ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ON LECTURES I ENJOYED THE MOST

READING ARCHITECTURE

September 12, 2014

Mark Klopfer’s lecture was centered around the act of  “Reading Architecture”, which was defined as an appeal for how we approach architecture. Methods of this approach were categorized into six groups, which were 1. Simplistic metaphor, 2. Previous problems, 3. Fundamental elements, 4. Dramatic structures, 5. Connection to tradition, and lastly 6. The meaning of context. 

What sparked my interested the most about this lecture was that Klopfer went into detail about these six methods by using examples of literature such as Moby-Dick by Herman Melville. This piece was used to exemplify the connection between literature and architectural practice. Specifically, this comparison has influenced me to expand my thoughts about things or topics that we initially do not think are directly related to architecture. Looking deeper into these other elements will open doors to create a better understanding of their relationship, to expand my creativity and imagination, and most importantly to inform myself about how I “read architecture” on a personal level.

In addition to the introduction of a new practice (reading architecture), Klopfer’s lecture also severed to refresh my mind on certain elements that were discussed outside of the lecture previously. For example, the creation of a parti (4. dramatic structure) as well as the use of precedents (5. connection to tradition) has reinforced the importance of these two elements, especially when practicing architecture myself in studio. Therefore, Klopfer’s words will follow me throughout the rest of my architectural career and I will certainly use his six methods of reading architecture to guide me in the field.  

DRAWING

September 19, 2014

Todays lecture was centered around the topic of Drawing. Drawing was defined in two ways, one being a verb and an action, while the second being a thing (“drawing with an s—drawings”). The lecturer focused on the first definition, by identifying drawings as a process, not a product.

Many examples of artist, architects, and surprisingly politicians where used to express why she defined drawing as a process. What I took away from each example discussed was that as a whole, many of these well-known individuals (such as Michelangelo, Mies Van Der Rohe, Thomas Jefferson, and so on) used drawing as a starting point for invention. No matter where they were from or what their background or skill level entailed, each of them drew what they saw and experienced to analyze, to visualize, and most importantly to share these drawings with others. Therefore, drawing was and is still used till this day to express current ideas and to reveal what other methods of documentation such as photography cannot.

Two quotes from this lecture that informed and influenced my thoughts of architecture were “thinking comes from making” by Philibert de ‘Lorne and “I think blurring of lines between art and architecture has to happen” by Frank Ghery. Both of these quotes share similarities with my personal thoughts. When taking on a project, I result to drawing as a method of getting my ideas expressed. This form of making is illustrated in an artist way, which is then translated into an architectural form. Art and architecture work hand and hand, and without one or the other, I would not be able to not only create but also to “think out loud”.

SITUATION

September 26, 2014

Mark Klopfer’s lecture was centered around the topic of “Situation”, where he discussed the concepts of space, place, and object.  Space was described as something having a floor, walls, and a ceiling, while place was defined as a destination, and object was expressed as a physical structure.  All definitions could be perceived differently depending on how you personally view these concepts because they are all so complex. To explain why he defined each concept accordingly, he used architectural examples to support his ideas.

One example of that helps define his concept of space is Mies Van Der Rohe’s Fransworth House. The design of this home is easily compared to Piet Mondrian’s paintings, in which lines and shapes are used to define space. Mies used similar geometry in the plan drawings of this design to change the way we think amount space. Mie’s unconventional method in architecture informed me that a room doesn’t need to be completely enclosed by four walls to be defined as a room, and the same goes for thinking about what a space is or even architecture itself.

Next, Klopfer went into describing how the Farnsworth House is also an example of an object. This elegant design is strategically lifted off the ground by pilote. Its main purpose was to reduce flooding issues from the river near by, but it was also intentionally lifted to define space, thinking about how we enter the home and move through it. Therefore, Klopfer’s lecture and the examples exemplified in it greatly influenced my thoughts to ask more questions when thinking about architecture. Is it a space? Is it a place? Is it an object?

TRANSLATION

October 3, 2014

Krists Karklins’s lecture was centered around the topic of “Translations”—where he immediately shared his personal experiences of learning different languages and explaining how translating certain things from one language to another may not always translate the same. By definition “translations” is described as “words that have been changed from one language into another or translation of coordinates in which the new axes are parallel to the old axes”. In architecture, Karklins defined translations into five categories: communication, movement, geometric transformations, coding and assembly, change of state parameters, and process.

Several examples were used to further express why he defined translations into each of those categories but what I personally took away from this lecture was that in design we use all of these concepts to translate what we think in our mind into a physical architectural design. The use of technology, drawings, words, or even model making may help translate these ideas from our brain into a physical thing, but there are also issues in these types of translations, just like in translations of languages. Everything isn’t translated perfectly, for instance, an AutoCAD drawing illustrates a sphere completely differently than what we perceive as a sphere in our mind, or a 3d render may exemplify curves differently than an actual building would because of material potential, cost, and construction. Thus, my greatest interest of all that Karklins lectured us about is that “there is nothing magic about design: it requires assessment/analysis, defining problems, concepts, fitting forms, communication, and construction” but the way we as individuals go about these things are different, and they may not always translate perfectly, but they do give us a sense of what works, what doesn’t, and how we chose to translate our ideas as architects.