Sunday, April 11, 2010
Sunday, April 4, 2010
project_modern
"No-one can imagine the modern. How is it to be thought, but with concepts from the past? How is it to be named, but with words of the past? How is it to be imagined but with images taken from experience? The very words ‘project’ and ‘modern’ contradict one another. ‘Pro-ject’, from ‘pro-‘ meaning ‘in front of’ and ‘jacere’, ‘to throw’, is a throwing forward, a proposing…For something to be thrown forward, both the thrower and the object must be in back of the point towards which the object is thrown. All projects, then, come from behind, from the background, as messengers from the past. There is not and cannot be such a thing as a modern project." -Josep Quetglas 
Narration by: Danny Taylor-Homfeld
Narration by: Danny Taylor-Homfeld
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Mitch Rocheleau & Austin Homfeld Collaboration
Mitch and I came to the conclusion before our process even began that we were uninterested any form of historical interpretations pertaining to architecture. Although history has importance in building a platform from which to explore it no longer holds importance in our minds to further our development as designers and future architects. We often have discussions of these deeper meanings and hidden truths about life in general. So it can be understood that it is not by coincidence that he and I were placed in such a position where we were able to explore these depths and put them into material form. It just so happens that architecture became the basis from which we were able to explore.
Understand that there are certain portions to this essay that are highly theoretical and are simply our interpretation. No one is forcing you to read this essay so please be respectful if you wish to comment. It is not our intention to impose our interpretation but simply to expose in hopes that we may further progress. Thanks and we hope you enjoy.
http://sites.google.com/site/barcelonapavillion/
Understand that there are certain portions to this essay that are highly theoretical and are simply our interpretation. No one is forcing you to read this essay so please be respectful if you wish to comment. It is not our intention to impose our interpretation but simply to expose in hopes that we may further progress. Thanks and we hope you enjoy.
http://sites.google.com/site/barcelonapavillion/
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Further...
Austin Homfeld
2.20.10 / 10pm
Initially I tried to propose this concept at a “micro” level to various established architects and my professors however it seemed as though they had difficulty understanding its application to the tool of mapping not so much the origional concepts.
so i have found that the most success I have had in providing a clear proposal is when i break down the components beginning on the macro level then working my way down to the micro level.
For example, when attempting to describe this proposal to an individual not exposed to these certain readings and studies of affectual atmospheres and sensation i am confronted with the
task of providing concrete data in order to make these concepts more tangible.
First, I make the individual aware of how drastic of an effect certain media can have on individuals emotions. These effects are produced by sensation, psycoanalitical backgoround and affectual situations, then I lead them
into the more complex realm of experinecing a piece of architecture within thier own reality.
Second, i give them the example of something simple, like “logic” behind the creation of the path that a tour bus might take and why this tour bus takes this path. For example, “Well of course it’s beautiful, I mean look at it.” Is this statemnt derived from ones true understanding that this is “beauty” or is this a simple mindless act of speech meerly becuase of the fact
that the tour bus brought them there so it must be beautiful.
Yeah, yeah seems dumb but there is more to it than that. When you place certain destinations on a tour they in a sense become part of the same direct context(i.e. a city). So in a
sense the spike in sensation becomes less significant.(somewhat)
Which led me to my next break down.
“The diamond in the rough,” if every building were equally beautiful then no ’spikes’ would exist. But that is not the case
even in a wonderful location facades and forms become rather mundane until there she is, ‘the diamond in the rough.’ So by jumping from the context of the tour bus to the context of those in it’s direct vicinity the spike will increase.
For the final breakdown I have been using ‘Sagrada Familia’ as my prime example since I am in Barcelona studying right now.
Also, because of it’s scale and purpose it actually is the easiest piece I have found and everyone knows it. I have found three simple contexts that produce three separate sensations subjective in their spike but from my discussions I have found the consensus to be fairly similar overall.
The first context would be experiencing the overall form from ground level exterior. The natural, yet intense articulation that tells a story, and leaves you begging to FEEL more. The inside becomes the outside at certain moments diverting a portion of the sensations and once again leaves you wondering what is beyond those doors. The context it is in leaves a dominating spike from ground level.
The second would be the interior which for obvious reasons is within it’s own context. Smooth less articulated space but white to capture the natural beauty casted by the light through the stained glass, sends a chill up your spine. The space is less articulated than the exterior, inverting the traditional style of a cathedral, so that all attention is directed to one focal point. Several spikes in it’s own context could be derived at certain moments but overall fairly equal as a space.
