November 12th, 2012 — 11:08pm
pill die
Architecture Pill, Hans Hollein, 1967 (source)
Die Antwoord (source)


Architecture’s legacy of replication and simulation calls into question the entire concept of authenticity. In fact, one could argue architecture is not visual at all, but instead it is the assembly of physical elements to produce a specific effect that is intelligible to the mind. The act of interpreting architecture dissolves form into symbol and experience. It is odor, it is texture, it is reverb. Conventional modes of architectural representation are inadequate if we collectively acknowledge architecture’s inherent complexity.


So if the visualizations architects produce are incapable of accurately describing architecture, how do we as practicing architects reconcile this contradiction? Moreover, what if architects no longer relied upon conventional modes of visual representation as proof of its existence? This debate demands revival. After all, Learning From Las Vegas is approaching its 35th birthday, and parametricism remains a stylized visualization tool used by academics and architects unconcerned with everyday constraints. In other words, while an authentic architecture is a moving target, this should not discourage us from including it in our everyday discourse.


In the 1960’s Hans Hollein used Bau Magazine as a platform to promote the idea that ‘Everything is Architecture’, a paper-revolt with a relevance echoed by… more


Distance can offer a clear perspective on a subject, but it can also be obfuscating.


When I watch Die Antwoord videos, while seduced by the highly produced worlds that they create, I am continually met with a sense that I am missing some crucial content, owing to our respective contexts. This leaves me to wonder how I would respond to their work if I was able to meaningfully navigate the details of their cultural references.


This South African group’s recently released single ‘Fatty Boom Boom’ is being cast as controversial, Lady Gaga references aside, for including blackface in its video. This is a concept with American roots, that the duo—who are always in character, further complicating any interpretation of their work—claim they are unfamiliar with.


As representations circulate around distinct and distant territories, they may remain fixed, or they may acquire varied meanings despite sharing a common provenance. Some may engage an archetype following a transformation, when its origin is perhaps less apparent and seemingly detached, while others may make references unknowingly. Given the complexity embedded within any reference, they are ultimately unstable and call into question what is authentic.


Corbin Keech



Erandi de Silva


1 comment » | Guest Contributors, Uncategorized


March 5th, 2012 — 9:14pm
Kansai International Airport, Bernard Tschumi Architects, 1988

Instantiation Grid (source)


One can safely assume an architect of any scale or skill-set—when subjected to a greater number of rules, codes, or constraints within which they, he or she must operate—will predictably respond with a well-worn groan. As if there weren’t enough roadblocks standing in the way of formalizing our respective visionary projects, another obstacle presents itself!


We associate rules with curtailment and control. Rather than dismiss constraints as non-starters that bind us, why can’t we use them to our advantage? What if we asked for more?


There is a rich history of work whose revolutionary outcome is directly linked to an intelligently crafted stack of self-imposed limitations. Georges Perec employed the strategy of lipogrammatic writing created by Ernest Vincent Wright to write the French novel, La Disparition (literally, ‘The Disappearance’), which was written entirely without using the letter ‘e’. John Cage rebelled against common notions of perception and musical instrumentation with his controversial oeuvre, 4’33”. Bernard Tschumi’s proposal for Kansai International Airport was intentionally bound by its linear organization and fixed programmatic constraints, but more radically by its own pursuit of a specific concept: the abstraction of architectural experience. These projects went beyond the assumed limitations that each creative endeavor entails, gleefully piled on more, and things quickly became weird and provocative.


Work that operates outside the conventional milieu depends on a reference point, and in this case the authority is the reference itself. Architecture has always been subject to laws, rules, and code. We should recognize the latent potential in these rules—both externally… more


Is deep, cumulative thought going out of fashion? The most powerful works of architecture are often the ones that focus on a singular idea, usually surfacing from a meditated bubble deep in the architect’s mind. The idea is gradually unpacked through a series of iterations culminating in a fleshed-out work able to stand robustly and eloquently on its own. As we speed, however, into a world of limitless options catalyzed by computer-enabled scripts—capable of combining sets of inputs at varying degrees and spitting out infinite potential outcomes—it’s worth investigating whether the race toward limitless choice is helpful to the design process or whether options are simply distracting.


Undoubtedly seductive, choice may represent awareness, democracy, freedom and quantity. In architectural practice, however, this outward-in methodology can cause distress over the opportunity cost of each rejected option, thereby alienating the final selection. Worse still, the false sense of confidence that comes from choosing the ‘best scheme’ over others can result in a design that is validated not by its own worth, but rather by comparative success over its lesser siblings.


The mishandling of this process perhaps represents a lack of confidence on the architect’s part. Taking a bleak outlook, one could conclude that the architect uses algorithm-generated options as a shield to deflect responsibility. After all, instead of relying on the architect’s subjective observations and analysis, it’s easy enough to say ‘the computer made it’. Who can argue with that? It is a point worth arguing, particularly as this methodology gains momentum in schools. Options provide us with more information, but when substituted for rigorous, focused exploration, they may in fact make us less intelligent.


Corbin Keech



Dalia Hamati


Comments Off on CHOICE | Guest Contributors


© 2010-2013 BI, All Rights Reserved