Thursday, January 14, 2010
Provocation 2
The predominant organizing principle of most contemporary architecture is the 'program'; the human activities that a proposed work of architecture purports to accommodate translated into the simultaneity of an organizational diagram. Function, purpose, use and their diagrammatic rationalization continue to offer the generative order for new work. Acknowledging the statement by Pallasmaa that architectural design is above all an opportunity to explore the human existential condition; and accepting Kearney's recognition (following Ricoeur) that our existence in inherently 'storied'; what contribution can programmatic thinking continue to offer such a situation? How could narrative (story-telling) become a more viable process for the discovery of the relevant orderliness of our built environment?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One thing to remember relative to the "program" and its role as design generator in contemporary practice is that this line of investigation is often still grounded in philosophy albeit not in phenomenology. The work of folks like SHoP, LTL, Office dA, and others has been described as neo-pragmatist; pragmatism being a philosophy of action rather than contemplation (it also happens to be the only N. American contribution to international philosophical debates). This, then, might point to an architectural approach that is less about mytho-poetic "story telling" and more about grounded and strategic way of deploying specifically architectual expertise (the ordering of social spaces) relative to specific and context contigent circumstances (the ideosyncratic needs of a specific client, the anomolies of a particular site, the complexities of a particular program). Bob Somol and Sarah Whiting's essay (Notes Around the Doppler Effect) might make an nice pairing to contrast with Pallasmaa's work. What these figures represent is a generational shift in architectural thinking--the debate is not yet settled and, thus, this makes for a vibrant time to think architecturally.
ReplyDeleteVery intresting hmm
ReplyDeleteAs we touched on in class, the pragmatics of our existence are as much a story of who we are as the entirely conceptual. Where and how our bodies move defines the human condition as much as how we think; the emotional and conceptual are inherently part of the physical. In the poetic realm, a well-worn foot path between school buildings or a spot on a bronze statue polished shiny by the touch of superstitious travelers are markers of the patterns of peoples' lives. But mundane factors we might use in developing program, adjacency preferences, noise level conflicts, or heating needs throughout a day are defined by the physical needs of our bodies and are also a facet of the storytelling of who we are.
ReplyDeleteAccepting Kearney’s point that our existence is inherently “stored” in our body, which suggests our body is the measuring tool, the way finding device for us to understand the world and our existence in relation to the surroundings. Programming is our explicit act in the attempt to understand the conditions of human existence. Our body responds differently in various setting, thus we control or program the setting in order to program our body’s response. Programmatic thinking, even through is based on our body’s relationship to the surroundings, it is also the expectation for this relationship to take shape. For instance, architects program the size of a classroom with the understanding of the teaching/learning method in a classroom setting, but also the expected quality of a classroom for learning to take place. Since we are embedded with the spatial knowledge in our body, we use this knowledge to make sense of our existence, to narrate our story in a particular setting. Using the same knowledge, we program the settings for our narrative to take place. I think the art of programming is to define the boundary or to set up a scene for our narrative to take place.
ReplyDeleteThe way we respond to certain situations is a product of what we consider and approaches the idea of rationality, the way we view the world has been fed through time by our experiences and these in turn relate to the society in which we have lived, this would lead us to think that for every problem there is a process by which you can reach a successful solution. If we transfer this to the field of architecture we could infer that an organizational system or program that is determined by human activities is part of a logical process of design, but what would be the basis for this assertion? Should we base this on the anthropometric, functional issues or perhaps the psychics of the human being? Or maybe raise it to the philosophical level, the practice of architecture gives us the freedom to create rational spaces but at the same time they have their limits when we think about them pragmatically and we should be aware of this.
ReplyDeleteThe narrative is ultimately the result of the personal experience of the architect in terms of his existential knowledge, as I said before the experiences that have shaped his formation and how he expresses his ideas to society.
