Surfacade?

"Between Surface and Substance"

Technology can (help) produce surfaces. But is technology also the sole formal generator of the surface?

"Yet in some circles there seems to be a strange inclination to produce art by virtue of some sort of esoteric knowledge. May see fit to recognize art - to be sure, art f the most 'sublime order' - ss something deeply mysterious, something enigmatically transcendental, understandable only by the selected few. Such an attitude of exaggerated self-consciousness - where the artist himself frequently plays the role of an innocent tool in the hands of purveyors of esthetic intricacy and commercial humbug - brings art easily into artificial depths and self-deceptive snobbishness." (re-quoting Saarinen, as quoted by author)

The meaning of the product, or even the philosophical underlay of the product, is what elevates the quality of the thing--maybe.

Without meaning, then perhaps the value of the object is lost. Or is it possible for something to be so powerful that the exact meaning is not relevant?

Or is it perhaps the underlying nature of man to seek meaning in things, or else he can no longer identify with what is around himself.

But back to the subject of surface generation... The Aegis Hyposurface is
product of a process that is only feasible with digital technology. It is generated by a medium that can simultaneously coexist at multiple timezones and many locations, and be generated and produced at the same time and in non-congruent methods. But then, is this project an identifier of technology/process or is it a symbol in its production, where its value is in its meaning and methodologies?

Is it meaningful to have a sketch for an architecture to begin a process, and accept that the form rendered is inherently restricted by existing technology and methods? Or would it be more meaningful to generate a form that is not yet visualized, but its creation is already predetermined by the capacity of technology?

"In All Quarters, Please"

Ingeborg Rocker. "Versioning: Evolving Architectures - Dissolving Identities. 'Nothing is as Persistent as Change'"

The same change

Consistency in change

Continuously changing

Differentiation

Change == Evolution

Matrix

"No pennies, nickels, dimes, or even half-dollars. I only take quarters."

But, really, the "same change" is but relative to the parameter henceforth set by the privileged. The implication ultimately suggests that a consistent change is but only relative to itself in the context of itself.

Semiotics?

Umberto Eco's "Travels in Hyperreality"

Two issues are raised. The first is the meaning of super real reproductions and man's reaction (or acceptance) of the falsehood. By implication, the second is the man's need to recall the past, and to survive within an environment that can only be described as nostalgia.

Perhaps the issues are only relevant in conjunction with the hyperreal, or possibly this is a topic of far-reaching implications. Man's attachment to the past is constant. Memories bear man's experience, and in turn his existence. To have meaning in one's existence, one must have his identity (drenched in experience). Experience does not limit itself to just the hyperreal but also the abstract, as long as memories and recognition are stimulated.

What the article focuses on is the idea of an image. Or rather, experiences that are attempted to be reproduced through provocative and super real images of what no longer exists. What then is the relevance of the experience (or meaning) of what is not real?

If all the Big Macs are not the same, then are they all different? Does this translate into that two apples that look the same can never be the same? Then to what extent can any two things ever be abstracted and become the same? The implication here is the notion of abstracting what we see and what we know to an extent of comprehension, so the information can then be logically processed.

Here I will step back to my classical argument that "1 + 1 = 2" cannot be true, especially if no two things can ever be the same. Mathematics is an abstraction of reality, hence to use it to define and predict reality is inherently a flawed approach.

No two Big Macs can be the same, no two apples can be the same, and no two bricks can be the same. Nevertheless, human perception does not allow the high complexity of infinite individualities, and hence human perception must abstract what is otherwise not identical enable to rationalize the relationships between the "two".

(How) To Spot a Version(ing)

(Sharples Holden Pasquarelli (SHoP). "Introduction." Versioning: Evolutionary Techniques in Architecture - AD Vol. 72.)