The final context would be at the top where the true beauty of Gaudi’s interesting, colorful forms come to life. They become
the foreground of your sight with the entire city as the context. Amazing.
This is when I have been most successful. But peole need concrete data. So now I am trying to develop a method and vocabulary under consensus for particular sensations to graphically display these spikes as a map. With that map my hypothesis is that I will be able to justify my moves in a design. Using other mapping techniques as derivatives instead of the current method I am using atmosphere as a derivative
of intimacy.
Reply
simondroog
2.23.10 / 8pm
That’s quite a long story, Austin. But I see what you mean, I also have some difficulty convincing the status quo of the potential of architecture based on sensations, emotions and affect of its users.
Lately I’ve been thinking about the tangibility of designing atmospheres attuned to the concerns of the user as well. Do we really need concrete data or evidence? I’m just thinking out loud here. I’ve been reading this article about measuring place – using your mind and body to record experience by Chloe Sambell. She describes her experience of space using a phenomenological approach – she measures by gathering words; observing phenomena like sound, light and shadow; making sketches and observing people. She also uses her own body to “gauge relative proportion and scale of elements.” (1) Maybe it’s enough “to describe the complex relationship between person and environment without reduction or abstraction.” (1) – abstraction as in the concrete data you write about. I’ll try to find a link to the article for you to read.
The reason why I’m thinking about this tangibility is that the experience of architecture is a very intuitive and subjective affair. Everybody experiences architecture, but mostly on a subconscious level. It’s hard to find out about someone’s sensations and emotions without influencing the situation and/or the person. Making people conscious of their experiences could and probably will influence their experiences. We’re still trying to find ways of distilling experiences without influencing them.
For mapping your findings I mentioned Christian Noldt with his Biomapping method. We’ve tried his method ourselves during a workshop. We’ve gathered data by measuring people sweat and connect this data to a context. The hardest thing was to translate the data into experiences. We knew when someone had an emotional response to a context, but we still didn’t know how they experienced the context without asking them about it and thus influencing their experience. It’s a complicated issue, that’s for sure!
1. SAMBELL, C. Measuring place: Using Mind and Body to Record Experience. Welsh School of Architecture – Cardiff, Wales: MADE magazine
2.20.10 / 10pm
Initially I tried to propose this concept at a “micro” level to various established architects and my professors however it seemed as though they had difficulty understanding its application to the tool of mapping not so much the origional concepts.
so i have found that the most success I have had in providing a clear proposal is when i break down the components beginning on the macro level then working my way down to the micro level.
For example, when attempting to describe this proposal to an individual not exposed to these certain readings and studies of affectual atmospheres and sensation i am confronted with the
task of providing concrete data in order to make these concepts more tangible.
First, I make the individual aware of how drastic of an effect certain media can have on individuals emotions. These effects are produced by sensation, psycoanalitical backgoround and affectual situations, then I lead them
into the more complex realm of experinecing a piece of architecture within thier own reality.
Second, i give them the example of something simple, like “logic” behind the creation of the path that a tour bus might take and why this tour bus takes this path. For example, “Well of course it’s beautiful, I mean look at it.” Is this statemnt derived from ones true understanding that this is “beauty” or is this a simple mindless act of speech meerly becuase of the fact
that the tour bus brought them there so it must be beautiful.
Yeah, yeah seems dumb but there is more to it than that. When you place certain destinations on a tour they in a sense become part of the same direct context(i.e. a city). So in a
sense the spike in sensation becomes less significant.(somewhat)
Which led me to my next break down.
“The diamond in the rough,” if every building were equally beautiful then no ’spikes’ would exist. But that is not the case
even in a wonderful location facades and forms become rather mundane until there she is, ‘the diamond in the rough.’ So by jumping from the context of the tour bus to the context of those in it’s direct vicinity the spike will increase.
For the final breakdown I have been using ‘Sagrada Familia’ as my prime example since I am in Barcelona studying right now.
Also, because of it’s scale and purpose it actually is the easiest piece I have found and everyone knows it. I have found three simple contexts that produce three separate sensations subjective in their spike but from my discussions I have found the consensus to be fairly similar overall.
The first context would be experiencing the overall form from ground level exterior. The natural, yet intense articulation that tells a story, and leaves you begging to FEEL more. The inside becomes the outside at certain moments diverting a portion of the sensations and once again leaves you wondering what is beyond those doors. The context it is in leaves a dominating spike from ground level.