Our lives are individual narratives constructed through time and experience. At the end of the day, we can only communicate to others the through story telling; where we went, what we did. Portions of our lives can be written or told, but there will always be a much larger backdrop to the shorter daily narratives. This backdrop is made up of our of the built environment and how we perceive it. Our cognitive maps allow us to navigate through the the world through learning the relativity of one place to the next. Programmatic thinking with intention will create experience in which we may translate into a story, but this would be more likely a subtle conversation in the larger narrative of life. On the urban scale of spatial experiences and internalized narratives, buildings are destinations and backgrounds for scenes, but I don't believe they can tell a full story because that would be to exclude all outer context.
ReplyDeleteIt is my beliefs that humans have evolved to have programmatic needs. We have not evolved to adapt to this world, but have adapted to the notion of creating microcosmic environments in order to be comfortable. Inherently these conditions that we have created such as language, culture and our build environment have already seemly embodied the notion that we as humans have captured stories. Without the underlining transfer of “the narrative”, the world would not be as advanced as it is today. The network of digital technology by which we are now programing our spaces for and living within, is perhaps already the preservation of the narrative. The discovery is just in a different context of interception then the time your grandfather told you the story on a back porch. Perhaps designing and programming a space to be sensory and emotionally conforming to these typological formats is the next step for designers.
ReplyDeleteStepping out of first person encounters with our world, and viewing our actions and reactions from a distance, provides us an opportunity to realize commonly unnoticed instances - many of which are the true shapers of our lives. Every life is a unique narrative, and any human construction encountered throughout the pages of that narrative is architecture. Adapting the narrative to be a primary tool in creating the "relevant order of our built environment" has the potential to change the way we perceive our very existence. A narrative takes time to unfold, and is not a created concept. It is the fruiting body of what has already been. Paying respect to the pieces of a built environment that contribute positively to an architects personally experienced narrative, and designing to contribute to design traditions, is where I see narratives informing beautiful architecture and entire built environments.
ReplyDeleteHow often do we change the objects around us to better suit our needs?... I have made significant changes in my life in the last six months. For example, I no longer store my bike in the kitchen. I’ve migrated to my outdoor metal box (alias fridge) to preserve my food. I’ve been hanging a dark piece of fabric with clips over my mini-blinds when I want to sleep in a dark room. And, I've made a number of futile attempts to find a fine placement for my laundry baskets. The architecture in which I dwell remains the same, unable to respond to the changes I’ve made or wish to make.
ReplyDeleteThe kitchen table demanded to be moved to the center of the room surrounded by all its chairs. The table is very pleased, though my bike is quite miserable locked to the railings of my porch. The fridge is obsolete and abandoned, it is dying. The dark piece of fabric happily performs new functions. Confused and eroded the laundry baskets call for a stable setting.
It seems to me that architecture and most furnishings exist unsynchronized to the evolution of human activities. It would be interesting to identify and monitor human activities that could offer insightful stories and uncover the parallels that could inform ways in which the architecture programmatic approach could better respond to the changing human conditions.
In thinking on how one can utilize Narrative to enrich programmatic elements, one could think of these elements as the characters in a "story." The program puts forth the necessary framework, listing the characters that will appear in the story/building; to what degree these characters become intrinsic in telling a good story is the architect's, as author's, job.
ReplyDeleteCharacter development is key to a strong narrative. For one to feel engaged in the story one must feel a personal connection, such that the story is apart of his/herself and representative of him/her in one way or another. In creating universal space, one creates a two dimensional character with the aspirations that this character will be representative of everyone, when in fact the character represents no one. Giving the character the same task and role as another is to say that Juliet's role is the same as Romeo's, or to that point Mercutio's, to say that all are interchangeable is a falsity.
In our modern world of architectural technology, place making and sustainability we as architects have been charged with creating a much richer story. Architects in order to construct a narrative which is relative to today must, as with many other factors, address local and regional context, site specific conditions, and to the very minimum design walls which respond to the cardinal directions North, South, East and West. The cardinal directions in themselves issue forth complexities that enrich the architect's narrative.
