Please post comments to the readings here. Reply to this post and share your thoughts. Be sure to note the title or author in your comments for clarity.

The Rattenbury reading made me really consider how representation plays a role in design. Especially in the case of architecture, the audience is limited by location and, I think more notably, finances- along with a large component of the population at large, I very well can't afford to hop on a plane to Bilbao to check out the Guggenheim. Visual (and presumably non-visual?) representations of physical designs allow a broader segment of the population to access design. One must also then consider how design is then transmitted- does a building or a chair or even something "benign" (Mau's quote, not mine) like a freeway cause a different visceral reaction in the pages of a magazine or on Wikipedia or in person? Is one preferable to the other? Who decides- the viewer or the designer?

Photo or "In Person"

In the example of a building: An easy answer from any jet setter is "Ooh, you've just got to see it for youself!"
For someone in the industry, or someone who possesses carnal knowledge of architecture, photos and/or a set of plans might be enough for them to experience everything that particular design has to offer. EXAMPLE ATTACHED** However, in complex or colorful designs, certain "moments" may be lost, so the entire experience may not translate.


Rattenbury was the one I enjoyed the most. Earlier points about interaction with a picture were assimilated by a sense of the temporary, and how that idea exists in architecture. Personally, I love the idea of the fourth dimension playing a part in design (aging, modification, demolition)... favorite examples were the sculpture gallery ruins (p.61) where the structure was physically altered by time and the Tatlin Tower (p.79) where the concept and project were altered by time. Great overall example of the temporary in Mau's reading as well.

"Reading Plans" http://far...7207096_121588ed22_o.jpg
**Attached image: Schindler's Kings Rd. House, If you don't know anything about this man or this house, maybe take a guess as to his character or philosophy simply from viewing the plan... When people think of new ways to experience a building other than being there, advances in technology are ever present in discussion. Can assumptions made from a representation (intended or not) be a more natural way to translating an experience without being there?

The shape of representation.

This article got me thinking about the factors that designers/architects consider or factors that may influence representations (pictures, sketches, models, paintings etc) . Examples that comes to my mind range from relationship that a designer has with his/her tools and mediums; to the relationship that a designer wants his/her audience to create and have with the object designed; to the impact of the historical and social context by which the object is created and where the object will be utilized. For instance the author on the section of this article titled, "Le Corbusier" describes Le Corbusier's photos as "directing the viewer's gaze out into the landscape" and describes the photos of Loos as "turning inwards" (pg 65). This makes me ponder of how we may prioritize the ideas that we want to sell or give to an audience as designers/architects. And in the process of doing so, might we sacrifices aspects that may be of great importance not necessarily to us but to others?

The problem of perspective and representation does not have to be looked at as a problem. All people are equal but perspective and perception do not have to be standardized in order for all things to be 'good' and 'fair.' However, representation is a problem when it comes to design. As the designer, how does one take into account all perspectives?

What is the essential experience of design? If you design something and intend for the public to interact with your creation in only one way, drawing lines towards a personal vision of beauty, then, representation is problematic.

But, if you truly focus on the problem and the materials, you will create multiple effects and affects, which can be aimed at unity or productivity.

The Bauhaus' focus on materials is important to the goals laid out in the excerpt from Massive Change, but something the Bauhaus didn't actualize was engaging in not only physical multiplicities of perspective, but also social. What's more important, the perspective of a worm or the perspective of the working class, ignorant of all the art stars?

The Rattenbury article got me thinking to what extent artists and designers, especially of buildings, actually do consider the fourth dimension of time (and thus decay, the chaotic/unpredictable). In the studio, of course, one has a level of control over the message because it remains clear and intact on paper. Once it solidifies to the physical, that sense of control is lost. I wonder how many architects/artists/designers consider that loss of control and how they account for it when others finally do experience their designs (by plane or by photo or some other means, as mentioned in these posts).

Le Corbusier seems to try and control the experience beyond his plans by controlling the representation in photos as well. The author wrote of the sense of "being out of bounds," or of following a gentleman from room to room, allowing the viewer to experience the building but on his terms.

The Mies Van Der Rohe Barcelona Pavilion had a similar tactic, where the photographer/s (I'm not sure if it were he who took the photos?) documented only the pieces of the pavilion that were in the original design, again maintaining control over the actuality of the construction.

Bernard Tschumi attempted to incorporate the experiential into the representation of his design, but it was not necessarily understood by those who received it, quoted as being upset by its representation alone as a sculpture.

How do we incorporate and account for the random and chaotic of experiencing our ideas, and how much can we even try?

Also, the Mau article reminded me a lot of the paradigm shift that permaculture is trying to accomplish, almost a radical (from the roots) approach to designing systems as functionally interconnected and not isolated pieces. Check out http://www...tivist.net/intro/PcIntro.htm#Principles for some concise collections of permaculture principles (Molllison and Holmgren) or http://www.../Essence_of_PC_eBook.pdf for a more ethically-focused, fleshed outpermaculture document.

