about representation

DYLAN WEISER (M. Arch I ’18) and JEONGYOON ISABELLE SONG (M. Arch I ’18)

Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Jeongyoon Isabelle Song wrote:

yeah let’s get on this…

HI MARK.

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Dylan Weiser wrote:

Peter,

(insert bad MFG joke here)

But seriously,

I think it’s funny that those undertones of us acting on behalf of MFG and PE exist in this conversation.  

PDB said in the concluding remarks of the 2nd year reviews, and I’m paraphrasing loosely,

“It’s very peculiar that with the invention of tools like rhino that students have fallen into the “retro” look of representation from when hand drafting was the state of the art”

I think the graphic nature of these kinds of drawings is actually pretty boring and i’m exhausted, not to mention the (dots,dashes,plus signs), so what is it that attracts students to this style?

I get there are certain conventions within the discipline, but seriously, is the axonometric the best that we can do with the tools at our disposal?

As a student, you need to have a point of view of the discipline which includes representation and if we just keep grinding away at Architecture in the same way the P.E did before the turn of the century we effectively are wasting our education.

On Oct 27, 2016, at 9:01 PM, Jeongyoon Isabelle Song wrote:

I guess I will just go into commenting on the PdB quote. I think there’s reason to contest what defines “retro”/old vs. “modern”/new. In my opinion, the two terms are constantly in a state of interchangeability, where the old becomes the new and the new becomes the old. Just look at fashion – one moment something was in, the next something’s out and what was originally a fashion no-no becomes a revamped “it” thing of the now.

I don’t know about the specific use of “dots, dashes, plus signs” but perhaps as a generation that’s been inundated with flashy architectural imagery and renderings, we collectively feel numb toward them: that despite their vibrancy and vividness, they are the ones that have actually become boring and have been exhausted; the novelty and the craziness of the forms and the representation of forms through these new digital media have worn out.

And I think that’s what makes people turn toward these “boring” and “old” things. Maybe we feel too overwhelmed – and perhaps, also _under_whelmed – by all that we see being produced nowadays…

But at the same time, maybe representation isn’t the problem. Sometimes I find myself going back and forth between how representation should be used or what role it should play in the effectiveness of the project. For instance, what happens when everyone has the same representation method? If we took all of our second year projects and used a singular representation, maybe the things that appeared crazy aren’t so crazy after all and those that seemed boring aren’t actually boring.

Also – then it makes me wonder – do you mean experimentation just in representation or in our actual interpretation of the brief of the building that needs to be built? Because if you mean the latter as well, I think I both agree and disagree in that there needs to be more experimentation. Well, more accurately, less unbridled experimentation but more intentional experimentation.

Do you feel like you’re being experimental with your architecture and representation and that because of the general vibe or tone of YSOA that it’s being excluded or not accepted?

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Dylan Weiser wrote:

Regarding your last question, it’s not about being accepted or included.

There should always be people who don’t agree with things that you are interested in. If not, you should go to a different school.

But to go back, I’m currently interested in having one image that represents the project, something that can hold the wall it’s pinned up on and the room it’s in.

Something that you can see and understand from 30 feet away. That’s the kind of graphic bold quality that I think is interesting in a presentation and trying to move away from a series of medium scale drawings.

I agree renderings are out but it’s no question they are very real in the “real world.”

But I think the flashy renderings you speak of are the ones that architects outsource to professionals.

As rendering technology becomes more advanced, I become more wary of the photo-real and context in general weighing so heavily on architecture.

So yes, renderings without specific intention are bad.

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Jeongyoon Isabelle Song wrote:

In advanced studios, in most cases students take on the aesthetic and architectural approach of their critic. Why can’t or don’t people feel free to explore themselves regardless of whether they match or don’t match the critic?