Designers require rationalization to affirm their designs. And often imagination cannot meet the expectations of rationalization, and vise versa. The capacity to obtain a "standard" (or rational form) is achieved by available means of intelligence (or artificial intelligence).
Standards in antiquity are demonstrated by set proportions and relationships. These standards were attainable through the available means of geometry, visual analyses and technology. If one could understand geometry in antiquity as all encompassing physical science of modern day, visual analyses as a product cultural values, then one can understand that the attributes of antiquity have progressed to maintain their existence in time.
Basic spanning members of wood alleviated the burden--pun intended--of compressive members of stone and brick. Certain spatial and aesthetic choices have been to coincide with certain acceptable standards that have been observed in nature and ratified in science. The golden rectangle and the pristine square occur in elevations in all significant moments of experience. It is easy to form a parallelogram, and it is easy to find a repeating proportion for this abstract shape in nature and establish an appreciation for its coincidence. Having the set standard for a proportion (or having certain formulae for achieving entices) the job of the architect is made easier through a rationalization process has both preccedence and mathematical proof.
I hope where I am leading is beginning to be apparent.
If human intelligence has progressed, then so should have designers' ability to rationalize their design intents. Curves no longer have to oblige by the arc of a circle nor the edge of a tracing tool. Observations no longer have to be made on a two-dimensional plane, as movements and patterns can be traced through time and space. Patterns in fact are no longer a visual experience but they can also be social experiences.
In modern technology how specific forms are generated is irrelevant. The relevance is in the designer's capacity to understand why such patterns exist and any metaphorical potential that they retain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Yes, and in determining these potentials, architects must find a logical reasoning within these new forms. I wouldn't go so far to say the how isn't important, because that could be an important part of "so what." While we can generate new forms, we still hold onto the principal of justification.
Post a Comment