’s defense of the discipline in relation to the profession. While it’s difficult not to make the initial assumption that one is better than the other, Tabloid Transparency offers a nuanced take on the discipline’s responsibility to society and the role it plays to push for innovation in the production of new work.

Island 1

Island 2 C

C=D

A B

B=D

B=B A=B

fig. 1

B=C

Tabloid Transparency navigates through the difficulties of communicating within the different areas of the profession of architecture due to, “the lack of linguistic common ground.” This problem is not unlike the linguistic phenomenon among the Philippine Islands. The Philippines is made up of over 7,100 islands and there is an expansive linguistic diversity consisting of 171 independent dialects where people from the same island do not speak the same language such that: language A would exist on one side of the island (1) and language B on the other side of the same island (1). While across island 1 to island 2 language B would exist along with languages C and D. (fig. 1) By the same logic of the linguistic diversity that exists in the Philippines, the burgeoning field of architecture is also experiencing this communication disconnect as Zago and Gannon illustrate. By pointing out the problem that architects do not speak the same language,

they are able to build a framework for their argument of why it is important to make a distinction between the profession and the discipline. To support their claim they bring to mind Colin Rowe and Robert Slutzky’s use of the word transparency, “to structure a particular formal debate with in architecture,” and how they utilize the distinction between literal and phenomenal transparency to make categorical distinctions as well as value judgments. The technique of making a distinction between two things is an effective tool to expound how one is better than the other with out actually explicitly saying which one of the two is better. Zago and Gannon employ this similar method in their distinction between the profession and the discipline. Zago and Gannon champion the role of the smaller porous circle of the discipline. While my inclination is to agree with and follow the logic found within Tabloid Transparency, I am skeptical and uneasy of the idea that a small group of people is responsible for the advancement of architecture as an art form. How are we to be sure there are no Clement Greenbergs or Micheal Frieds masquerading and undermining what Deluze, Benjamin or Krauss have argued and warned against art governed by taste and the desire to keep up a certain status quo? I’m afraid the pervasive ideas and pitfalls of what constitutes good art according to Greenberg and Fried will not soon be forgotten and one should remain skeptical of what the discipline offers. What emerges from the week 14 texts that is most compelling is the relationship that is presented when two things are distinguished from one another—if not only by virtue of the relentless side by side comparisons in the readings and lectures in this class. Perhaps by chance of osmosis, this exercise in comparisons has been ingrained in me not only through this seminar course but also in the way studio critiques have gone thus far. In every single text, starting from the first week of this course the authors define what something is by defining what it is not. It is an effective device to clarify the dichotomy between two things that also in turn make what the authors claim as two otherwise different things inextricably linked. The sine qua non like condition—for the lack of a better word or concept to describe the aforementioned correlations—embedded in these relationships echoes concepts Tschumi, Deluze and Nietche’s Genealogy touch upon in earlier readings. Sine qua non best describes how one essential thing can’t exist with out the other. As it were, it is a smaller part of the whole, a component of the larger thing. One could argue that Los Angeles wouldn’t be Los Angeles with out Hollywood, meaning that the sine qua non—Hollywood—is the essential part. For example the discipline is the

For example the discipline is the essential part, a smaller part of the whole of the profession. For Deluze the Simulacrum is the essential part, the bad copy and the good copy. In this instance the good copy can’t exist with out the bad copy and vice versa. For Tschumi it is the labyrinth (the experience) that is the essential part but it can’t exist with out the pyramid (rationality). In Doppelganger, Jason Payne offers the relationship between an asteroid and an Albanian bunker through the double meaning of language and how one informs the other. Byrony Roberts in, Beyond the Quarrel, grapples with the Ancients and the Moderns, past and future, the old and the new and a call to collapse the two. Again, one cannot exist without the other. In the discipline, one is always asked to choose which side one wants to be on in the side by side comparison—though the practitioners make sure to implicitly advocate (albeit, however cryptic) a strong case for which side to be on. I will take their urgings with precaution as I attempt to navigate through the contaminated waters of the field of architecture.

