20 Beliefs About Architecture (so far…)

After two years of studying architecture, I have begun to shape certain preconceptions in my mind. And although I am still to young to have set views about the discipline, nevertheless, here I write my 20 opinions/ assumptions about it so far:

1. Architectural form has no inherent meaning.

2. Architecture is a thing—a phenomenal presence—in which people experience their lives.

3. People assign meaning(s) to form.

4. Plurality and difference prevent a unified reading of a work.

5. Meaning(s) in buildings are constantly being rewritten or reevaluated.

6. Experience of architecture occurs mostly in passing (or subconsciously).

7. In their primal condition, buildings serve as reference points or markers: “let’s meet at the corner of…”

8. Non-architects mostly appreciate architecture for its beauty.

9. Experience of space prevails over aesthetics of surface.

10. Architectural space can always be reprogrammed.

11. Architects discuss volumes, space, scale, proportions, representation, tectonics, and other related topics because—in essence—they generate beauty and experience.

12. Materials, textures, graphics, and decoration always enhance the reception of a project, but can never replace spatial organization.

13. (“Good”) Architecture, although a product of its era, transcends the time in which it was built.

14. Architecture does not represent nor can it shape/generate ideology.

15. Recovery of a past is always-already a failed project. Architecture can never replicate that which has been lost.

16. Good architecture learns from the past and uses it to move forward.

17. Despite technological advances, craft remains inversely proportional to the quality of the material. The “cheaper” the material, better is the craft required.

18. Money can hinder the aesthetics of a building, but it can never dictate nor prevent it.

19. A building should be treated like a story or a puzzle, where the architect leaves signs for people to interpret at different levels.

20. The more layers of information a project has or considers, the more meaning people can interpret and so the better the architecture.

Time will tell how I rethink my beliefs…

Space as Meaning and Misunderstanding: Phenomenal Transparency

Visual interpretation of the negative space in the Herbert F. Johnson Museum.

My dad once told me that there are two kinds of architects: the ones who can understand spatial transparency (the privileged) and those who cannot (the rest). Robert Slutzky and Colin Rowe develop in “Trasparency” and “Transparency 2″ (from Architecture Culture: 1943-1968, by Joan Ockman) an understanding of how a building’s formal structure can demarcate spaces. They single out two types of transparencies: the literal and the phenomenal.  The first refers to how a material like glass, although physically “transparent,” is still tangibly present in the structure’s form. In contrast, phenomenal transparency allows for a simultaneous perception of different spatial locations within the same space. The idea is that, like in an optical illusion, forms are suggested –or implied, as Peter Eisenman would prefer to say– rather than depicted. In other words, it allows for spatial stratification within given limits. Phenomenal spaces are never different, but differentiated. Like in Cubist paintings, phenomenal forms are suggested, not stipulated. The viewer defines what he/she sees.

Read the rest of this entry »

First Explorations in Drawing

Herbert F. Johnson Museum: Exploring how the negative space of the facade blends in with its environment.

As part of the first exercise for first-year drawing class of the M.Arch. I at Cornell’s Architecture School, my classmates and I were asked to go around the campus and free-hand draw three structures. The assignment was completely open, as we could draw anything we wanted to portray. The purpose of the exercise  was to begin thinking about how we “see” buildings and how we can represent those ideas about them. I centered on the Herbert F. Johnson Museum, the Sage Chappel, and Uris Library. I wish to share part of my outcome… Read the rest of this entry »

On (the future of) Refraction: Coming of the Other

L’avenir, for philosopher Jacques Derrida, conceptualizes the coming of the Other. In juxtaposition with the Future, which can be known beforehand, l’avenir references the unpredictable appearance of the Other.

For this blog, I currently represent the Future, i.e. an intentional attempt by my brother, Alberto, to (re)invent the content of his page. Yet, what subsequent years hold for us, I do not/cannot know. How will I affect my brother’s design thinking? And – more importantly for my wellbeing –  How will he deflect my way(s) of perceiving the Human Being and its World, which (mis)guides me towards specific problematizations and reconcialiations.

In short, how will l’avenir unravel in Refraction? I can never predict it.

Nonetheless, Refraction will write the evolution of our project. Not only by focusing on different themes, but by seeing how those thoughts bounce back into unforeseen realms. We hope that our thoughts, deflected, will survive.

But what does that mean: that our vestige will survive us? Is it possible? For how long? (Obviously not for eternity.) Derrida asserted: “The trace neither lives nor dies, but survives us.” Such a claim denies existence to the trace, but endows it with a personal utility of extension or continuation of one’s life after death. Yet, this quasi-satisfactory move towards the achievement of immortality (always knowing its implied impossibility) may confuse a reader into believing in an explicit, discoverable link between an origin and its footprint. The trace, always-already disentangled from the origin and henceforth being observed through varying interpretative eyes, can never open the path to recapture an original essence (i.e. thought, feeling, concept, experience, etc.). So, even if MY-trace can never be recovered, my-trace  does not merely survive, but is exists! It has its own existence, endowed by the eye of the beholder. Don’t get me wrong, my writing exists because of me, but continues to be in spite of me. (I hope that the reader nourishes the life of my-trace, to prevent its inevitable death.)

INtroDUCTION

My small book collection at Cornell.

Indeed for me, these times need of introductions. First, because most of you, who have decided to read posts by my rather keen brother, may not know me. Second – I have to admit ­- this would be the first time I bring my thoughts into a blog. And finally, I am getting acquainted with a new setting.

Two weeks ago, I arrived at Cornell University to begin my Masters in Architecture 1. The experience of meeting new people from widely different track records – architecture, furniture design, engineering, physics, business, among others – has been exciting, but has also motivated me to reflect back on my persona. Seeing how many already possess jaw-dropping abilities, I felt compelled to review what I had apparently done right to be accepted into the School of Architecture, Art, and Planning (AAP). Reviewing my application materials, I came across my essay, which began:

“I do not want to study architecture.”          These words quickly became my answer to those who presumed that as the son of an architect and the brother of a graphic designer, I would pursue an undergraduate degree in the arts.

Read the rest of this entry »