|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
dgt
Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 92
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:13 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
I too long for that time. As well as Kenzo Tange and the 'metabolists.'
It is rather big shoes to fill though. I think Archigram's contribution is based on the equal effect it had on architecture and urbanism.
Perhaps this new approach will do the same for architecture and the sciences?
This is a little off-topic but in a similar vein, what do you think of Yale's post-critical theory. Did it start there? I am not sure, nor am I that familar enough with the school as a whole.
-dgt |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm afraid I'm still struggling with the concept of a "critical history" ! I'll do a little searching and see if I can educate myself enough to keep up. . . Any enlightenment you can share would be appreciated. 
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dgt
Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
SDR,
A somewhat popular practitioner of this methodology has been Dennis Dollens. His approach is somewhat rudimentary (he basically has 'borrowed' botanic growing software to 'grow' architecture instead). Nevertheless, he is very clear where he fits into the architectural discourse (somewhere between Sullivan's System of Organic Form and Semper's textile primitive hut).
The work is rudimentary in process and lack of refinement, but the argument and the contribution is valid. He uses 'genetic'....I would not. I would say it is a beginning.
Regards,
dgt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What shuld "grow" is not just walls and floors , things like plumbing and wires could proberly be "routed" as with electronic print programs. but to cast the actural forms ,the rooms windows walls , just everything ------- this proberly would result in a well planned chaos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dgt
Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Who wrote about 'casting'? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry maby wrong word --- but what is it that make you decide a form ; the materials what you know can produce the details with a specific number and types of materials, or is it so that your emagination can dictate limitless forms and you can project the interiours without a thought about what sheets and foundation this requier ?
Today designes are so tight up with develobed systems that it is difficult to emagine anything to develob further than the good old Lego thiinking --- It is even difficult to emagine that ofcaurse 3D-H deliver the exact logistic,even better than if an architect must remember to let the program remember the door or window -- it is difficult to emagine what you think is to fantastic to take place even you can go into detail in a 3D drawing of it ; as that drawing seem to "simple" while you are used to information added to entities, entities that by automatic deliver all nessery logistic instead of the architect sitting at the screen with a handheld calculator ; ... sorry to say so but just that, sitting in front a computer with a hand held calculator don't it say it all about how much more is needed , that it is accepted that programs running on heavy duty computers are so clumpsy made that you need a calculator sitting in front of one ?
For me it say somthing else -- that the technikes are truely worn out that the old methods shuld have been revised a decade ago, that innovation and visionary thinking never had a chance within a rigid academic safeseat inviroment , and no one bt the visionary have any guts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dgt
Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
P.C.
With the utmost respect for your (misplaced) passion I offer the following statement.
Whether or not your system is beneficial is irrelevant. You are not the first to experiment with this (and I emphasize experiement, because until you fabricate something...anything....it is all just talk). If I am mistaken then show some sort of copyright or patent. You refer to images or drawings of a specific date but offer no concrete evidence.
Furthermore, the fact that you would apply this system to any building or context is frightening. Architecture is not simply about form. It is a
complex relationship between context, materials, inhabitants and design.
You maintain that we can design anything and apply your system to build it. That can be said about almost any system with enough ingenuity and money. If indeed, 'your' solution is cheaper and more economical... hurrah for you. Please prove this without wild and unsupported claims. Perhaps take up SDR's challenge and build two doghouses, one with 3D-H and one without, and economically and structurally compare them?
Nevertheless, NOX has done extensive projects using 'your' system and they have been neither economically revolutionary nor structurally incredible. However, they have been excellent systems for the specific architectonic concept. But this is not universally applicable.
Hypothetically, lets say that despite all rational thought and established evidence of the lack of uniqueness of 'your' system that it becomes the norm. Where would architecture be then? All buildings would be structurally identical and architecture would be shrunk to surface articulation. If that is your claim, the death of architecture, run with it. It is makes the argument, at least on the surface, more interesting.
In conclusion, this topic is discussing genomic architecture and its consequences in a methodology of design. If you have anything relevant to say on this topic I, as I am sure everyone who participates, would love to hear it.
Regards,
dgt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am happy this tread is not fading , I will answer the best I can ;
"Whether or not your system is beneficial is irrelevant. You are not the first to experiment with this (and I emphasize experiement, because until you fabricate something...anything....it is all just talk). If I am mistaken then show some sort of copyright or patent. You refer to images or drawings of a specific date but offer no concrete evidence."
