Friday, December 22, 2006

Architectural Synaesthesia - Prof. M. Schaut and Prof. D. Bucsescu: December 2006

Architectural Synaesthesia - Prof. M. Schaut and Prof. D. Bucsescu: December 2006

DanBucsescu said...
"What kind of thought has been made about how our class will be structured next semester? " (Alex's question)


You should all know that Marc and I have asked ourselfs the same question. I don't want to speak for Mark. I can guess that, your
suggestions about the class crits, you would please him as well as me.
We expect regualr and consistent work from you and that means an opportunity for each student to have that work reviewed in a timely crit. We should establish a pattern of crit schedule so that each student knows in advance when they will get a class crit. Lets say every other week if that works out.
We will develop such a schedule.

I have been wandering myself how we should proceed next semester, as it seems some of you have been asking.(see recent blog entries).

I thought that the final review discussions were very helpful and better than the work on the wall or your verbal presentations. Be that as it may…. I hope you all can mine and extract from it as much improved as possible a theoretical frame (whatever that means) for your projects. WE, Mark and I, can help there! Please call on us for that.

I came away thinking that the topic of “ Synaesthesia” is both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ as a topic for thesis. Good because it forces us to re-focus, yet again, and more directly, on to the sensorial content of the ‘architectural event’ , the phenomenology of it, as opposed to (the’ bad’ , so to to speak ) the “conceptual” content (for the lack of a better word), the semantic narrative, the functional program and the ‘symbolic’ content of the architectural form.

We exist in both !!!! The stress on the ‘sensorial content’, in our case on the ‘synaestetic experience’ of an associative cross modasl event, or in other words, "What we refer to as lived “reality” is only a pedagogical temporary strategy to counter what goes on in the school as a whole.

Because of this line of argument as proposed above, and because of a few things people said during the final review, I would like to make a proposal for how to start next term.

Two significant things wher hinted at for next semester,

Someone said to Alex, that for the next step a good model would be the “ first year cube”. That, to my mind, is a return to full scale, body in space experience. I agree for two reasons:

1. “body in space” is a the foundational direct human experience of abstract space. That is also full scale where all experience is first hand not as a second hand representation.
2. “Synaestesia” (the crossing of modal sensory activity) CAN NOT BE REPRESENTED,
It can only be exemplified, manifested in a “full scale ”multi-media installation”, as all of you should research a lot in avangarde art installations in the XXth Century.

So, I feel, that a good way to start the next semester is with a full scale installation proposal in a corner of HH (any where as long as it is in the bldg), aimed at a full scale live demonstration, tactile, visual, sound and taste, drawings, models, smells, time and memory) of a detail in your uture project as now envisioned. That in a way is a recall of the great staff that many of you build last semester. By going full scale construction for all ., I hope we are building on the obvious strength of many of you, but with a much clearer set of artistic and conceptual intentions, whatever those words mean today. All that was said in several suggestions for us, as a group to learn more from avant-garde art installations of the last 40 years.


That is not to undermine the equally important task for you, the student, in developing at the same time a set of drawings and site models of the proposed thesis project…Known as the SITE DOCUMENTATION..these are critical for all of you to get a fast start in design next semester, while you are designing a very small part of it. The big picture matters…while you are designing a small part of it.


We would welcome any help or suggestions about this general question:

Given the state of the studio production and culture (group attitude) to date,and knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the student body in our group, how can we plan and strategize for a really strong Spring studio. That is what Mark and I are wandering!

4:06 PM, December 17, 2006

6 comments:

Alex Gryger said...

"So, I feel, that a good way to start the next semester is with a full scale installation proposal in a corner of HH (any where as long as it is in the bldg), aimed at a full scale live demonstration, tactile, visual, sound and taste, drawings, models, smells, time and memory) of a detail in your future project as now envisioned."

I think there are a few things that should be considered regarding this proposal.

1. I'm going to geuss that at this very moment few of us have any sort of vision for the actual form and construction of our projects and by so quickly building a detail of the project, some may get stuck in immature notions towards the total design. Perhaps the route to take is to consider a "programmatic detail." For example, if someone were designing a library, perhaps they would build a bookshelf. The idea is that the installation would be about the final design rather than part of it.

