Perfection in scope

As a personal comment, I've learnt a very valuable lesson today: We take most of this world for granted. We judge by first impressions, third-party critiques, and an overall composition. As what we do here is right, it is also senseless. Such judgement speeds up the process of specific selection for what we believe is "best", so given the vast variation of choices, we weigh them, and take the best overall choice - beneficial to us. The cruel world of fittest survive applies everywhere - its 'nature' - somewhat.

I argue now, in the context of best-overalls are the best choices, that they are in fact not.

As for most people, they don't know what they want; greed is like fire to flies. But this security of "i have an overall, it can't possibly go bad anywhere" takes you one small step further while you lose all the other overlooked half flawed selections. What is lost here, is the choices which could've pushed much more the best-overall could are all gone, because as far as balance resides in the universe, newtons equilibrium, yinyang, hell/heaven; these flawed imperfect overall choices may be perfect for just what you need. What we actually needed was something which fit what was necessary, something which performed in our scope of need, hence the product could've been perfect, depending on its scope.

The problem, coming from the fickle minded user, who only wants "best" while not knowing what it even is, is plain greedy by nature.

What we need IS indeed the best.

But that doesn't equate the Most;

The best means the best fit.

The one which strikes Balance.

The one that reaches Enough.

Enough is Enough. be not greedy and take what u can

or greed shall take just as much from you.

Post for Toby, you've taught me something great today =) Thanks a bunch

Because I like it hence therefore..

I get lost when I compare the Working world and the Studio world of architecture. Every cool design we learn about and have to come up with in school, has to have a story, a reason the building is designed the way it is - conceptually, formally, practically. The obvious relevance between school and the outside world is making a building work - but how about what it looks like?

Lecturers will tell you, "if you can't justify your form, it's as good as a box or any other shape - and don't tell me 'because I like it' hence therefore". Really?

In the working world, I hear more often than not, "aw man, the client thinks it looks like a blablabla" Hence, the next step is obviously, design for the client's liking. Back in school, we don't quite have a client, hence the only approval of 'liking' come from ourselves. So technically, there is nothing wrong with the reason "because I like it". Visual appearances plays a big part in first impressions - and with an external crit, you don't get a second impression. Funny isn't it? When it's all about what the crit SEEs, and what makes them like it; when it's up to the client to like what he SEEs then pay you, the form, the appearance, is very impression-based.

If the lecturer believes so much that form making is irrelevant to design, why bother with a visual impression? Why not present everything in plans and sections? It clearly doesn't matter if the building turns out to be a cube or a sphere in the end, as long as the building works well.

This isn't really an argument for random designs eventhough I'm not standing against it either, I understand that justifications prove a better thought out design, and be one less likely to fall apart when it comes to tested situations. But there is a line between how much thought is needed to be done to sell a building and how much is needed to be a perfectly responsive design (ofcourse unless this funny client of yours is an anal one =P ) Form-making is just one example. It could be other random spaces that the architect likes, and wants to shove it in for his own desire and so on.

So, the more justified, the higher chance of success rate? True/False

I pick false, and it's quite obvious why, when your client says "emm.. I don't think I'll go with this design, I'm sorry." You know damn well it's not because it's not thought out enough, but it's because he doesn't like your design from what he sees - be it the funny spaces u have or the funny shape u have.

See, they're both built are they not?

Schools over (follow up video)

Here's a video my team and I did for a subject called Integrated Project - a combination of 3 sub schools Quantity Surveyors, Construction Managers, and Architects. As a role play, we worked together as two companies under the Design&Build contract and had lecturers as Clients.

Site: Jalan Raja Chulan, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Function: Art Gallery + residential (1 person)

Work team included :

DCL Architects

Andrea Tan Yun Ru

Daniel Ak Seliong

Chia Ei Lyn

Go Chun Yee

Toh Yi Hong

Chua Kwee How

Lim Yeong Chwen

Clank & Pile Contractors

Joseph Chua

Chong Choong Wai

Grace Tan

Wong Jun Hoe

QS - Lee Wan Theng

QS - Law Yean Siong

CM - Benjamin Gung

Schools over

So I've officially completed my Diploma of Architectural Technology @ Taylors, though I didn't have studio in this last semester I participated in a competition (Markkinggeorgetown) hosted in Penang, doubt I'll go very far with it, but besides that, I've also helped out some of my friends in their final studio.

