From first year to grad, there was a variety of projects: clothing design, buildings, food trucks...
all photos by Fiona Siu
more to come!
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Fall 2010 Final Presentations Sneak Peek
Here's a brief overview of what was happening at the USC School of Architecture final reviews (12/13/10 & 12/15/10), on the 51st floor of Paul Hastings building in Downtown LA.
From first year to grad, there was a variety of projects: clothing design, buildings, food trucks...
From first year to grad, there was a variety of projects: clothing design, buildings, food trucks...
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Intangible Architecture: Forming Space with the Immaterial by Christina Hwang
According to Reto Meier, in his recent article, The Future of Mobile: Invisible, Connected Devices with Infinite Screens, there will soon be "contact lenses that project a visual feed directly onto your retina" over the current "high resolution screens, tablet devices, and HD output from mobiles". Additionally in twenty years, "you [also will be] the computer", over today's "lighter, thinner devices that last longer". It seems as though people idealize the age where physical effortlessness is quintessential, thereby making the tangible obsolete. As technology becomes more compact and virtual, it only seems to make sense for the architects to jump on board as well and at least make the effort of searching for a virtual solution. Although currently, tangible material is the most obvious solution to space-forming, we should envision the future and embrace immaterial processes in constructing architecture as well.
Throughout history, the definition of architecture has been varied in many ways. These variations occur not just outside of generational and geographical barriers, but also within the same backgrounds and learning environment. Whatever these definitions are, most will agree that the term architecture somehow deals with designing of a space. Thus far, the most obvious solution to manipulating that space has been through the means of a tangible material. But these advancements and diminishing desire for material for the future, have compelled architects to now reconsider the allowable means of manipulating space outside of its typical boundaries. This idea of intangibility in architecture, however, is
nothing new, as shown with architecture that is shaped by elements such as light and sound, shown on the image to the right. It is simply the reality that people can experience space and become so affected that they move and progress through space under its influence.This is the reality of architecture. Architects not only already manipulate spaces with the intangible, but more so they believe it is essential that those elements are used to enhance spatial experience. It therefore would not make sense to not explore these potential intensifiers.
In response to the predictions of Meier in the beginning of this entry, MIT Technology Review has responded with some fulfilled realities and promising futures. In response to his 20 year screen prediction, author Mims writes, "transmitting images to such displays will be non-trivial. Wouldn't it be easier to simply perfect augmented reality specs?" It shows we are closer to these "future age" than we think and that most of the world looks forward to them with open minds. Keiichi Matsuda, the creator of the Augmented (hyper)Reality: Augmented City 3D shown in the video below, asserts that "the architecture of the contemporary city is no longer simply about the physical space of buildings and landscape, more and more it is about the synthetic spaces created by the digital information that we collect, consume and organize; an immersive interface may become as much part of the world we inhabit as the buildings around us." This is the reality of the world today. Engineers and scientists not only work to manipulate devices but are promoting manipulations in reality, shaping and molding space as well.
In the remote future, investing in immaterial means of spatial manipulation could also be the "sustainable" solution that so many architects share a concern for. There is an abundance of surplus building material companies, at the hope of recycling and reusing the unused; this clearly expresses just how much of these "excess materials" are remaining. Afterall, who would actually desire used/recycled materials and anything not-new, if the new had zero negative impact on the environment? Though this statement seems far-fetched now, we look to the bright future of naturally generated energy, which generates virtual realities far more sustainably than constructing and forming in materials.
Technology is moving forward to enhance our lives in every possible way. Likewise, architects should utilize these advancements to enliven the spatial qualities. Not only have architects throughout history, dealt with intangible materials such as light, sound, and even taste to shape spaces, but this is the future of the human race: "instead of disembodied occupation of virtual worlds, the physical and virtual are seen together as a contiguous, layered and dynamic whole. It may lead to a world where media is indistinguishable from 'reality'. The spatial organization of data has important implications for architecture, as we re-evaluate the city as an immersive human-computer interface" It may, in the long run, prove to be the ultimate sustainable means, generating little to no harm to the environment. Ultimately, architects should explore outside of their comfort zones of dealing merely with the tangible. They should progress with the rapidly changing technology, not limiting themselves to the sense of touch to mold a space. And likewise, when exploring these immaterial fields, they should not neglect the physical and tangible world nor view them any inferior, just as all of the senses that a human being possesses are equally important in different ways.