The second would be the interior which for obvious reasons is within it’s own context. Smooth less articulated space but white to capture the natural beauty casted by the light through the stained glass, sends a chill up your spine. The space is less articulated than the exterior, inverting the traditional style of a cathedral, so that all attention is directed to one focal point. Several spikes in it’s own context could be derived at certain moments but overall fairly equal as a space.
The final context would be at the top where the true beauty of Gaudi’s interesting, colorful forms come to life. They become
the foreground of your sight with the entire city as the context. Amazing.
This is when I have been most successful. But peole need concrete data. So now I am trying to develop a method and vocabulary under consensus for particular sensations to graphically display these spikes as a map. With that map my hypothesis is that I will be able to justify my moves in a design. Using other mapping techniques as derivatives instead of the current method I am using atmosphere as a derivative
of intimacy.
Reply
simondroog
2.23.10 / 8pm
That’s quite a long story, Austin. But I see what you mean, I also have some difficulty convincing the status quo of the potential of architecture based on sensations, emotions and affect of its users.
Lately I’ve been thinking about the tangibility of designing atmospheres attuned to the concerns of the user as well. Do we really need concrete data or evidence? I’m just thinking out loud here. I’ve been reading this article about measuring place – using your mind and body to record experience by Chloe Sambell. She describes her experience of space using a phenomenological approach – she measures by gathering words; observing phenomena like sound, light and shadow; making sketches and observing people. She also uses her own body to “gauge relative proportion and scale of elements.” (1) Maybe it’s enough “to describe the complex relationship between person and environment without reduction or abstraction.” (1) – abstraction as in the concrete data you write about. I’ll try to find a link to the article for you to read.
The reason why I’m thinking about this tangibility is that the experience of architecture is a very intuitive and subjective affair. Everybody experiences architecture, but mostly on a subconscious level. It’s hard to find out about someone’s sensations and emotions without influencing the situation and/or the person. Making people conscious of their experiences could and probably will influence their experiences. We’re still trying to find ways of distilling experiences without influencing them.
For mapping your findings I mentioned Christian Noldt with his Biomapping method. We’ve tried his method ourselves during a workshop. We’ve gathered data by measuring people sweat and connect this data to a context. The hardest thing was to translate the data into experiences. We knew when someone had an emotional response to a context, but we still didn’t know how they experienced the context without asking them about it and thus influencing their experience. It’s a complicated issue, that’s for sure!
1. SAMBELL, C. Measuring place: Using Mind and Body to Record Experience. Welsh School of Architecture – Cardiff, Wales: MADE magazine
So here it is...
Plain and simple. I have been thinking thinking thinking non-stop day by day drastically altering my perspective of architecture. With constant change I am having hell laying out my thoughts.
To follow this blog I must route you to another blog that I have found called Experiencing Architecture. It basically sums up and breaks down the information necessary to understand where I am coming from.
Regardless of how fucked up some it sounds day by day I am gaining order to what began as a theory but now 'it just is what it is' more so than a theory. The hypothesis of the outcome has become less subjective than at first I perceived it to be.
Using mapping as a tool to justify moves within a design. Essentially the culmination of those separate techniques become a derivative of one thing, atmosphere. The outcome of my design will hopefully reveal a balance of all those aspects to produce a certain diversity of atmospheric conditions that become equally sensational.
Start here
http://experiencingarchitecture.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/how-to-design-atmospheres-attuned-to-the-concerns-of-the-user/
Then go here
http://experiencingarchitecture.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/how-do-emotions-work-basic-model-of-emotions/
The creator of this blog, Simon Droog, and I have been discussing some things and to a certain collaborating.
Here is where we have started make sure to follow the biomapping link.
Reply
Austin Homfeld
2.16.10 / 3pm
I study Architecture and I am fascinated by aspects of Architectural theory especially pertaining to sensation, emotion, and affect produced by architectural environments.
Depending on various contexts such as the natural environment or built environment in which the structure is located or the origin and background of the viewer this theory is obviuosly highly subjective.
Right now I am residing in Barcelona Spain taking on a studio course where we are exploring mapping. While continuing the design process I am deriving levels of intimacy through line of sight.
Due to my interest in affect produced by architectural environments I believe that certain aspects of mapping, such as intimacy, could be a derivative of sensation and emotion therefore making it possible to map despite its current level of subjectivity.
My plan essentially is to gather a consensus to an extent through a blog that is in the works. For it to be successful I would have to explain essentially what you are explaining (very well by the way) before beginning to test my theory.