These are some renderings of theirs:

Hey guys, it was a pleasure working with all of you, and I've learnt more in this semester than any other thanks to you =)

Golden Ratios = CHEAT

WARNING: A VERY LONG POST

As I thought over the impossibility of cracking the system to create acceptable architecture, 100% of the time, I resort to my first example of 'cheatsheets' - the divine proportions - a formula thought to have broken the code of freedom, being impossible to hate. Created by Greeks (i think) the Divine Proportion is built upon the Golden Ratios - a calculation wherein "mathematics and the arts, two quantities in the golden ratio; the ratio of the sum of the quantities to the larger quantity is equal to (=) the ratio of the larger quantity to the smaller one" (wiki, Golden Ratio)

It doesn't quite matter whether if it makes any sense now, soon it will. Hopefully.

As I went through further with this Golden Ratio business, I learnt that it's not only related to maths (Fibonacci sequence, pi, irrational numbers) and arts (divine proportions, davinci) - the only ones I know of, it touches on so much more: biology, music, structure and ofcourse, architecture; also recently what I believe photography should be included =P

Following wiki, I'll break it down into 3 main topics - aesthetics, nature and maths.

1 Aesthetics being the most related to topic, Da Vinci worked on the Vitruvian system of rational proportions and the Divine

Proportions - and how this all linked up from harmonious proportions and more importantly pleasing compositions, to our body's natural proportions in nature's creation. The first link builds between Art and Maths. Though unofficial, it's been claimed DaVinci painted MonaLisa within the scope of the Golden Ratio and at the same time,Pablo Tosto (researcher) listed over 350 works by well-known artists, including more than 100 which have canvasses with golden rectangle and root-5 proportions, and others with proportions like root-2, 3, 4, and 6. The point I'm trying to make here isn't the absolute formula which rules the universe but the similarities which draw these different line of topics together under the same law, all working out in their own way.

2 [Complete copy off wiki] Adolf Zeising, whose main interests were mathematics and philosophy, found the golden ratio expressed in the arrangement of branches along the stems of plants and of veins in leaves. He extended his research to the skeletons of animals and the branchings of their veins and nerves, to the proportions of chemical compounds and the geometry of crystals, even to the use of proportion in artistic endeavors. In these phenomena he saw the golden ratio operating as a universal law. In connection with his scheme for golden-ratio-based human body proportions, Zeising wrote in 1854 of a universal law "in which is contained the ground-principle of all formative striving for beauty and completeness in the realms of both nature and art, and which permeates, as a paramount spiritual ideal, all structures, forms and proportions, whether cosmic or individual, organic or inorganic, acoustic or optical; which finds its fullest realization, however, in the human form"

3 Maths; well all there is to it is the understanding of the Golden ratio, and I choose not to further the discussion into it because it doesn't directly link back to aesthetics. Though we have to keep in mind the things to remember are:

• it almost looks like a 2:1 ratio between a+b
• simplified to closest rationals, b = 1/3 (0.333..)
• actual ratio is 1:1.61803...
• a can be also otherwise substituted with 1.61803 (phi), and b as 1

ULTIMATELY the link,

After all the hustle and bustle of name droppings and formula shoving, one thing remains constant - everyone's relation to the golden ratio is unavoidable. The idea is that the proportions, to its approximate, surges a connection through our visual appreciation metaphysically, to naturally be prone to accept such a composition - while at the same time in it's exact numbers, serves a higher purpose of patterns and systematic pragmatics - in maths, structures, rhythm & music.

I will also not dwell into architecture examples, as I believe it's not hard to study up on Greeks Acropolis, NotreDame, LeCorbusier and MarioBotta's works (all of which quite prominent with relations to the Golden ratio - all serving for harmonious proportions altogether) "rhythms apparent to the eye and clear in their relations with one another. And these rhythms are at the very root of human activities. They resound in man by an organic inevitability, the same fine inevitability which causes the tracing out of the Golden Section by children, old men, savages and the learned." Le Corbusier

As they say,

Practice makes perfect, and

Trial and error gets you one step closer.

As the world act in it's nature of survival and progress

Each individual finds and eventual stage of comfort and solution.

The Law of survival (of the fittest) passes the bests

and the bests make a point.

Linked together across the world, the points make a connection

A connection generates a similarity, and

Similarities generate a pattern.

Patterns make proof,

Proof makes evidence, and

Evidence make inevitability.

Thus the creation of the system of our universe.

The cheat here, (at least for us visual impress-ors) is to easily manipulate your visuals (in composition and proportions) to follow the golden proportions, even slightly, it makes an impact.

E.g. Photographers have been told to follow a rule - The rule of thirds (where your main subject only fills up 2/3 of the frame) - which generally aimed for novices, it teaches them the first steps of composition to create a "nice picture"; looked closer, its 0.66.. much like the proportions of a/a+b (above) = 0.618...

