This post is based on a little discussion that took place among three friends in the school library. It is basically about the problem of methodology in the creative process of architecture and discusses two methods. Both methods begin with a word. This interpretation of the problem, however, is my own and may be different from my other two friends: it is my intention therefore that they can add to this post and in doing so the initial discussion that took place in the library might be continued here.
The first method is basically interpretative in nature. It involves the study of the various meanings of the word and mapping or applying those to different scenarios or phenomena. In the process the essence of the word or one of its meanings is realised. The process then can include constructing a context or a narrative around this chosen meaning. To represent it diagrammatically, I believe it can be shown like this:
a > a > a > a > a > a > A
This method, however, often runs the danger of resorting to familiar or established architectural strategies or techniques in the end as one takes the leap from an abstract concept to an architectural one. If this happens, the initial idea of starting out with a word takes on little significance. On the other hand, if, by using this method, one ends up in an unexplored realm, or manages to steer clear from the familiar architectural strategies or techniques, it would allow for an end product which has a theme consistent with the initial starting word as well as with the whole creative process.
The second method seems to be more exploratory in nature. It involves using the initial word and its meanings to construct a creative product. This product will then be assessed again on its own merit and the meanings or values derived from it used again to construct another creative product. This process will go on until it reaches a point where one can take the leap to an architectural concept. To represent it diagrammatically:
a > g > d > r > l > m > Z
This way the process represents one’s own cognitive creative process and this process will be the essence of the final architectural thesis. However, the nature of it ensures that it will not have one consistent theme throughout the process and the initial word merely represents a starting point of a long exploratory creative process.
So the question is which is the way to go?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
that's a really interesting way to breakdown the methodologies. i reckon you think ur studio's is the first one? i actually think, maybe the second one could apply to you. if you take a material as a start for exploration, u could jolly well end up with a completely different set of analytical strategies with which to apply to your design approach.
i think what i'd like to highlight, is that, methodologies aside, much of the direction of design is self-determined. in a way, at some point, the studio leader has to realise the student into his own explorations and trajectory. methodology only dictates insofar as to give form and a set of guidelines.
once you can fly, no one will stop you :)
Post a Comment