I am hoping to direct my followers toward your forum here so that they may better understand what I am pursuing.
Fantastic job I cant wait to here more.
Reply
simondroog
2.17.10 / 10am
Thanks, Austin.
It seems that we have a similar fascination. I would be very interested in your theories and findings on this topic. Can you give me the address to your blog when it is up and running?
In the mean time you could have a look at an interesting approach to mapping emotion by researcher Christian Noldt: Biomapping. It could be useful for the development of your theories. Good luck! http://www.biomapping.net/
Reply
Austin Homfeld
2.18.10 / 8pm
Amazing. I have been unsuccessful at finding some concrete data such as that to back up the theory and push it along in the process. Essentially what he has created is a basis for the first step in my process.
Right now that first step is macro context being one city as a whole (just to start then hopefully if successful moving into a global context-i.e. the “new” macro context)
The second, with respect, would be what I am calling the “diamond in the rough.” So basically a certain structure as a whole and it’s level of sensation produced in the context of those in it’s vicinity.
At the micro levels obviously would be the building within it’s own context and in some instances the spike in sensation produced from lines of sight to the exterior but still in it’s own context as it would create the foreground for that sight.
Hopefully some collaboration can take place and we can begin to develope certain vocabularies making these theories less subjective than their current state. As our population begins to grow and further discussion continues this can be achieved.
To follow this blog I must route you to another blog that I have found called Experiencing Architecture. It basically sums up and breaks down the information necessary to understand where I am coming from.
Regardless of how fucked up some it sounds day by day I am gaining order to what began as a theory but now 'it just is what it is' more so than a theory. The hypothesis of the outcome has become less subjective than at first I perceived it to be.
Using mapping as a tool to justify moves within a design. Essentially the culmination of those separate techniques become a derivative of one thing, atmosphere. The outcome of my design will hopefully reveal a balance of all those aspects to produce a certain diversity of atmospheric conditions that become equally sensational.
Start here
http://experiencingarchitecture.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/how-to-design-atmospheres-attuned-to-the-concerns-of-the-user/
Then go here
http://experiencingarchitecture.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/how-do-emotions-work-basic-model-of-emotions/
The creator of this blog, Simon Droog, and I have been discussing some things and to a certain collaborating.
Here is where we have started make sure to follow the biomapping link.
Reply
Austin Homfeld
2.16.10 / 3pm
I study Architecture and I am fascinated by aspects of Architectural theory especially pertaining to sensation, emotion, and affect produced by architectural environments.
Depending on various contexts such as the natural environment or built environment in which the structure is located or the origin and background of the viewer this theory is obviuosly highly subjective.
Right now I am residing in Barcelona Spain taking on a studio course where we are exploring mapping. While continuing the design process I am deriving levels of intimacy through line of sight.
Due to my interest in affect produced by architectural environments I believe that certain aspects of mapping, such as intimacy, could be a derivative of sensation and emotion therefore making it possible to map despite its current level of subjectivity.
My plan essentially is to gather a consensus to an extent through a blog that is in the works. For it to be successful I would have to explain essentially what you are explaining (very well by the way) before beginning to test my theory.
I am hoping to direct my followers toward your forum here so that they may better understand what I am pursuing.
Fantastic job I cant wait to here more.
Reply
simondroog
2.17.10 / 10am
Thanks, Austin.
It seems that we have a similar fascination. I would be very interested in your theories and findings on this topic. Can you give me the address to your blog when it is up and running?
In the mean time you could have a look at an interesting approach to mapping emotion by researcher Christian Noldt: Biomapping. It could be useful for the development of your theories. Good luck! http://www.biomapping.net/
Reply
Austin Homfeld
2.18.10 / 8pm
Amazing. I have been unsuccessful at finding some concrete data such as that to back up the theory and push it along in the process. Essentially what he has created is a basis for the first step in my process.
Right now that first step is macro context being one city as a whole (just to start then hopefully if successful moving into a global context-i.e. the “new” macro context)
The second, with respect, would be what I am calling the “diamond in the rough.” So basically a certain structure as a whole and it’s level of sensation produced in the context of those in it’s vicinity.
At the micro levels obviously would be the building within it’s own context and in some instances the spike in sensation produced from lines of sight to the exterior but still in it’s own context as it would create the foreground for that sight.
Hopefully some collaboration can take place and we can begin to develope certain vocabularies making these theories less subjective than their current state. As our population begins to grow and further discussion continues this can be achieved.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