Mau
Massive Change

Two weeks before summer vacation ended I was at home watching a program on Discovery Channel about current design projects from around the world exploring the future of technology and design in general. Two segments that really caught my eye were a concept car designed by BMW and the architecture of the future. The BMW show car was made entirely out of fabric and could shape itself into endless designs. http://blo.../06/bmw-builds-a-ca.html

Another was on the architecture of the future in which a house was made entirely out of glass panes that could become opaque or clear. Divisions were created within the house by making certain panes opaque and walls to the outside could be made clear to let in light in or opaque if the person wanted privacy.

The reason why I brought this up was in connection to Maus treatise on contemporary design and the theme of

QUOTE:
the well being of a civilization depending on its ability to respond creatively to challenges, human and environmental.

The blurring of technology, design and architecture, how the car that can shape shift becomes the house that can become invisible or solid at the touch of a button, all this in response to change in society, and though these designs may not be a response to societal problems at the moment, concepts that can be used for the greater good nonetheless. It’s fascinating where we are headed in the world today with technological advancements we have made and how all this new technology affects design. It liberates the imagination and makes representation and function become one and the same and makes possible something as whimsical as the Archigram groups walking cities a near reality.

In response to "The Shape of Representation" I would recall two previous comments. The first of which was made by Alex and I highly agree. Of course a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional object must be portrayed from a subjective standpoint. And hence it is interesting in some of the mentioned cases that the "subjective" portrayal takes on a larger and more recognized place in the artistic architecture world (not that all architecture isn't artistic). Especially in the case mentioned by Lindsey, of Le Corbusier, whom clearly intended for the representation of the space, and presence of an unseen inhabitant, to be the major focus of his work. And in this essence, he turned the space into something that it necessarily would not be for each person.

In terms of the "Massive Change" article, I feel that the quote on the first page, most clearly states the majority of what the article is getting at. In saying "For most of us, design is invisible. Until it fails." the author has effectively highlighted the major characteristic of the current state of design, and the general public's interaction with it. I feel that there is flaw in his later arguments that there needs to be a devision between designer/consumer. What ever happened to the notion of a specialist?

Rattenbury

In addition to the controlled experience of viewing a building that its single, iconic picture demands, the iconic nature of the picture moves it toward a symbol of the ideas behind the construction rather than merely an illustration of the architecture itself. The image becomes a symbol in two ways: the formal elements of a drawing or photo and the ideas that have attached themselves to the image.

Repeatedly in Rattenbury’s piece, formal aspects of drawing like line quality, composition and style figure into the equation equaling why the “photo or drawing . . . becomes the quintessential image” (57) up for discussion in architectural classes more so than the actual building. Robert Venturi’s drawing says things through the quality of line and the addition of the cartoony tic marks about the history and conventions of architecture, architectural drawing, and pop art that would be lost if the building were to be constructed. Even the angle of the building makes a point that a structure in real life cannot make because we choose from what angle we approach a building. Here it’s not about what is edited out of this isolated angle (as in a photograph), but the fact that this heroic angle is what is presented.

The other way that a photo or drawing seems to say more than the building represented is when the image is so frequently used as an example that all the discussions about the building become attached to the image. So then the image trails behind itself all the ideas and everything the building represents.

Just briefly, I’m so happy that Mau’s article took such a positive approach to design. It doesn’t seem worth it to doubt that human creativity is infinitely capable. Sigh.

Rattenbury’s chapters really got me thinking, though. I’m a lover of illustrations, and am fascinated at the way drawings express their subjects through selective representation. I guess I mean that, like all types of reproductions, drawings draw a great part of their meanings from what is emphasized and what is omitted. John Soane’s cross-sectionesque look at the Bank of England allows him to critique or comment on the process of the building’s construction in many ways.
The article mentions how these various representations highlight what we find, “valuable, interesting, essential, architectural(58),” and that they may introduce the 4th dimension of time and wear. I began thinking about Saul Steinberg at some point because of the very personal way he represents space and architecture in his drawings. Here are a couple that seemed to me to be related to the examples the chapter gave:
http://art.../images/21steinberg1.jpg
http://www...006-01/steinberg_352.jpg

Steinberg was trained as an architect, which may explain the precision he lends to his impressionism. Looking at these representations, it is the artist's emotional experience of the architecture and space that comes across. It has progressed beyond the 4th dimension, because the meaning and positions of the structures have only the significance that the artist’s memory bestows upon it. It is sort of the opposite of design, because it observes the meaning of the changes the building experienced after its design and construction. An observation of the unplanned. The idea of “mapping” is an odd combination of structure, prediction, and memory.