50 | 51

Dissolving the Stone Wall: The Provenance of the Gothic Church Basilica of St. Denis A Formal Analysis by Sarah J. Villareal 1GB Architectural Cultures 2 Instructor: Dr. Dora Epstein-Jones Sci Arc M.Arch 1 Spring 2015

“S” “V” Intersection Powder Print Model

Introduction

The Abbot Suger

WHEN ASKED TO choose a topic for a research paper on an architectural project before the 1900’s, as a fledgling initiate of Sci Arc—arguably one of the leading proponents of innovation in the discipline of architecture—I was interested in investigating an architectural work that introduced something new to the formal history and analysis of architecture. At a school with the constant fervor of looking to “what’s next,” I’m fascinated with the moment that the Basilica of St. Denis stopped being Romanesque architecture and became the place of origin of the Gothic style church. It is my intention to examine this claim of origin through a formal analysis of the plan layouts, spatial affects and tectonics of the Basilica of St. Denis in France.

Abbot Suger had visions of bringing heaven on Earth through light and stained glass to St. Denis. It’s quite possible that were it not for Abbot Suger’s close relationship with King Louis VI as a royal adviser and regent for King Louis VII, Suger’s patronage and grand plan for the transformation of the Basilica of St. Denis would not have come into fruition. Though it is important to note that Abbot Suger was instrumental in the changes at St. Denis, the author Christopher Wilson points out it can be inferred in Suger’s extensively documented accounts of the construction of the church that there is no evidence that Suger himself had any interest in the transformative design other than his appreciation for what he thought to be an original feature6 [fig. 3,4]. It is widely documented however, in Suger’s writing, On the Abbey Church of St.-Denis and its Art Treasures, that he brought stained glass to the church with the intention of achieving heavenly light.

Situated just outside of Paris in the city of St. Denis, the Basilica of St. Denis is a pilgrimage site for the French Patron Saint Denis and where French royalty is buried1. It was started in the early Middle Ages in the 7th century and was originally built in the Romanesque style, however the renovation and addition that started in 1137 by Abbot Suger was the creative initiative that would lead to it’s claim as the first Gothic Church2. Though this is a formal analysis of the building I think it’s important to briefly discuss the contribution and pivotal role Abbot Suger had in the transformation of St. Denis. But most importantly in examining the formal analysis of this work of architecture, I would like to discuss how the use of the pointed arch or the ogival arch, rib vaulting, and the flying buttress made it possible for this church to be the forbearer of the next important architectural style of its time. These features were not uncommon and existed in Romanesque architecture [fig. 8]; however in the instance of St. Denis, the use of these elements was executed in such a way that forged a new style that was uniquely non-Roman3. Within the building itself one can’t deny the progression of the early stages of the Gothic style coming into its own. Jean Bony points out the contrast of the weightiness and emphasis on accentuating the structural framework of St. Denis’ narthex and façade (what Bony calls “the first stage of Gothic experimentation,”) with the lightness of the choir, which was started five weeks after the façade and narthex [fig. 1,2] were competed.4 Though the façade and the narthex has a bulkiness attributed to the Romanesque style it’s diversion from it is evident. According to Bony it is the choir that achieved a distinct French ideal of lightweight construction that, “belonged to another world of architectural expression.”5

St. Denis St. Denis is a basilica form (or cruciform) plan church [fig 5]. It is comprised of a central nave with lower aisles on each side. The west façade added by Abbot Suger is divided into three sections with three entries or portals that correspond to the hierarchy of the nave and the side aisles. The central portal is the largest as the nave is the larger main space, and accordingly the two portals that flank the main portal in the middle correspond to the height of the lower aisles. The portals are elaborated with a sculptural tympanum that depicts judgment day. Above the main portal in the center is a quintessential rose window and on the south end is a tower. On the Eastern side of the building is the apse where the chapels and the double ambulatory are also located surrounding the apse. There are 9 chapels that radiate around the apse, which is separated by the double walkway of the ambulatory. In the interior of the nave the vertical hierarchy of elements consists of 3 levels: from the bottom The innovations the unknown architect experimented with in the use of the ogival arch is responsible for the height and openness of this building. Unlike the rounded roman arch where the weight and stress line distribute to the side of the arch and require very thick walls, the pointed arch distributes the weight down and can be supported by pillars. The force in the pointed arch is re-directed from a horizontal push to a vertical downward push.

