Parametrics & Virtuality

Parametrics architecture to me seems like an architecture of the future, with its futuristic morphing forms. Although it seems boundlessly unorthogonal, almost like the architects are just drawing them up from random curves, they are fundamentally systematic and ordered. Following the modernist era and fordism, which are strictly defined, thus pertaining to mass production and standardization, parametrics is the opposite. It is an interrelation of micro-subsystems, flowing, specialized, flexible and divert. Everyone is different, therefore should be treated to what suits them best. One clear example showing this parametric era is the internet, when the whole class was asked to search the same world in google from their smartphones, the result shows a list of different web links but in different orders on different people's screen because the web engine is specialized to its owner, which looked back into the phone's history of searches before generating a list of desirable results in a duration of one click so the owner does not have to search for the best web but the best web finds the owner instead. Technologies through time has adapted the world to a swift flow of information and data. Architecture has also adapted to the trend of the world. Parametricism presents architecture of fluent, dynamic forms, that is simulated by computer. Like how our phone is adapted its owner, parametric architecture is adapted to where its inhabited. Not only is it interrelated to its surrounding but also from building to building within the site, hence the term "articulation" meaning an organization of individual parts into a coherent and meaningful whole. Like many works of Zaha Hadid, the buildings morph into each other and fluently merge into the surrounding context. Building of four will look like one. You won't see the architecture as a separate element but as a virtual extension and articulation of its context.

Everything is Neutral

"Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

Dialogue Submission

EVERYTHING IS NEUTRAL

THINGS

When you look up in a thesaurus you might find the words "thing" and "object" as a synonym of one another. However, they are slightly different when it comes to the contemporary theory of humans and nonhumans. Objects are associated with 'physicality', whereas things are used to express 'value'. Like when we used the word "something" as an expression because you cannot find words to describe nor explain what you are trying to say, so the word some-thing becomes a "translation" of the feelings or values you hold for the particular object that is being described.

Human Evolution and Things - Alternative to Charles Darwin's Theory

We, humans are defined by the nonhumans that exist around us. The evolution of humans is actually parallel to the evolution of things, and are associated with one another. Although "things" might not seem like a word that concerns any social interactions or interpretation it does so without anyone's notice. Though it shouldn't be a surprise since its the humans that invented those things themselves. Things are intimately involved in our everyday lives. If I were to ask you to make a list of things you cannot live without, we'd be here forever. They are not just required for their functionality but because everyone has the things they are attached to, things also become signifiers, of how two individuals are associated to one another. For example, a cage (thing) shows the relationship/status/hierarchy of the person inside the cage compared to the person outside. It translates or delegates the "effort" in which one needs to point out, i.e. how they are related to the person next to them. In the same way, things signify its owner, the things we possess tells people who we are because of our relationship to that thing. A clear example is fashion, an interpretation of what style of clothing one wears tells more about the wearer than one might realize, it could tell if the wearer is rich or poor, what is their social background, what lifestyle they might pursue, and where they stand in comparison to you. Again, those "things" give us "value" for judgement, as it delegates the effort in need for other people to get to know you by giving them an impression through things you possess.

In "Objectifier" designers put this theory to practice. They go by 'a general descriptive rule' Jim Johnson mentioned in his text Mixing Humans and Non Humans together that "every time you want to know what a human does, simply imagine what other humans or other non humans would have to do were this character not present". By this rule of "imaginary substitution" it sums up for designers what functions they need to put into the character they are designing. Like if they were to design a chair they would list the things we need to do to find a sitting position and come up with a design that delegates that list of efforts, only then will you get a successful design.

Systems and Deep Ecology

What does it mean by deep ecology? When we think of ecology, of course what comes to our mind is organisms and the natural environment. It is in fact the relations between the two, and in contemporary theory it is their "holistic" relations that makes up the word 'deep ecology', it is a deeper phenomenon once looked as a bigger whole than the meaning of each separate parts.

Nothing is orthogonal because nothing is created independently. Every form comes from a system and as a relation of another, i.e. its surrounding context. Take Frank Lloyd Wright for example, in his works like the Prairie House, is a reflection of its context. One interesting detail is the stained glass that projects the trees outside, on the opposite side of the window, in geometrical simplification. The stained glass then becomes a symbol of transition between the outside and inside that is smoothly put together. The house is trying to relate to and communicate to its natural surrounding, which results in a wonderful continuity in the aesthetics.