Other examples such as Music, listed, is adherent in terms of structure and rhythm - not entirely related but visible. Further studies could go into Pi, Fibonacci, Da Vinci, and so on, but I warn you. People dedicate their whole lives to the study of the Golden Proportions because of its divinity - I merely want to extract the cheat code here of visual appreciation to create an upper hand in design and effective proportion compositions.

All about MATHS; the complete equation (for Grace)

I said I'll do this post so here I am, and you better listen up good =)

The fine line between arts (music, drama, art) and architecture is that one inevitably deals with people's physical lives and the other only tempers with the psychological mindset.

That being said,

When human lives are directly involved, there come the rules of survival/safety, law of workability, and the improvement of comfort. Similar to all other infrastructural and transportation equations, architecture then inevitably falls under equations and formulae as a rules and boundaries are set.

An example of a formula, would be indications of all REQUIREMENTS and basic necessities of a creation. That would be our very own UBBL given. But what comes next, separates the builders (contractors) and the "highly" taught architects, =P

The complete equation.

The complete equation is a set of formulae put together all under the job description of an architect. Thus pertaining to the rules stated:

REQUIREMENTS + ETHICS becomes the next step to better architecture. Building comfortable zones. (This is currently achieved worldwide) After the workable shelter, architects start improving the spaces, ergonomical functions, and increasing the quality of living. The realworld situation actually stops here - solving human needs.

However. It is not complete without creativity (innovation). The world above sets out the immediate reactions and most economical solutions within the short timeframe. The world we are phasing into is starting to need more than that, or rather is showing the flaw of the existing system.

REQUIREMENTS + ETHICS + CREATIVITY = ARCHITECTURE. (the complete equation)

Creativity brings innovation (either a smarter, friendlier and more economical way of doing our existing tasks, OR combining more tasks doable in one creation) Creativity would come from many angles (eg, experimentation, accidental discoveries, developed concepts, etc) Most commonly, it would appear from a guided path, one which has already set for goals at improving a certain aspect. Developing concepts through close attention payed to existing problems - which conveniently relates directly to our middle equation,

ETHICS. Identifying the problems and the willingness to help for the better lives of the general public, serves as the strongest goals and motivation. (This which I truly believe is most important above all, the belief of a better tomorrow)

*note, to our specific global situation, ethics should include the environment & nature =P

This, Grace, is why I believe you are suited, because you care.

Fight for your beliefs and never never let go, no matter how impossible it sounds. Five days ago, I fought for you, but it would not have been possible without you fighting with me. You made the first step by letting in, now you just have to believe.

Don't get me wrong, I'd support you whole heartedly in everything you believe in. You just have to give me a better reason =)

IF you are still wondering; what about arts?

arts could simply be ignored, and it wouldn't hurt you a single bit. They are passive, like Frederick Hertzberg's hygiene theory, only opposite, it could improve your state of living if you pay attention to it, but it couldn't impair your physical state of living if it never existed. The existence of architecture however, is imminent. The rule-less-ness of art leaves out the two starting equations of requirements and ethics, leaving it only to pure creativity and an expression of true freedom, style and data; limitless and bordered beyond horizons.

It's not impossible, Grace. You've got what it takes and you know it =)

Two routes of sustainability planning

After having a small chat with a good friend of mine from Maldives, I saw what strong passion came from this patriot of pure goodness and optimism for the mere existence of human nature alone. Ahmed Thahseen, take care man! I will definitely go the islands to find you in the near future!

Maldives, a country of islands has officially sought to be the first Carbon-neutral country all in all. Done with an underwater cabinet meeting AND a flag. Quite creative a way to show the 'sinking of maldives' (at the rate of the current rising sea level momentum)

Thus after a little debate we came up with two solutions, a long term and a short term project.

Though this is nothing new I believe setting things out loud and clear sets a good start

1. Education (long term) - such a project would notably been 'infused' with our education programs (and probably show big results every 10 years), at least with the direct relations in my architecture course; however, its too slow a movement and it has got to be thrown in quick. To understand the diminishing resources and rising problems. Bit by bit, cleaning corners for the future.
2. Immediate last resort active solutions (short term) - this would cover from - EVERY single infrastructure & architecture being built this moment on has to be Green, to, throwing on expensive pv panels and windmills where the country can - salvaging and reducing the immediate use of the GHG reduction, carbon reduction & non-renewable resource using stuffs... (right now, Following the curve of supply n demand cross-ref with cost, the world would've died before cost exceed the annihilation risk hits these money-minds. )

Though I do believe the world shall get better in the near future, this curve is going to be a really hard one to pull back up; let alone find equilibrium.