Now they send people to the moon, everything been calculated beforehand with computers --- they design super-planes and everything turn out as calculated -- Architects make sketchas and drawings where are the difference between one of my unbuild structures and that ?
"Furthermore, the fact that you would apply this system to any building or context is frightening. Architecture is not simply about form. It is a
complex relationship between context, materials, inhabitants and design."
Bricks been applyed to multible sizes buildings ,various colors sizes and stone laying technikes --- where are the difference when you remember that I suggest steel sheet, plywood, experimental Eco sheets ; frightning yes --- when no one lay the beams for the floor and it still just occour while assembling the frames. But frightning yes as it can build at a third, and frightning yes, as it ask a computer and is a brand new perception of the build structure.
"You maintain that we can design anything and apply your system to build it. That can be said about almost any system with enough ingenuity and money."
No and in particular not strait from 3D drawing to manufactored building element.
"If indeed, 'your' solution is cheaper and more economical... hurrah for you. Please prove this without wild and unsupported claims. "
Is the architects drawings also undupported claims --- what about FAA's judegemen about the method as being "exiting and innovative" ?
"Perhaps take up SDR's challenge and build two doghouses, one with 3D-H and one without, and economically and structurally compare them?"
You don't need that, it is arogant to claim that a 3D drawing don't prove the method, the method is new , no one displayed it before I did.
"Nevertheless, NOX has done extensive projects using 'your' system and they have been neither economically revolutionary nor structurally incredible. "
Ofcaurse not --- it's all been done to do useless and spetacular things years after I started promoting the technike. This just prove how NOX after talking postmodern nonsense up to the point where they suddenly "master" somthing they never dealed with --- Just over night they seem to have gathered results it took me years to encounter , now is it so strange the results are there after ?
"However, they have been excellent systems for the specific architectonic concept. But this is not universally applicable."
Sure it only work building a house at a third the cost with unseen strength and total architectural freedom --- ofcaurse you or proberly one of your friends can do that much better ; then show me !!!
"Hypothetically, lets say that despite all rational thought and established evidence of the lack of uniqueness of 'your' system that it becomes the norm.
Where would architecture be then? "
Quite a step ahead.
"All buildings would be structurally identical and architecture would be shrunk to surface articulation."
What ???? --- have you even read a single word, looked at any single structure of all the different ones proving the flexibility of this enginious method ? 3D-H is anything _but_ surface , it is structure, quite a clever one while it is calculated by a domputer.
"If that is your claim, the death of architecture, run with it. It is makes the argument, at least on the surface, more interesting."
That day is already passed.
"In conclusion, this topic is discussing genomic architecture and its consequences in a methodology of design. If you have anything relevant to say on this topic I, as I am sure everyone who participates, would love to hear it."
No I think it is time for all the clever people who discredit my work, to come forwerds and deliver somthing better.
To Deliver just one original new thought, to deliver somthing except complains
I been waiting 10 years since you first time complained about the same, but no one delivered a structural method I did --- and I documented it all over the web, I documented it in Architect contests , bside what I create is for the good of architecture , I am not on the web to put knifes into others back, I never seen that as good art. And it never will be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
From the article:
"Let's say a group from a chemical company turning to biotechnology arrives with an interest in having a fresco, and being bottom-line people, they set out to find the gene for fresco-hood. Now comes the basis for a moral, for if one hunts for the gene for fresco-hood and only fresco-hood, one had better be prepared to bring along many other traits, because a change will be forced on the overall architecture of the cathedral."
Exactly ,but this is architecture and the blueprint is not embedded in the Brick, bside we are already killing the Brick --- the blueprint for the Catedrals was limited to a few very simple technikes allowing us to make arches ,the genome was rather our experience and nothing that evolved further than what the stones allowed ----- realy the only way to engage a genomic architecture is to develob new technikes and allow the computer with it's obvious recursive methods to decide or suggest.
A fresko would be quite difficult to be decided from even a structural aproach --- but isn't this just what show how far off we are in our expertations ; we emagine a new architecture to engage advanced new technologies and still we will not Kill the Brick, we expect dull theories to shape the future and still we write computer programs that do not engage the recursive way's, we don't even understand the wonders of tomorrow and still we will not Kill the Brick but expect to send bricklayers to the moon , ---- no we expect that the future buildings will be made as the old catedrals instead of allowing the new architecture a chance to show somthing even more exiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