Throughout history, the definition of architecture has been varied in many ways. These variations occur not just outside of generational and geographical barriers, but also within the same backgrounds and learning environment. Whatever these definitions are, most will agree that the term architecture somehow deals with designing of a space. Thus far, the most obvious solution to manipulating that space has been through the means of a tangible material. But these advancements and diminishing desire for material for the future, have compelled architects to now reconsider the allowable means of manipulating space outside of its typical boundaries. This idea of intangibility in architecture, however, is
nothing new, as shown with architecture that is shaped by elements such as light and sound, shown on the image to the right. It is simply the reality that people can experience space and become so affected that they move and progress through space under its influence.This is the reality of architecture. Architects not only already manipulate spaces with the intangible, but more so they believe it is essential that those elements are used to enhance spatial experience. It therefore would not make sense to not explore these potential intensifiers.
In response to the predictions of Meier in the beginning of this entry, MIT Technology Review has responded with some fulfilled realities and promising futures. In response to his 20 year screen prediction, author Mims writes, "transmitting images to such displays will be non-trivial. Wouldn't it be easier to simply perfect augmented reality specs?" It shows we are closer to these "future age" than we think and that most of the world looks forward to them with open minds. Keiichi Matsuda, the creator of the Augmented (hyper)Reality: Augmented City 3D shown in the video below, asserts that "the architecture of the contemporary city is no longer simply about the physical space of buildings and landscape, more and more it is about the synthetic spaces created by the digital information that we collect, consume and organize; an immersive interface may become as much part of the world we inhabit as the buildings around us." This is the reality of the world today. Engineers and scientists not only work to manipulate devices but are promoting manipulations in reality, shaping and molding space as well.
In the remote future, investing in immaterial means of spatial manipulation could also be the "sustainable" solution that so many architects share a concern for. There is an abundance of surplus building material companies, at the hope of recycling and reusing the unused; this clearly expresses just how much of these "excess materials" are remaining. Afterall, who would actually desire used/recycled materials and anything not-new, if the new had zero negative impact on the environment? Though this statement seems far-fetched now, we look to the bright future of naturally generated energy, which generates virtual realities far more sustainably than constructing and forming in materials.
Technology is moving forward to enhance our lives in every possible way. Likewise, architects should utilize these advancements to enliven the spatial qualities. Not only have architects throughout history, dealt with intangible materials such as light, sound, and even taste to shape spaces, but this is the future of the human race: "instead of disembodied occupation of virtual worlds, the physical and virtual are seen together as a contiguous, layered and dynamic whole. It may lead to a world where media is indistinguishable from 'reality'. The spatial organization of data has important implications for architecture, as we re-evaluate the city as an immersive human-computer interface" It may, in the long run, prove to be the ultimate sustainable means, generating little to no harm to the environment. Ultimately, architects should explore outside of their comfort zones of dealing merely with the tangible. They should progress with the rapidly changing technology, not limiting themselves to the sense of touch to mold a space. And likewise, when exploring these immaterial fields, they should not neglect the physical and tangible world nor view them any inferior, just as all of the senses that a human being possesses are equally important in different ways.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Autotecture by Taylor Cornelson
“I got 99 problems, but my pitch ain’t one.”
Autotune is considered by many to be the downfall of the music industry. In case you’re not familiar, this seemingly-revolutionary technology is something which is used in contemporary music – especially pop music – on an alarmingly regular basis. Initially released in 1997, Autotune has actually been around for a very long time. It’s used mostly by contemporary artists – think Cher, Britney Spears, T-Pain – to alleviate vocal warbles and disfunctions encountered in the recording studio. Sonically dysfunctional samples come in one end, and pitch-perfect melodies emerge from the other. While Autotune has been the secret behind many hit singles in the past, it is only now gaining attention as a destructive force in the music industry.
