www.dezeen.com: architecture education is failing to understand how technology is changing our cities says Keiichi Matsuda, who foresees the profession “splitting into two parts” thanks to digital advances (+ movie).
The ubiquity of laptops and smartphones means the old architectural maxim that form follows function “doesn’t exist any more,” Matsuda adds, since building users now carry functionality with them as they move around the city.
9 comments:
WOAH.
"I find it incredibly frustrating in architectural education that there's no real drive to understand the way that technology is changing our cities."
The time in my life when I was in architecture school feels like a lifetime ago, but this article talks about the harsh truth of architecture programs all across the nation. The quote above goes a little far in its accusation. CMU's architecture program, at least, has been trying to figure out how to teach architecture in the context of a technology based century, but the problem is that no one knows how to teach what really needs to be addressed. How do you teach something that is ever changing???
I disagree with the articles argument that "form follows function" is an obsolete idea. There is and will always be beauty in a building that is designed flawlessly to express its surroundings and its use. The video makes it seem that all buildings should be engineered in a way that they are homogenous blank slates onto which our age of social media can project its function. This makes me want to throw up. A building should stand on its own without anything or anyone's influence. It should be a part of its surroundings and designed in a way that allows it to be ephemeral as well as specific to its purpose. I realize that because of technology our functions for buildings are changing, but I am scared for the time when buildings only become a shell on which to impose an augmented reality
I can't claim to have knowledge of the state of architectural education, but if it's true that the development of technology is being essentially ignored, it seems like there is a pretty big omission -- no matter what, we always need to take into account the changing of the times, if you will, or else risk being stuck in a bubble of the past. I don't think we are quite at the point yet where we need to radically change our definition of buildings, but it's definitely something that should be kept in mind. It will be interesting to see if the predicted "split" in the architecture profession will come to pass after all -- both nominally and actually --and how soon, if it does.
So I agree with Albert here. I understand how it might be harder now for "Form follows function" when we are constantly changing the function in today's society. But that's what makes architecture so fascinating. How can we design buildings in a way that even over the years, the form can still follow the function in this fast ever changing world!? It brings on a challenge. I don't think a building should be a blank cube. When I first wanted to go into architecture, I fell in love with the characters that each building had. Even though many of those building were built in the late 19th century or early 20th century, they still felt very relevant to the modern world. And now, modern architecture has become so unconventional, but it will still be relevant 100 years from now! I think we should take the modern world and consider it when designing, but we shouldn't allow the modern world to control what we do.
God I hope this guy is wrong. That picture of the heads up display in the car driving down a city street makes me twitch. It's simply no way to experience life, even during an activity as mundane as driving down the street. And the idea that architectural design need not be any more involved than creating a structure upon which digital design may hold reign is, for me too Albert, a sad prognostication. That being said, I don't think the author's augury is on target. For one thing, the idea that "Form follows function" is dead because we all carry functionality with us in the form of laptops and cell phones is myopic. The functionality of which he is speaking is narrow and limited to the shallow realms of surface and decor. Digital functionality cannot replace a staircase or a fountain, or the interplay of sunlight and shadow through the Pantheon dome. And I have to say, in this way I think maybe the author misunderstands the basic premise of architecture. It's not about what a space looks like. Architecture is about how space is shaped and how we move through it, and the best design leads us with an unseen hand to discover a space in ways we didn't know were possible. Architecture at its best defies our notion of what is of this world, challenges us to wonder at the possibility of human creation. I don't want to live in a video game world, mired in the uncanny valley where sunlight is blocked out by the cloud and where data rains down like so many text messages on our heads-up displays. Like I said, god I hope this guy is wrong.
I think what Matsuda's discussing regarding the architectural and design complex of form following function is very interesting. I like how he talks about the implementation for a huge paradigm shift in the structure of this idea with the concept that in our modern lives we alter function and therefore need to create adaptable form. He suggests this adaptable form be created through the use of media content and virtual reality, which would alter the aesthetic of a place.
I find it extremely interesting that in a field like theater design where the opposite complex takes place (function follows form) there is a similar call for the implementation of media content. While I feel this is connected to what Matsuda says about a shift in the function/form complex, I see this notable change as a greater statement about the current standards of the design aesthetic in general.
Whether it's form following function or function following form, it seems to me that the realm of design is shifting towards one in which a one to one ration between the two is dead, with a greater desire for adaptability. Simply put the modern design aesthetic is moving towards creations with either set function and alterable form, or set form with versatile function. While in older times one form or function used to influence its counterpart as seen in old victorian households with parlor rooms, and tea rooms, and specific designs created in line with specific forms and functions, the modern world seems to appreciate a greater adaptability on one end or the other.
Look at the modern household, in which the living room, in many cases, serves as the dinning room and entertainment room all in one, with a table, chairs, and TV all unified in a single space. Even more so modern adaptable furniture has been designed to save room and have greater purpose by combining things like bed, desk and drawers all in one.
While I think Matsuda does a great job discussing the push for media and the shifts in the form/function complex I think he hints to a much greater idea about the nature of design in our modern world, in which adaptability on one end or another is heavily sought after and is becoming essential to the design aesthetic.
I’m not sure that I entirely agree with Matsuda…I think buildings will certainly still have/need function. I think that interactive or heads up displays build into contacts or glasses is slightly more practical for the automotive industry, than it is the architectural. I could be wrong though. If I wrong, then I think the first place we’ll start to see this functionality is in theme parks, or museums. Buildings that already are implore themed elements or atmospheres. You might find that all the plaques and displays in museums are phased out and instead the information displays within your line of sight on the build in display for your glasses or contacts. But in terms of everyday buildings like schools or federal buildings….I’m not so sure…I see where it could find a place there eventually, but I still think that for such locations form does serve the function a great deal.
While I found this article to be pretty confusing and I found myself having to reread it several times, I find the conversation to be very fascinating. Should an architect be designing the physical space or the experience that comes with it. It's often a topic of discussion when I work on booth. Last year for example we had to work out the route that people took while experiencing our booth which involved trying to mesh physical space (the different themed rooms we wanted to present) and the experience of walking through this large landscape. We ended up having to angle some of our walls, not very typical in a booth built by college kids in their spare time, just to get a good balance of space throughout the rooms.
This seems a little.... excessive. I'm pretty sure we aren't anywhere close to needing glorified projection surfaces as our only architectural forms... Yes, it's important to integrate how technology is changing into the physical design of buildings, but doesn't something as permanent as building design necessarily need to be a little behind the trend, in order to make sure the trend is actually going to stick? At one point, Wean Hall was considered a paragon of avant garde design (Cold War Chic), and well, here we are today.
The author is also being overly simplistic when he says that form no longer follows function. It's as if he thinks we've never gone through a great leap in technology before, and this is a brand new idea that has never been discussed before. We may be at a point of some large leap in architectural advancement (pre-Renaissance buildings didn't need as many windows because there wasn't much reading/writing), but this is hardly the first time in history that architecture has shifted, nor will it be the last...
I really not quite get it when I read the article (twice), I still find it a bit confusing. So I came to my question of I don't know what they teach in architecture but now I wonder why architect newly grads nowadays tends to shift to do other designs jobs apart from buildings or other normal architectural design. I found so many people in my country who graduate around the same time as me in architeceral design became fashion or jewelry designers and they made it really well. And now game design and filmmaker. I know that when you were trained in this field you will have some ideas of how to make your shop or your product look interesting and fascinating than usual but like.... come on, I don't know, you spent too long and much efforts in school, better do something related to it first maybe? Or maybe there's something in the jobs that make people not happy. Who knows.
Post a Comment