When there's a will, there's a way;

Someone's just gotta take the first leap of faith

to make a better day.

-Thahseen

The Company equation

Just a quick note of it before I forget I ever know this equation

A company is made up of 4 types of people.

1) The brains

2) The connector

3) The seller

4) The doer

The brains devises the solution, the connector who has a very wide range of connections, pool people in, the seller pitches the project and get things started. The less awarded but highly important people are the doers - the ones who does everything from start to end.

Now, Who are you?

(credit goes to Mr.Edward Chew my tutor in college, him and his grandfather tales. I added in the 4th person in as I saw fit)

We > God

Some say “The devil is in the details,” meaning solutions break down when you examine them closely enough. Some say “God is in the details,” meaning opportunities for discovery and creativity come from digging into the details... if you search deep enough, then you will be able to discover an aspect of perfection.

http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2008/03/30/god-is-in-the-details/

I came about this route as I was thinking about the linkage between professions, between 'subjects' or categories all part of the same world. As my previous studies over some a few architects such as Gaudi, Kisho Kurokawa and Wright, I realised they can't create architecture without their substance and inspiration from categories OUTSIDE of architecture. Be it spiritual to realism, their architecture always link more into the world for some 'higher value'.

Taking Kurokawa as an example as he seems most fitting, his philosophy of metabolism:symbiosis attempts to overrule or rather synchronize with the pattern of nature - building in purposeful harmony. With that being said, the philosophy links up history and future, human and art, nature and machines, etc etc etc, which brought me to realise, it's that simple building links - just the way things are perceived.

Our actions are cultivated through instincts - served from our human nature. Thus whatever we do, nature resides in our actions. Put into context, all products or service created by humans reflect each other in more ways that we imagine. Supply and demand, Roof for shelter, School for teaching, Medicine for curing, Elimination for mistakes. These things all come from the equation of natural instincts where looked closely, echo each other piece by piece - this is commonly extracted through our metaphors & similes. "autonomous teams like machines, light like hope to life. structures like trees". Our creations are no more unique than the way we see it; the term "everything's done before" is scarily true (at least for me) because all these links lead me to believe, WE HAVE BEEN DONE BEFORE. Creations are only a symptom of what we are. So it doesn’t quite matter if we're doing economics, arts, engineering or architecture, we resonate together synchronously as we all have a common goal - set by nature and our interpretation of nature, Survival and Life, respectively.

I wonder now if it's truly God who's in these details, or is it only Human in nature's system, like you and me. And to know that we humans have step foot on almost every corner of this earth, make an impact and decision for every rock, I'd believe our existence has burned into the flesh of every-thing possible. Simply put, while WE dominate the world we live in, and echo each other ever so flawlessly; our byproducts of reactions-to-life all come under one powerful entity made up of a race which could be crowned for no-body else but us: Humans. Our doings are Perfect in its apparent creation.

hence, I would like to rephrase today’s topic expression as:

We are perfect in the course of nature’s system

thus,

We are in the details.

the system vs. the components vs. catalysts vs. resources

The system

maths rhythm history life science patterns procession etc.

The components

survival economics business standard-of-living architecture health happiness meaning-of-life

The catalysts

fire light electricity technology cars phones computers super-computers satellites communication, brains.

The resources

land, water, food, materials (stone, wood, metal), gold, diamonds, etc.

The benefactors, the cause, the beneficiaries, the victims

Humans.

The Purpose

Do we:

Live for our personal desire

Live for our children to come

Live for earth's cycle

Live for survival

or simply Live because we were given the life

The outcome

Life

Saviors?

God. People who play God. People with power. People with skills. People with vision

I truly believe architects serve a higher purpose in life; more so than building a shelter, more so than making money for mortgages and definitely more so than making a stupid icon. Beneath all 'added value', we come under 'components of a greater system', and we make a difference to that 'outcome'. We provide what is unachievable by non-architects; skills. The difference between a true purposeful architect and a man who builds is that the architect builds more than just that physical building.

Any man and woman could pool together strength and coordination to build a house - this happened couple of millennia ago. So those who hold a cert, and design a house no different than a house a century ago are not architects - they are mimickers.

If the land, earth's most important resource, is used 99% by man-made structures and infrastructures, are we not responsible for expansion? And if we are, aren't we one of the mains who can do something about the damages inflicted on the planet?

We live on what we make, it's about time we see to our responsibilities.

