Some of points they brought up were how the body relates to the structure. The prospect of being inside a structure, shelter, or refuge, and how one can materialize this kind of safe-haven. With that being said, many of their projects included open-air rooms and movable windows and walls that could allow the indoor-outdoor barrier to be broken. It makes me wonder what is it that creates a comfortable and safe enclosure, that doesn't block out the natural elements and surroundings.
Another thing that stuck out to me, but was barely covered, were the inspirations. I've been noticing more and more in demonstrations of architecture, art, writing, etc., the inspirations for projects are always mentioned - even if it's just briefly. For Andersson and Wise, they would quickly flash a slide with some pictures (mostly nature), and then continue to describe the building. I feel that this short display is letting off more than it seems. Andersson and Wise compared their downtown hotel and residences - complete with an ACL recording studio and concert stage - in Austin, TX, to monuments in Arches National Park and Mesa Verde. While these preserved monuments may have nothing to do with the urban and lively side of Austin, this innovative sky scraper was modeled after them.
These inspirations serve as a starting point, kind of like the beauty slide show we did earlier for studio. Finding these sources forces you to look at the things that evoke the personal need for design and also what you wish to accomplish with design. I think this process is almost irrelevant to the finished product. In this case, the visitors and residences have no need to know why, or even who caused this building to stand. But for designers, this has to be some kind of crucial step everyone is forgetting to mention. Once we have these "inspirations" one also has to decide how to use the elements of these representations to bring new components to design. Something that I've also noticed are inspirations being use literally. If someone is inspired by a tree, their design will reflect the actual tree.
See the resemblance? Me neither, but I firmly believe it's for the best. My reasoning is the following:
Abstraction is an important step in creating beauty, especially for architects. a dog may be beautiful, and a building may be beautiful, but a building shaped like a dog is not beautiful.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, I am skeptical about the connection between arches and the skyscraper. I think a lot of architects get lost in their own thoughts and can't really articulate what they believe or have done. The architecture that results may still be beautiful but the explanation of how they got to it is often unhelpful. Strive to make your own motives explicit. You may be able to design well more consistently then, instead of waiting for inspiration from a fickle muse.