52 | 53

fig. 1

St. Denis West faรงade (1135-40)

fig. 2

St. Denis South side of narthex (1135-40)

fig. 3

St. Denis Interior of Choir

This made it possible for the opening up or dissolving of the wall and allowing larger apertures—a vital characteristic of the Gothic style. Doing away with the need for thick walls to hold up the structure was pivotal for the proliferation of the Gothic style. St. Denis proved it possible to create a space that is filled with light and welcomed a new era of looking into the heavens upon entering a church. Prior to this, in the Romanesque style, upon entering the church one is faced with a dark and imposing structure. In place of the wall, magnificent windows are able to bring in a flood of light to the otherwise darkened space. Roman arches require thick walls because the force is pushing horizontally as the stress is being distributed to the sides of the arch resulting in bulky walls with small windows and dark interiors—typical of the Romanesque style. Another advantage of the dramatically reduced need for the thick wall is verticality of the building. With less to support the church can grow taller. The Rib Vaulting To grow taller the architects of St. Denis had to employ the use of rib vaulting. Rib vaulting is the combining of several arches; a small group of arches come together to form a sort of web to crate a roof. In rib vaulting the pressure of holding up the ceiling is applied to points rather than compounding the stress across the mass of a thick wall. This method allowed for the use of piers to hold up the weight of the ceiling rather than employing the bulk of walls. Instead of expanding horizontally like the Romanesque churches to support the weight, St. Denis is able to expand vertically. In fig. 10 the x’s marked in the plan indicate where the rib vaulting occurs. As one can see the use of this rib vaulting allowed for a much more open floor plan. Supporting the extensive vaulting are the piers (indicated by the blue arrows) that line the perimeter and interior of the floor plan of the building. The wider in diameter the piers appear in plan indicate how much of a load those piers are supporting. In the west façade (marked with an *) the thickness of the piers and the heavy concentration indicate that this is where the load is the most heavy in comparison to the other piers. It is important to note that this part of the church was the first part to be renovated in 1135 and completed in 1140. The piers on the interior of the church, not including the piers along the transept, are smaller because there are more clusters of piers supporting a wider distribution of weight.

The Flying Buttress As the wall was significantly subtracted with the use of rib vaulting, the piers that support the vaults are bearing a much more considerable amount of weight. The solution that was used at St. Denis was to employ the flying buttress to support the piers. Similarly, like the pointed arch and rib vaulting, the flying buttress is able to direct the force downward into the ground rather than outward requiring the support of heavy walls[fig. 11,12]. In Romanesque architecture the use of a buttress added to the thickness of the walls and the sparse apertures. Conversely, in St. Denis the use of the flying buttress added to the lightness and skeletal frame of the design. This structure made it possible to provide support while also avoiding obstructing the light. The flying buttress is made up of two main components: the flyer and the vertical pillar. The flyer extends from the rib vaulting directing the lateral force to the vertical pillar transferring that force downward instead of outward. This design makes it possible for a lighter structure and less material, thus cheaper while creating a more open space. Conclusion It is interesting to see how St. Denis deviated from the Romanesque style into its title as the first Gothic church. The stylistic and tectonic changes made at St. Denis were not so far from the existing techniques found in Romanesque architecture. The progression of the rounded arch to the pointed arch is not so revolutionary when one thinks about it, but what it allowed the building materials to do is quite innovative. The same goes for the use of the rib vaulting and the flying buttress rather than just the buttress. These small modifications and tweaks to the antecedent produced such a different result from the squat imposing darkness of the Romanesque church to the elegant verticality and lightness of the Gothic. At the completion of my first year of graduate work in architecture I am left in awe of what the next genesis of the speculative future in architecture entails. At what juncture is my generation of architects inhabiting now? And what is the next big thing? Are we still marveling and trying to emulate a style of the past or are we tinkering and tweaking at the cusp of the next paradigm shift of reinvention?

54 | 55

fig. 4

Details of the ogival arches in the nave at St. Denis.

fig. 8

The Nave St. Denis

fig. 9

Rounded vs. pointed arch diagram

St. Denis Interior of Choir looking north-east

Floor Plan of St. Denis with Carolingian plan in grey poche. fig. 5

fig. 6

fig. 7

The Nave St. Denis

fig. 12

Flying buttress vs. buttress diagram

Footnotes

fig. 13

Flying Buttress in St. Denis.