____________________________________________________________________

Ofcourse architects aren't the only ones who can make a difference. But size does matter in this case - built function encourage or rather limit actions/reactions. Freedom associates with positiveness in a figure of speech, but truly, it means anarchy. We enjoy freedom as a race, not an individual thus order was created for effective functioning and directions were distributed through education. Every custom, religion, culture have to be re-introduced with sustainability and earth appreciation.

So, this order should begin with the built environments. We architects have to take the first steps and make a model of ourselves.

Is copying all that bad?

Recently I learned that the younger generation, us, are growing to be worse.

Reason being, styles + icons. It's widely known that styles do no good as most copycats are plastering the outlook of famous styles on their work - claiming it comparable to those born from pure inspiration and reason OR simply just coming up with a compelling form of no functional enhancement; just for the appearance.

Though I do agree with this statement, I see a possibility of what I imagine as hope.

What IF. Copying is encouraged. Only this time, these fellow sheep copy an effective solution. Bring it back to Corbu all over again. Create a formula of architecture, when replicated, becomes highly effective a machine. Let towns work in sync, let cities combine to change, let countries bind edge to edge to reverse the industrial damage - heal the world as we destroyed it, reverse its course.

Recreate a trend with the help of publicist. Brainwash the no-brainers. Screw the identity, diversity and interesting architectures for the moment. We're already at the edge of losing the physiological need of survival - theres no need to move up for self actualization (following the maslow's hierarchy).

So stop. Take a few steps back. Go for the opportunity cost. Though moving forward seems crucial, what does it all mean if we lose thousands of lives along the way? To progress on others' death wouldn't be a victory at all. Progress can only go thus far until all is lost.

___________________________________________________________________

Would it be called copying if it was a reuse of solutions?

Would it be bad if copying solved the problems?

Would copying be the right word to use if "all has already been done before" in the first place?

Whose fault? Architects vs. Clients for 'good architecture.'

Architects call themselves con-artists.

Yet the "customer (client) is always right".

Common situation

1. Client says no, architects agree mindlessly. Project continues, money comes.
2. Client says yes, architects disagree consciously, due to the responsibility of an architect to his profession and attempts to convince client OTHERwise.

For situation 2, it may come out 1 of 2 ways, client is satisfied OR client is dissatisfied and either finds another architect/ the architect quits/ the architect quietly abide in order for project to continue for various reasons.

The major reason is Money. Survival issues.

Hence, problem 1 arises. Once the architect lets go, assuming the architect was well educated and DID have a better suggestion, "Bad architecture" arises. Fingers begin to point. Truly, who is to blame then? The stubborn client or the weak architect?

Architects are called 'consultants' in the construction practice. Aside from designing, we also consult. Thus the 'con-' attached to 'artists'. So, if we are who we are supposed to be, consultants - should we not learn the skill of public speaking, marketing and communications? Or is it up to personal architects to sought for their own definitions and scope of 'responsibility' in order to prevent fingers from pointing? 'I'm not responsible for what the client wants, therefore I do my job as a designer solely'

In reality, "bad architecture" could be the fault of either one and/or both.

In my perspective, I see faults in both parties as long as bad architecture arises. Aside from the endless possibilities of a bad project alone (eg cost, planning, time, management, disasters); For the sake of this situation created, it will be the architect's fault for failing the project as a whole (not just the design stages. but the execution through the process) AND the client being too stubborn to see better solutions in the eye of the architect - after all, an architect is rightfully hired to solve problems to 'bad' architecture.

Solution?

If educated effectively, in a typical world, architects are just simulating machines - brought up as worldbuilders, only with the power of creativity and innovation (the triumphant element against machines, don't know about A.I. =P) Hence, the problem still boils down to the one who wants to a building built - the client. Speculated around the world, good architecture, are commonly seen together within a settlement (despite the fact famous 'and assumingly good' architects run around the world promoting their skills) Thus I believe the problem begins with the people (all being potential clients) and their education level on well-being, ultimately customs. The solution is not matter of what but how, as the understanding of changing a custom is through a lifelong education 40% from the schools and awareness, and 60% from the environment themselves (eg surroundings, parents, friends, media, religion, etc).

EG/ Dubai. Thousands of critiques are hammering on the architecture built in U.A.E due to the absurd points proven. With the set of criteria and the abundance of cash, the filthy rich clients prove one thing - with too much money, power and the lack of understanding for sufficiency, limitations are endless, focus is also dispersed; hence 'bad architecture' arises. Clients are ultimately the ones who initiate the project of a building to begin with- their intentions give the spark for the project - so the problem would start where intentions go 'wrong', leading to a whole set of miscalculations within the equation.

