11 May
330 dedication of Constantinople
1801 birth of Henri Pierre François Labrouste
1990 Potsdamer Platz
98051101.db ICM, plans
Campo Marzio
1998.05.11
1. Alberti and types 2. virtual reconstructions
1999.05.11
Cedar Grove
Shofuso
2000.05.11
Re: Quaestio Absrusa 001
2001.05.11 12:42
020511a.db Wall House 2, elevations
assemblege links
2003.05.11 16:58
2003.05.11 18:41
040511a.db ICM, Gymnasium Neronianum, plans
Re: ducked around ?
2004.05.11 15:03
11 May 330
2006.05.11 12:49
ARCHITECTURE IS NOT A RELIGION
2006.05.11.17:49
2006.05.11 17:58
goals
2007.05.11
"I see sham pane, but no glasses."
2007.05.11 11:48
| |
1. Alberti and types 2. virtual reconstructions
1999.05.11
Regarding ideals and type, the reality is that architects, when asked to design a specific "type" of building 1. look at the program and site provided, 2. look to their previous work experience within that "type" for further inspiration (that is, if they have previous experience in that "type"), 3. look to the (recent) work of other architects relating to the "type" in question. Because of this situation, there is no real ideal type, but more a constant manipulation and transformation of the mental "ideal". I know I'm over-simplifying, but my point is that there never was nor will there ever be a built "ideal" of any specific building "type". Types, at best, are a form of common understanding, and ideals probably have more to do with buildings working well and being on budget given their particular set of circumstances. Moreover, experience has already shown that the closer we get to building "ideal types", the worse the resultant buildings are, e.g., public housing!
As to virtual reconstructions, Larsons reconstructions of some of Kahn's unbuilt designs are what I would refer to as the "accepted logical extreme" of computer aided reconstructions in that they present a photo-realistic end result. I realize that there is still a question as to whether Larson's reconstructions represent Kahn's "actual" intentions. Again, the "reality" of this situation here smacks against what one may think the "ideal" situation should be. Kahn is dead; we can't change that. His drawings, however survive, and yes, I agree with Larson in that the surviving drawings are very much like unplayed musical scores, and to that end CAD software and hardware have become enabling "instruments" whereby the "unplayed scores" can now be "performed". The true potential of CAD reconstructions, however, is that one can "play" the "score" in a virtually infinite variety of "interpretations". Personally, I think this opportunity to "play" with no real risk involved is significant precisely because it establishes a "new ideal" whereby multiple possibilities rather than a single possibility is the overriding paradigm. It is exactly this freedom to "perform" as one chooses, however, that goes against established design training, and, therefore, the "free" use of "reconstructions" has a very "real" up-hill battle to fight if it is to reach its true potential.
|