Indeed, autotune has come under fire recently for its corruption of the music industry by removing much of the “talent” of vocal performance. No longer does a platinum-selling signer need to exhibit any of the traits normally associated with talent; autotune gives any American Idol reject the voice of a trained professional. This paradox of talentless perfection continues to fuel controversy – why use this technology if it removes the only prerequisite to becoming an incredible vocal artist? Doesn’t mechanized perfection remove a sense of artistry and honesty from this once-venerated craft?
Though this particular debate is something from which many architects are far removed, a similar technological revolution is happening in architecture today. Advancements in Computer-Aided Design (CAD) and Building Information Modeling (BIM) have given architects an ability to execute mechanized perfection of design on a broad scale – from creating sensuous curves with a single loft to generating intricate tectonic details en masse. Indeed, these technologies remove the personal search for artistry and replace it with computer-generated perfection.
This embrace of technology assumedly presents architects with the opportunity to expand their craft into the digital realm, alleviating the painstaking repetition once associated with building design. No longer must designers slave for hours in darkened rooms drawing window schedules or draft forty sections to explain a complex curve; the power of the computer reduces these menial tasks to a script which takes mere seconds to execute. Designers are now free to invest their time in meaningful design work, and to see the outcome of their choices without laborious interludes of production. Perhaps no better is this power exhibited than 3D printers – hours of delicate model building are curtailed to a single print command. The process is painless, and the results exhibit an unparalleled level of craft.
These advantages have spawned the propagation of digital design and production in recent years – but at what cost? Like Autotune, the digital production of architecture has a tendency to “iron out” details which would normally require careful consideration of the architect in question. Autotune – while producing ear-pleasing results – requires a dramatic reduction in traditional artistic talent from the vocalist. Similarly, computer-aided design requires a marked reduction in what fifty years ago would have been considered some of the fundamental artistic merits of an architect. Pen and paper have almost entirely been replaced with screen and mouse. No longer is an architect’s vision limited by his ability to communicate design by physical means – it is the creation and manipulation of digital content which now proves king in the architect’s toolkit.
While many would argue that this shift from physical to digital removes much required talent from the design process, I would argue that it is merely a natural progression in the means by which architects communicate their intention. Though CAD and BIM eliminate some of the traditional challenges involved with the production of a finished design, they largely shift focus from more traditional focuses of tectonic design towards the increasingly experimental as found in the contemporary architectural world. While not immediately apparent upon their introduction, the integration of CAD and BIM have sparked a renewed emphasis on language of design throughout the contemporary architectural practice. This shift is seen in the emergence of increasingly complex forms and design techniques – "lofted" surfaces, sweeping forms, complex curves. Aspects of a building’s construction, such as the delineation of skin and envelope, have experienced a resurgence in interest from architects, leading to increasingly unconventional and complex design conditions.
If it at first appears as though Autotune and the advent of so-called Autotecture represent the displacement of artistic talent in favor of technology, the later is somewhat misleading. Traditional notions of artistic merit may change, but they merely represent a shift in focus of the a portion of the architectural community. Fifty years ago, the study of tectonics was considered paramount in contemporary architecture; the emergence of digital means of design has sparked a reexamination of the macro, the envelope, and an increasingly digital approach to concept.
Perhaps what this demonstrates above all is the introduction of technology in an artistic field rarely yields similar results. While both Autotune and computer-generated design are similarly remarkable advancements in technology, both serve to alter their respective fields in remarkably different ways. Indeed, a close examination of any new technology is needed in order to truly assess its benefits or detriments. The influence of computer-based architectural design is still in its infancy, and we have likely only seen the beginning of what these new technological advancements have to offer.