In this scenario, it seems the solution is out of the architects power. However, put in a different situation, even if architects were able to convince every stubborn client - would it save the world then? I believe not. Architects are worldbuilders. We don't just build buildings, we're building a module to fit within the system of world's buildings' system. We literally shape the world we live in. Hence, the final creation of a city, state or country is up to the political leaders - governments - the ones who can make a true widespread and quick difference. As our order goes to them, they have the responsibility to improve our options and ultimately the architecture we create.

Conclusion

So in this case, should we be spending out efforts convincing every client, or pool our energy together to convince that one person who makes the difference for every client? =)

____________________________________________________________________

Ofcourse there are tons of loop holes in this argument but I saw to prove one point only. Through discussions with mates of mine, we understood that, there is no ONE solution to improve the state of living (even in terms of architecture). The International style is an example sought to improve the way of life, thought it rightfully succeeded, the inevitable course of nature continued to cycle - humans ask for more despite the given amenities. Cultural diversity, regionalism, identity, meaning of life.

The more we strive, the faster we speed up the process,

The more we push, the closer we come to our end.

Just because (technology vs potential)

Architecture is constantly affected by styles.

Ones who lack inspiration, look to styles.

Ones who cant translate, look to styles.

This is a current problem stated by many large architects.

We get that.

However, I can't help but imagine there's another problem with the thwarting of good design, potential suppressed and exploitation of technology. These three points put together design which heads nowhere but a halt in development - buildings are built on the fact that they are designed in such a way just because technology allows them to. Just Because.

• Ones who cant get their hands on softwares and building technology resort to the next best option with what they have. That's just what you have to do. But its not justice.
• Ones who have the ideas, concepts n drawings but cannot get it done due to technological impossibilities doesn't make them over ambitious.
• Ones who HAVE the technology however, may be the instrument to build a better world; yet those unaware and inattentive chose to take the easy way out, build within the scope of what the technology may do or does easily, thus reducing the innovation in minds.

People may always argue, deal with what you have - calling it, Life. True, I agree that limitations force innovation; last resorts bringing out the true potential. What about forcing the best out of all that's given, all the time. Just because technology out grows you doesn't mean u let it. 10 years of future technology ahead awaits to be released only based on marketing demand - what makes you think you can slow down, even a little, with innovative minds, maximizing the current technology?

That thought may work in a world of an individual but not this world we all live in. Its a collective world we live in, so collective ideas and effort should be the correct output. It is our job as architects to be innovative. It is our job to sought for the best. But we cannot do it alone - we need the right resources provided by the country to save us time from searching, while we could really be putting in the time for better use. The pushing of technology should be a helping hand to better life and not be an advantage for increasing added value.

This goes out to students, architects and builders all over the world. The life we live in may not be lived to its best with the technology and resources available. The comfort zone is only a position - not a direction.

Thus the achievement we have conquered has never permitted us to say, "Just. Because."

Let's work harder for the ones around us, shall we not?

Of this cruel world, fairness should exist - only question is, where?

What's so great about Corbu?

This also has to be attended to when given the time =)

Genius Loci vs. Zeitgeist

will have to attend to this when i have the time =D

Modernism (Extract)

This is a post I found on Modernism while researching for my not-so-important essay, a funny and interesting read in this sum-up of the Era of Modernism. The fella references in and out of architecture from time to time, quite informative I'd say.

This is just the extracted part where I liked =)

But modernism of the heroic period, from 1920 to 1939, is dead, and it died first in the blockhouses of Utah beach and the Siegfried line. Yet in its heyday between the wars, modernism was a vast utopian project, and perhaps the last utopian project we will ever see, now that we are well aware that all utopias have their dark side.

Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were two utopian projects that turned into the greatest dystopias the world has known. Modernism briefly survived them both, but lost its nerve in the 1960s when the municipal high-rise estates in St Louis, Missouri, were deemed social catastrophes and dynamited. However, I sometimes think that social catastrophe was what the dirt-poor residents secretly longed for.

Modernism's attempt to build a better world with the aid of science and technology now seems almost heroic. Bertolt Brecht, no fan of modernism, remarked that the mud, blood and carnage of the first world war trenches left its survivors longing for a future that resembled a white-tiled bathroom. Architects were in the vanguard of the new movement, led by Le Corbusier and the Bauhaus design school. The old models were thrown out. Function defined form, expressed in a pure geometry that the eye could easily grasp in its entirety. Above all, there should be no ornamentation. "Less is more," was the war cry, to which Robert Venturi, avatar of the tricksy postmodernism that gave us the Sainsbury wing of the National Gallery, retorted: "Less is a bore."