Stained glass with tree-like pattern in Frank Lloyd Wright's Prairie House

Deep ecology can also be applied to other matters as well because everything is created in relation of something, there is always something, a reason, that influence our thinking and consequently the product of our thinking, which is what makes the world we live in now and it is bound to change over the course of time. It is not only applicable to physical implications but also theoretical and ideological concepts like the topic of topos and the variations; utopia, heterotopia, and dystopia. Each variation doesn't and couldn't just exist on itself. Like Michel Foucault has mentioned in his text, he chose to explain the relations of the different types of places and no-places as a relationship of an object, its reflection and the mirror in which the reflection is reflected upon. Obviously, all three things have to exist as a whole system, a reflection couldn't exist if there's no mirror or object. So in the same manner, the idea of a utopia wouldn't exist without the perception of the actual place and hence a heteropic ideal. The idea of dystopia, a bad-no-place, is not so clear and understandable if there is no clarification of what is a good-no-place or utopia, therefore dystopias cannot exist independently without a utopic vision well because they are created in relation of one another.

Man, reflection, mirror protrays the idea of topos, utopia, heterotopia respectively

TOPOS

"Topos" means place. Everyone of us live in a "place", which exist by relationships of space. A place in this case is not locational, but a set of relations. Like Galileo has said 'everything is relational'.
Topos has many variations to it, the utopias, dystopias and heterotopias. These topos or places are not physical but can be viewed as more of an ideology. Utopia meaning 'no-place' says for itself that it does not exist physically, it is a reflection of a place, often interpreted as a 'good-no-place'. But as Michel Foucoult has mentioned in his text that in fact 'our lives are still ruled by a certain number of unrelenting opposites', meaning we don't just live in a type of topos but a mixture. Not only are there utopias but there are dystopias, the opposite of utopia, translating to a 'bad-no-place'. Moreover there is also a heterotopia, a different place, is utopia is the reflection of the mirror heterotopia can be seen as the mirror itself.

The movie Hunger Games is an exploration of topos and its variations. In the movie there are two different ranks of people, the rich which lives in the Capitol, and the poor who lives in the twelve districts, a heterotopic existence. Though as an overview Panem might seem like a dystopia, but if you put yourselves in the characters shoes, the Capitol of the rich to the rich it's a utopia because they are of the highest rank in their world, even though they are torturing the people of the poor districts.

Making place

How do you "make a place"?
There are four elements that makes up the world we live in called the Four Folds, consistig of the earth, the sky, people and the divine (or the transcendent). To make a place or dwelling is a process of taming the elements of the fold and shaping them into forms of domesticity. One example os the mud house in USA which is made from mudbrick, the earth element, processed by the sun, baked with natural heat only and no external heating device. Not only that, but once the dwelling disinegrates it becomes dirt, turn to dust meaning a return to its progonal earth form. The architecture is if not itself part of constructed or deformed version of the four folds it is a reflection of the surrounding asset.
The film Pawaqqatsi to me is an exploration of the four folds. It really shows the coexistence of the different elements, working together in a particular context. The ethnic group of men carrying sack of dirt, which is earth extracted from a bigger portion of earth, over a landscape of the earth, its horizon defining the edges of the sky. The ethnic is, I assume, transporting these small portions of earth for purposes of domesticity, supporting theirway of life. So it's a clear and swift integration of the four folds, people, sky, earth and the divine.

Erotics of experience

By dictionary definition erotics means 'something of, relating to, or tending to arouse sexual desire or excitement'. However, by theoretical approach it is slightly different, it is not in sexual terms but is the excitement or even something beyond, in our experience. Nevertheless, the erotics pertains to the theories of semiotics, phenomenology, aesthetics and hyperreality that we have learnt in our previous classes. It is said that erotics is 'the not the excess of pleasure but the pleasure of excess'. It is the delight in perceiving something that is overwhelming, infinite, to the point of intimidation or horror. It is the "sublime", the wow sensation, a satisfaction so much that you could die.

The film 'Fight Club' is an example of erotics in theoretical claims. It is a story of a guy who's bored of his own life so much that he faked at being cancer to join cancer consultations intending to experience true feelings of the near-death or the sublime. It was experience received second-handedly until he was involved in fight club, a club that people literally come to fight. They really get hurt and really get an adrenalin rush at the hint of almost dying. The film's catch phrase was "if you haven't fight, you haven't lived". The aesthetics of fight club was that no one else knows about fight club, people are attracted by this ambiguity. The rules of fight club is 'Do not talk about fight club'. It implies that the club only exist between the few members, a perception that they are breaking away from the aesthetics of normal people (outside of fight club), that they are different, so the main character had achieved his will in living a more exciting life. But eventually, fight club grew and the increase in its members caused it to lose its 'aesthetics' in being unique. To break away from the norm again, fight club started picking fight with other people instead. Thus, they have gone further in the 'sublime', an even more dangerous activity, at the verge of fatality.

From this example we can see clearly that erotics, as a theory of experience, is a mix of studies and understandings of different theories of perception.