I wish to use video game controllers as the example for versioning. For those unfamiliar, here's a quick breakdown of the major concoles that are intended for consumer home use and require an independent projection device (i.e. television) for display:

Atari: 2600, 5200
Nintendo: NES, SNES, N64, Gamecube, Wii
Sega: Genesis, Saturn, Dreamcast
Sony: PS1/PSXPS2, PS3
Microsoft: X-box, X-box 360


If I understand "versioning" correctly, then a videogame controller is a handheld in-put (and sometimes out-put) device that relies on a person's hand-eye coordination to resequence a pre-set of commands to obtain favorable results in a "virtual" envrionment. I argue there is no longer a prototype or archetype for a videogame controller. So far, its basic design intention is to be handheld, and array of additional factor determine its form and use.

1) complexity of games (program): the quantity and types of input devices on the controller.
2) ergonomics (use experience): the comfort of hands (and appropriateness based on the target audience, by age and region).
3) affordability: the value judgement between features and manufacturing cost.
4) target audience: existing difference are between age groups. Nintendo generally produce smaller controllers catering to the younger audience, whereas Microsoft have produced much larger controllers for a more mature audience for each launch.
5) imagibility (form): the aesthetics have differed based on brand, each brand seeking a more contemporary image that suits the label for each console.

Many of the factors are driven by marketing, which can be difficult to holistically model. Nevertheless, the same thing may be said for architecture, if it were to be conceived as a business.

Tied Interdependence of Surface and Space

(Maria Ponce de Leon and Nader Tehrani. "Connubial Reciprocities of Surface and Space." Versioning: Evolutionary Techniques in Architecture - AD Vol. 72.)

"Folding becomes the [Yokohama Port Terminal's] operative technique, and all the buildng's functions - circulation, mechanical, electrical, structural, programmatic, waterproofing, etc - are somehow absorbed by the logic that this technique provides."


"The building, however, does not come without some inevident complexities and contradictions. For instance, while the ramped/support pier areas are folded and prewelded steel-plate structures, the main hall is spanned by traditional triangulated trusses that are subsequently clad in steel plates that extend the logic of the fold over the entire system. Thus, the building's structure is actually composite and varied in nature, and the envelope is a thetorical artifice that cloaks and binds the sometimes contradictory and differentiated elements into an organic whole." (p. 28)

What is inherently in question here, and throughout--and perhaps eternally--is truth in architecture. Whether the debate is for the rationalist (the part and the whole dictate) or the empirical (prioritty of form), each agenda inevitably results in the neglect of the other.

Ideally, I suspect, it is every architect's intention for each aspect of the product to come together. Nevertheless, rigorous investigation is often not part of an architectural process that is more often than not a business.

Architecture is a metaphor for problem solving and the search for multiplicities. To find any solution to a problem is not good enough. A problem should become opportunity for further investigate and the establishment of new possibilities. This often requires questioning and requestioning of established norms.

"The Future of Space" - Elizabeth Grosz

"It is not an existing, God-given space, the Cartesian space of numerical division, but an unfolding space, defined, as time is, by the arc of movement and thus a space open to becoming, by which I mean becoming other than it self, other than what it has been[.]" (p. 118)

First, allow me to take apart the above sentence into the (anti-)comparison that it is:

1) God-given; Cartesian; numerical division

2) unfolding; defined by time; arc of movement; open to becoming

Grosz here makes the comparison of a past order and a new order. She establishes the past order as something definite and discrete, and the association of godliness and mathematics begins the comparison with "us and them". Where the "us" is the new and "them" is the past. However, the paradox is in her association of time with the descriptives of "unfolding" and non-linear movement, which then establishes time as a non-discrete phenomenon. Hence the implication is made that what is new and what is past are not moments that precede one another, but they are moments that cannot be readily conceived without an abstract notion of what is not linear and what is potentially constantly self-referential.

Memory is virtual. Memory is orchestrated by instances of stimulation. The validity of memory is but applicable to that specific instance the remembered (or noted) moment in time. And similar to the act of taking notes, what memory chooses to re-establish is an act of selective (re-)presentation. The validity of what is remembered is but what we have imagined to be reality.

It is quite scary to realize that no memory is truthful. Although memory can very much be an unconscious process, it is nevertheless scary to know the selectivity of our process of remembering is but an act of falsification (or even customization).