But the modernists maintained that ornamentation concealed rather than embellished. Classical columns, pediments and pilasters defined a hierarchical order. Power and authority were separated from the common street by huge flights of steps that we were forced to climb on our way to law courts, parliaments and town halls. Gothic ornament, with all its spikes and barbs, expressed pain, Christ's crown of thorns and agony on the cross. The Gothic expressed our guilt, pointing to a heaven we could never reach. The Baroque was a defensive fantasy, architecture as aristocratic playpen, a set of conjuring tricks to ward off the Age of Reason.

So modernism was a breath of fresh air and possibility. Housing schemes, factories and office blocks designed by modernist architects were clear-headed and geometric, suggesting clean and unembellished lives for the people inside them. Gone were suburban pretension, mock-Tudor beams and columned porticos disguising modest front doors.

Hitler and Stalin were intrigued by modernism, which seemed part of a new world of aviation, radio, public health and mass consciousness. But the dictators were nervous of clear-headed people who thought for themselves. The Nazis promptly closed the Bauhaus when they came to power and turned it into an SS training school.

Modernism saw off the dictators, and among its last flings were Brasilia, the Festival of Britain and Corbusier's state capital buildings at Chandigarh in India. But it was dying on its pilotis, those load-bearing pillars with which Corbusier lifted his buildings into the sky. Its slow death can be seen, not only in the Siegfried line and the Atlantic wall, but in the styling of Mercedes cars, at once paranoid and aggressive, like medieval German armour. We see its demise in 1960s kitchens and bathrooms, white-tiled laboratories that are above all clean and aseptic, as if human beings were some kind of disease. We see its death in motorways and autobahns, stone dreams that will never awake, and in the turbine hall at that middle-class disco, Tate Modern - a vast totalitarian space that Albert Speer would have admired, so authoritarian that it overwhelms any work of art inside it.

Modernism was never popular in Britain - a little too frank for its repressed natives, except at lidos and the seaside, where people take their clothes off. The few modernist houses and apartments look genuinely odd. Why?

I have always admired modernism and wish the whole of London could be rebuilt in the style of Michael Manser's brilliant Heathrow Hilton. But I know that most people, myself included, find it difficult to be clear-eyed at all times and rise to the demands of a pure and unadorned geometry. Architecture supplies us with camouflage, and I regret that no one could fall in love inside the Heathrow Hilton. By contrast, people are forever falling in love inside the Louvre and the National Gallery.

All of us have our dreams to reassure us. Architecture is a stage set where we need to be at ease in order to perform. Fearing ourselves, we need our illusions to protect us, even if the protection takes the form of finials and cartouches, corinthian columns and acanthus leaves. Modernism lacked mystery and emotion, was a little too frank about the limits of human nature and never prepared us for our eventual end.

JG Ballard

The actual link below if you want to read the rest of it :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2006/mar/20/architecture.communities

Timeless Architecture

Timelessness

I’ve been hit by the word “timeless” in architecture many a times and have completely no idea what is it specific to. The trend now seems to be “sustainability”; and some architects refer this is “timelessness” too since they can preserve long into the future, yet this should not be titled “timeless”, as the literal meaning to it states that the word attached to that of an object should make it everlasting or eternal. A second interpretation to timeless architecture styles however means that the “art” of architecture would still be appreciated over a very long period of time; but what does it even mean? Don’t we study history to appreciate these arts or architecture? And if the building should last until today, does it mean it was so great to fight the test of nature and time that it evokes the action of preservation, hence officially entitling it as a timeless?