When an architect creates a space for a specific program, he/she is responsible for creating a narrative for the space. One cannot truly address program without imagining how people will interact with the space, which inherently is the narrative the architect is trying to create, whether or not they are aware of it. In reality however, many times a space is not used as the architect intended or the program for a space may transform over time. This especially holds true at the small scale. Think of reconfiguring furniture in your home and how it has the ability to transform and re-program space. At this scale, it is not only impossible for an architect to provide a narrative, but it would be completely inappropriate. At a larger scale however, such as a stadium or an auditorium, it would be inappropriate and chaotic for an architect not to address how people should use the space. In between these two scales is where we find most of our architecture. In our fast paced, transient society, it is the architects job to find a delicate balance to not only guide the original narrative for the space, but to allow human interaction to transform the space and the narrative appropriately.
ReplyDeleteIn a state of constant change. We as humans (or maybe this is just myself) are consistently transforming, going through perpetual phases of metamorphosis. Much more than just a physical change of appearance as aging or other phenomena which can alter they way perceptions are made. There are emotional, psychological, intellectual transitions that can influence what we do and say. This in it self contradicts the nature of most architecture which is very static and unable or unwilling to accommodate change. Most times we adjust our life to make the architecture acceptable for our personal situations instead of the other way around. The reason why architecture has to be constantly updated and reorganized is because it is unable to keep up with a dynamic user. Is it our responsibility as architects to be cognizant of this or do we accept it as fact turning a blind eye?
ReplyDeleteHuman life has been programmed since birth; we are creatures of program that tell a story. As children’s we learned from our parents programming which influenced our own personal program. We interact with our friends which also affects our own story and their story. We as a whole have a deeper understanding of being human. As far as architecture, our stories can influence how we organize and a plan room depending on the setting we are trying to create for our next story.
ReplyDeleteI believe the point has been brought up throughout a few people thoughts that program is something we perscribe to a space and or building. I believe that the story is another way of perscribing a program and or understanding the program that was set in place. Through the understanding of how humans interact with space we can start to create a story or program that works with those conditions. Through a narrative, we can be more descriptive to create an even greater, specific program. This will help to bridge the gap between the reader and the user.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that the very existence of human life is inherently gifted with stories that span across the time and space. What we do, how we feel and in which form we interact with each other are continuously making the on-going stories(told or untold) forward. Much of the architecture design to define our existential reality through the “magic” or theo-mythic mapping of our needs(or wonders) pragmatically or, in a way, diagrammatically. The programmatic thinking provides rational foundation and appropriate level of abstraction, “logically” connecting the dots for function, purpose and usage of the daily life that the design is suit for. Narratives, though powerful and limitless in terms of the its expressibility, are naturally vague and inaccurate. After all, it is a language that is understood by all. It certainly can help to convey our programmatical thinking to the ordinary people. The human life is never utilitarian. Narrative or programmatic thinking often go hand-in-hand to tell a true multi-facet story. All in all, in my opinion, as perspective architects we should consider to use whatever the way of communication that is most effective, be it a programmatic sketch or long-narrative description.
ReplyDeleteStory telling is structured with a clear beginning and end with distinct transition within the narrative. There are characters, settings, and linkages throughout the story; enable readers to identify and understand. Through story telling authors are trying to communicate with us their ideas and views of the world. As Zafon mentioned in The Cemetery of Forgotten Books “ each of those books lay a boundless universe waiting to be discovered.” As readers are not only given the opportunity to understand the world of the authors but also the opportunity to interpret it through our perspectives, backgrounds, and senses. As inhabitants of space we are given very specific program for our physical space. Each space is clearly marked and uses for very specific activity. In a sense, program is more static than story telling and less tolerance of modification. But this is not necessarily true all of the time, because I believe that inhabitants have the ability to modify their living spaces to cater to their specific needs regardless of specificity of the program.
ReplyDeleteBe it a civic construct, commercial, or residential,, good buildings always tell a story. A museum tells a story about those whom it honors, an office tower tells a story about those who work or visit there, and a house tells the story of the souls that inhabit it. If not, then they are nothing more than a collection of walls, and windows, and roofs. The program IS that story and you can not begin to address the program until you understand every subtle nuance of the story.
ReplyDelete