Autotune is considered by many to be the downfall of the music industry. In case you’re not familiar, this seemingly-revolutionary technology is something which is used in contemporary music – especially pop music – on an alarmingly regular basis. Initially released in 1997, Autotune has actually been around for a very long time. It’s used mostly by contemporary artists – think Cher, Britney Spears, T-Pain – to alleviate vocal warbles and disfunctions encountered in the recording studio. Sonically dysfunctional samples come in one end, and pitch-perfect melodies emerge from the other. While Autotune has been the secret behind many hit singles in the past, it is only now gaining attention as a destructive force in the music industry.
Indeed, autotune has come under fire recently for its corruption of the music industry by removing much of the “talent” of vocal performance. No longer does a platinum-selling signer need to exhibit any of the traits normally associated with talent; autotune gives any American Idol reject the voice of a trained professional. This paradox of talentless perfection continues to fuel controversy – why use this technology if it removes the only prerequisite to becoming an incredible vocal artist? Doesn’t mechanized perfection remove a sense of artistry and honesty from this once-venerated craft?
Though this particular debate is something from which many architects are far removed, a similar technological revolution is happening in architecture today. Advancements in Computer-Aided Design (CAD) and Building Information Modeling (BIM) have given architects an ability to execute mechanized perfection of design on a broad scale – from creating sensuous curves with a single loft to generating intricate tectonic details en masse. Indeed, these technologies remove the personal search for artistry and replace it with computer-generated perfection.
This embrace of technology assumedly presents architects with the opportunity to expand their craft into the digital realm, alleviating the painstaking repetition once associated with building design. No longer must designers slave for hours in darkened rooms drawing window schedules or draft forty sections to explain a complex curve; the power of the computer reduces these menial tasks to a script which takes mere seconds to execute. Designers are now free to invest their time in meaningful design work, and to see the outcome of their choices without laborious interludes of production. Perhaps no better is this power exhibited than 3D printers – hours of delicate model building are curtailed to a single print command. The process is painless, and the results exhibit an unparalleled level of craft.
These advantages have spawned the propagation of digital design and production in recent years – but at what cost? Like Autotune, the digital production of architecture has a tendency to “iron out” details which would normally require careful consideration of the architect in question. Autotune – while producing ear-pleasing results – requires a dramatic reduction in traditional artistic talent from the vocalist. Similarly, computer-aided design requires a marked reduction in what fifty years ago would have been considered some of the fundamental artistic merits of an architect. Pen and paper have almost entirely been replaced with screen and mouse. No longer is an architect’s vision limited by his ability to communicate design by physical means – it is the creation and manipulation of digital content which now proves king in the architect’s toolkit.
While many would argue that this shift from physical to digital removes much required talent from the design process, I would argue that it is merely a natural progression in the means by which architects communicate their intention. Though CAD and BIM eliminate some of the traditional challenges involved with the production of a finished design, they largely shift focus from more traditional focuses of tectonic design towards the increasingly experimental as found in the contemporary architectural world. While not immediately apparent upon their introduction, the integration of CAD and BIM have sparked a renewed emphasis on language of design throughout the contemporary architectural practice. This shift is seen in the emergence of increasingly complex forms and design techniques – "lofted" surfaces, sweeping forms, complex curves. Aspects of a building’s construction, such as the delineation of skin and envelope, have experienced a resurgence in interest from architects, leading to increasingly unconventional and complex design conditions.
If it at first appears as though Autotune and the advent of so-called Autotecture represent the displacement of artistic talent in favor of technology, the later is somewhat misleading. Traditional notions of artistic merit may change, but they merely represent a shift in focus of the a portion of the architectural community. Fifty years ago, the study of tectonics was considered paramount in contemporary architecture; the emergence of digital means of design has sparked a reexamination of the macro, the envelope, and an increasingly digital approach to concept.
Perhaps what this demonstrates above all is the introduction of technology in an artistic field rarely yields similar results. While both Autotune and computer-generated design are similarly remarkable advancements in technology, both serve to alter their respective fields in remarkably different ways. Indeed, a close examination of any new technology is needed in order to truly assess its benefits or detriments. The influence of computer-based architectural design is still in its infancy, and we have likely only seen the beginning of what these new technological advancements have to offer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)