A Common Theme

    The main thing that I got out of three articles that we had to read this week was the fact that they had a common theme.  In their own way, all three articles tried to emphasize the creative process involved with architecture.  It seemed as if they were saying that these creative aspects of architecture were there once, we had lost touch with them, and now they are seeming to make a comeback.
    In the first article, Inchoate by Angelil, two quotes stuck out to me the most, both about the architectural process of design.  The first one occurs on page 7 and reads "architectural design in its most literal sense may be considered a form of making, a form of production, necessitating analytical and material techniques that are put to work".  By describing architectural design as a form of making, as opposed to a process or calculation, it gives the impression that architectural design is deeply interrelated with art, reminding me that one of architecture's roots was painters and their art.  Also note that the second half of the quote brings in the point that both analytical and material techniques must be utilized.  This importance of material in the design of architecture is another reoccurring comment that is slipped into all three articles (as well as one of the main things I remember from Lisa's, our guest speaker, presentation.
   The second description of the architectural design process that stood out to me in the first article was on page 8 when the author reminds us to examine the "domain of creative work".  Artistic creativity is a critical characteristic of great architects, and it is one that is hard to teach, instead it almost has to be self taught, through things like the study of great works and architectural experience itself.  Then the thought of not just disregarding your "gut feeling" but accepting and analyzing it is brought up.  The saying usually goes "go with your gut feeling" and I think that Angelil reminds us about that since gut feelings are typically right, if your gut tells you that something looks better curved, then there is a good chance that other people will feel the same way.
   The second article, Versioning by SHoP, goes about describing the importance of creativity in architecture by explaining that technology has made it possible for us to again be creative in today's society.  Again I got the impression that SHoP was saying that at one point in our past this creativity was lost, and now with the advances in technology we are once again able to push the boundaries of our designs while being able to conform to the different requirements of our profession such as project budgets and construct-ability.  I did like how the authors defined "versioning" in this article as an attitude as opposed to an ideology and how architects can think or practice across multiple disciples, freely borrowing tactics from film, food, finance, fashion, economics, and politics for use in design.  SHoP is basically telling us to go look for inspiration in our society to get our "creative juices" flowing again.
    One additional random but funny thing (at least to me) that I picked up from the SHoP article is that how it seems they keep describing the architectural blob era as a "dot-blob bust".  I believe this is the second or third time this phrase has come up in SHoP articles that we have read in this semester and I think that SHoP is warning us that while yes we want to revitalize creativity in architecture, we must still remember the importance of construct-ability and that renderings that turn out as "all too image" really don't help us as architects.
    The focus of the third article, Versioning... by Tehrani, was mainly on examples of this new found creativity in modern day architecture.  H&dm work was described as "off the shelf planimetric and sectional relationships borrowed from modern architecture" whereas Gehry's work was described as "extraordinary spatial and formal manipulations clad in metal panels".  He then continues to describe a project where "surface and space are organically linked" and then how Le Corbusier "formulated new spacial, structural, and formal possibilities for architecture".  To me Tehrani is pretty much saying take a look, the technology is here and there are already great examples out there, become inspired by the great new works around you, be more creative and push the boundaries of your work.  It is as if he is giving a little pep talk to our architectural profession as a whole.
    The article continues with again bringing up this importance of the use of material in the design.  Another example is provided as Kahn's Exeter Library and on page 9 Tehrani goes on to explain "the precision of material use and its correspondent connection to syntax" by an example of the use of bricks and geometry (brick patterning).  The last page of the article ties back to the guidance that while creativity in architectural design is very important, construct-ability is even more important and must not be ignored.  The article ends with one of my favorite quotes that I have read in the class thus far, "without the surface, there is no space".  This simply worded but complex thought is all about how we as humans define spaces and bring life to our structural world, and reminding us as architects of how big of an impact we can have on that in our society.