I have taken this word into two different understandings, the physical and literal way as opposed to the more artsy way based on affinity we call ‘style’. Yet, in both ways I believe the word timelessness is still inappropriately used (because I’m so goddamned stubborn to take things literally in black and white). In the physical way, timelessness should rightfully been born millenniums ago with the whole stone age ‘architecture’ or just stones, which last until today, if not, the pyramids at least – funny to realize these architecture are inhabitable. So, where are the buildings that are habitable – haven’t they all turned into ‘preserved’ monuments of tourist attractions? Now I’m not arguing in the point of view of what architecture really means (because I can’t define it for myself) but if we were to take it as what most architecture does – inhabit humans; the whole timeless idea seems to have expired now hasn’t it? *Unless ofcourse, you state that the inhabitation of humans include the dead, but that’s cheating =P* If I had to think of buildings which still inhabit occupants built long ago, it could only be places of worship and religious significance. Does this mean it is the way to live? Perhaps I should have stated that the argument is based on homes or offices. So is there such a thing as timeless dwellings in the built architecture? Isn’t architecture built for sake of ourselves? To build for the use/appreciation of humans – to make life better. I believe that if the inevitable modernization and development were to halt, these buildings and lifestyles may be considered timeless. Then again, the only way to do that is to stop time itself, hence making EVERYTHING timeless. Isn’t it an inevitable course of human nature to progress and search for a healthier and better living? Creating all sorts of inventions, light, computers, internet, making life more efficient, to allow us to ‘do more’ in ‘less time’. So sticking closer to topic, can architecture last forever? The answer, theoretically, should be yes. It’s all about the nature of the materials used to make it last physically, forever. Whether or not the function or appreciation of which the building has been built for lasts just as long – is a different question. If construction stopped today, and all we did was maintain what has been built, only cracks and prevent leakage; everything would last – perhaps eternally. Sadly, this would also mean no progress in architecture. It is only in human nature to strive for the better, be innovative, to enrich identity. This leads to the second interpretation, appreciation of style.

I believe it’s arguable and that timelessness in architectural style do exist – being appreciated just as much throughout time. This would mean referring to buildings which don’t necessarily have to be built for living, but may be monumental or religious or merely just as art itself. However, in this argument of habitable architecture lasting forever, we see again that it does not in fact exist in 99% of houses – unless you lived in a castle =) So, in my opinion now, it is absurd to intentionally create a timeless style as appreciation is a subjective manner to everyone – most if not all, enjoy diversity. Style is an intangible definition, it does not die as long as one still believes in it, and luckily for this case, history education preserves all that’s been created. It is therefore impossible to affect the world with one style and make it last forever as this subjective appreciation comes along with culture and also development – the common style however, will inevitably change through introduction of inventions or innovations.

There is however one catch I’ve come to realize – combining the intangible and tangible – making style synonymous with structural building systems. What Corbusier has done to make himself one of the most important man in architecture – creation of functional efficiency as the ‘new innovation’, what becomes inevitable to use out of ingenious physical development. I dare say though, even this style shall perish in the future – it only takes time for the unavoidable human nature and innovative minds to make a ‘better living’, destroying most of everything in its course.

Conclusion?

A building physically lasting while losing its initial motive does not suffice as timeless architecture. Dwellings should not be built to last. Style alone is too wide a range to dub timelessness. Mother Nature > ‘Man’ufacturing.

Why do they even bother trying to come up with timelessness anyway? Is it to truly solve the problem of problems? Or are these individuals just afraid of fading beyond memory?

Perhaps it’s a lesson to us, to be less narrow minded and zooming out for a wider understanding of this pattern of nature. Embrace the inevitable, allow for change, let time take its course, not fight it. Architecture has been built for humans anyway. Why make them last forever when we don’t? In my opinion, the only thing that lasts forever is, the course of nature itself. Do what we can now to preserve ourselves as we so love, educate the next generation well – it is not US as individuals who should live forever, its US as a human race that should strive for eternity, let ‘timelessness’ be not of a thing but the lesson learnt from it.

____________________________________________________

After writing the post, I decided to question my lecturer if my understanding of what i wrote above meant anything, this is how it went...

endorphIAN says (10:21 PM): Timeless means "not subject to fashion"

endorphIAN says (10:22 PM): "has deep, lasting value"

endorphIAN says (10:25 PM): "fashionless is not a good translation it suggests "formlessness" jsopeh says (10:25 PM): formless?

endorphIAN says (10:25 PM): "not subject to fashion" is best

endorphIAN says (10:26 PM): formless= no shape or rhyme or reason, arbitrary

**An example of a timeless building given to be explained: Kandalama Hotel**

**20 mins later**

jsopeh says (10:46 PM): .................................... hmm.... as though everything happens for a reason, and only that reason alone

jsopeh says (10:49 PM): the materials chosen, and space designed, has been built only to serve what it has 'addressed' for .. hence in that simplest most direct & effective manner, no additional 'appearance' appeal or ornamentation is included. (Provided it stood the test of time ofcourse =P)

endorphIAN says (10:50 PM): that's more or less it

______________________________________________________

Obviously I was very far away from what it actually meant =P

Disclaimer note

"Views and thoughts are purely biased and stubborn. It poses no offense of whatsoever, what I'm writing is just another random suggestion you'd ignore everyday. I write it so I don't forget what I've been through, so I don't rewrite the mistakes I so often do. Read at your own risk."

Time is money.

I wouldn't waste it here if I were you

=)