2. While there is a desire to tap into the studio's ability to build, some students may get overly caught up in the act of building. Remember that the construction of the original full scale details exceeded the time allotted for their schedule, which impacted on other important assignments.

Dan Bucsescu said...

Alex wrote:

"Perhaps the route to take is to consider a "programmatic detail." For example, if someone were designing a library, perhaps they would build a bookshelf. The idea is that the installation would be about the final design rather than part of it."

I TOTALLY AGREE...dan

Anonymous said...

I agree with Dan that building is necessary, otherwise we are only talking about synaesthesia rather than actually creating the experiences. I think that there is a big difference. It is hard for me to decide the best approach because I also agree with Alex in that some of us (myself included) could/would get caught up in this construction. I do like Marc's idea of a joint because it is purely experiential and can be applied to the project at many different scales. I think the strength in the joint is that it is abstract and is not specific. In Alex's example, the bookcase, I think that in the end, it is still a bookcase, whereas the joint could be the means for creating the bookcase, the building, the doorknob, etc all in one construction. I vouch for the joint just because it seems like for the amount of time that a high quality construction will most likely take, it will provide more opportunities to pull from throughout the semester...

I also think that the joint could be interpretted differently in each project. In mine for example, it could be the existing building, in Alex's it could be the subway the nightclub and the house, in Chris's the angles of incidence and reflection etc etc...

Anonymous said...

Also, I think that the joint would be a good foundation for later drawings. I think that since it would be something physical on our desk (as opposed to a film, a visit to our site, etc) it would much more accessible to us which would enable us to really push our representational methods). Maybe it does not come first, but as a response to something else, whether it be a film we've created or watched, a visit to our site, a related experience (Carrie's visit to a flea market), etc. To reiterate, I think a physical construction is definitely necessary, we just need to be very very organized in how we approach it, because it could either be incredible or just a very time consuming preliminary exercise that may not be very helpful...

Anonymous said...

Also, to ramble some more, I think that what first comes to mind are the joints that we have all seen, the first year ones that we have either seen or created ourselves. I think that the joint does not necessarily have to be a wooden cube, but could contain cold heavy steel, containers for objects, found objects from our sites.

I also think that what the joint offers that a full scale detail may not is a sequence, time becomes very important. The order that pieces are taken out, how long they take to remove, etc, these can all be translated to walking through our not-yet-designed projects. The joint requires choreography, and is (to use the popular word) per formative. Just taking them apart becomes a performance.

I am obviously sold on the joint, but I would really like to see ALL of us push the idea of what the joint or any other construction could be BEFORE we create it (meaning now, over break), so that it doesn't blow up in our face...
please post any ideas because I'm sure it can extend far beyond what has already been proposed, I think we just need a collaborative approach to designing this thing now so we are not just wasting our time during the semester... we have only one more semester to do a thesis, I think that time is of the essence here...

Dan Bucsescu said...

It seems to me that we are in agreement on one point: full scale, full scale direct experience of a synaesthetic moment in our projects.


the current discussion is , in a nut shell, a semantic one. regarding the question of what should it be: an actual (what ever that means) "part" of the whole final project,functional/programatic "part" of the whole functional project, a "cube" or "joint".
The words "the cube" or the "joint" are the most abstract terms used in the first year of training architecture students to mean intended to mean the "smalest unit of analysis of architectural experience". They differ in emphasis in that the first "the cube" stresses space and the second , the "joint" emphasises the way of construction. Ofcourse both are fluid semantically. The word "joint" cant be a moment of construction, but it also can mean a moment in the program, such as a waiting room, a joint beteween movement by car to train, boat or plane. Any terminal is a joint on a transportation diagram. So, Brian part of program or part of construction or part of a spatial sequence on a journay on a landscape or within a building, a "joint" is a "loint" is a "joint".

As long a it containes a synaesthetic experience, the full scale "art/architectural" instalation that does the job is Ok by me whatever you call it.