1 Crosby, Sumner McKnight. “Saint-Denis: Royal Abbey.” The Royal Abby of Saint Denis. Ed. Pamela Z Blum. Westford: Yale UP, 1987. 9. Print. 2 Bony, Jean. “Chapter IV: A First Gothic System, ca. 1160-1180.” French Gothic Architecture of the 12th and 13th Centuries. Berkeley: U of California, 1983. 117. Print. 3 Bony, Jean. “Romanesque Antecedents.” French Gothic Architecture of the 12th and 13th Centuries. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983. 7. Print. 4 Bony, Jean. “Chapter 1: The Technical Bases of Gothic Architecture.” French Gothic Architecture of the 12th and 13th Centuries. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983. 37. Print. 5 Bony, Jean. “Chapter 1: The Technical Bases of Gothic Architecture.” French Gothic Architecture of the 12th and 13th Centuries. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983. 39-40. Print. 6 Wilson, Christopher. “Abbot Suger’s Work at StDenis.” The Gothic Cathedral: The Architecture of the Great Church 1130-1530. London: Thames and Hudson, 1990. 32-33. Print. Wilson’s reference of the original feature is “the transformation of the outer walls of the choir into an almost continuous band of glazing.” Bibliography Bony, Jean. French Gothic Architecture of the 12th and 13th Centuries. Berkeley: U of California, 1983. Print. Crosby, Sumner McK., and Pamela Z. Blum. The Royal Abbey of Saint-Denis: From Its Beginnings to the Death of Suger, 475-1151. New Haven: Yale UP, 1987. Print. Rudolph, Conrad. Artistic Change at St-Denis: Abbot Suger’s Program and the Early Twelfth-century Controversy over Art. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1990. Print.

fig. 10

Rib vaulting in the ambulatory of St. Denis

Suger, Erwin Panofsky, and Gerda Panofsky-Soergel. Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St.-Denis and Its Art Treasures. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1979. Print. Stone, Allison. “IMAGES OF MEDIEVAL ART AND ARCHITECTURE.” Medieval Saint-Denis Home Page. Ed. Jane Vandal and Phillip Maye. University of Pittsburgh’s Digital Research Library, 2008. Web. 28 Apr. 2015. <http://www.medart.pitt.edu/image/France/Stdenis/sdenmain.html>. Wilson, Christopher. The Gothic Cathedral: The Architecture of the Great Church, 1130-1530, with 220 Illustrations. New York, N.Y. (500 5th Ave., New York): Thames and Hudson, 1990. Print.

fig. 11

Suger’s Projected reconstruction plan.

“France, Abbey of Saint-Denis, Choir Interior (c. 12311270).” Http://www.learn.columbia.edu/. Columbia University, n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2015. http://www.learn.columbia.edu/ ma/htm/related/ma_st_denis_abbey_06.htm

Applied Studies

58| 59

36”

18”

48”

3”

5.5”

4”

36”

Light Box Installation Drawing

Lighting Group Project Proccess Photographs

60| 61

Filter, Veiling, Screening

GROUP #9 | Tiffany Adler, Mari Beltran, Brian Larsen, Sarah Villareal AS 3121 | Light Work - Lighting Project | Spring 2015 Instructors: Russell Fortmeyer & Ilaria Mazzoleni

Environmental Systems Lighting Group Project

Light Box Installation in Front of Sci Arc Gallery

Visual Studies

64 | 65

Geometric Development Diagram

Geometric Development Diagram2

66 | 67

Exterior and Interior Geometry Diagram

Serial Section Diagram

68 | 69

Geometric Scan Elevation

70 | 71

Geometric Distortion Scan1

Geometric Distortion Scan2

72 | 73

“S” Romain du Roi Grid Trace “V” Romain du Roi Grid Trace

“V” Romain du Roi Grid Manipulation “S” “V” Romain du Roi 45* Axonometric Grid Manipulation

74 | 75

“S” “V” Romain du Roi Intersection Hybrid Elevation

“S” “V” Romain du Roi Hybrid 45* Axonometric

76 | 77

“S” “V” Intersection Powder Print Model

Sci-Arc