SEMBACH_CHRISTOPH_222_EX._1.1A
In the reading, “Field Conditions”, by Stan Allen, many interesting ideas are discussed, one such idea is the concept of materials defining, or enhancing, a field. The example of the room designed by Barry Le Va, titled “6 Brown Lines”, defines folded cloth as a field which then therefore defines the space adjacent (Allen 97). The concept of a seemingly simple device such as material choice creating rich experience is very insightful. This is fundamentally stating that implied barriers have the ability to not feel like a boundary to someone experiencing the place, but in fact add to the effect of the overall spatial organization. Furthermore, the organization is based on the material, not the walls or traditional spatial devices. 
Another key idea discussed is the difference between classical architectural design, and a free-flowing design mentality. The examples of the Great Mosque of Cordoba Spain and Le Corbusier’s Venice Hospital shine light on the obvious design differences to a traditional western architectural building; a geometric design field organization and a algebraic design field organization, (Allen 93-102). What truly interested me although, besides the concept of how if one took away or added to a free-flowing design the overall composition would allow it due to it’s field constraints, is the idea of status in symmetrical western architectural design. A statement of power has many ways to take form but the architectural statement making has been as old as civilization, implying status through symmetry is eye-opening. This can be seen through recent history, as it was very popular in Germany and America in the 1800 and 1900s. The modern state of architecture, as Allen postulates, seems to be changing from this norm although status statement through architectural design is still very real.
One of the most poignant topics discussed in this essay is the ways in which a field is created. Fields, as defined in this essay, are certain specific responses to elements by individuals which then relate to the overall whole, in a format of a matrix (Allen 92). This essay has an underlying theme of breaking the architectural, and societal, mold of “symmetry”, as I would define it. Allen makes it clear in the opening of the essay that a mathematical view of field conditions will not suffice in order to respond to the individual qualities present within the people which make up architectural fields. A field is formed, therefore, by the people and must be for the people, and their spontaneous uses. This idea falls in line with Allen’s later remarks of “liberation” in architecture, where the whole is not controlled but the individuals are empowered (Allen 102).
An important facet of the essay to examine is the aspect of nature and fields. Fields are not only mathematical, they do have laws, but nature is the true birthplace of the “real”, Allen shows this to be the “bottom-up” evolution of a field (99). Fields, like the flock of birds which was simulated through mathematics, do have the ability to be defined, but many times that doesn’t allow for a liberty in design, (Allen 99, 102). Fields are created through the natural world and controlling the participants of them many times cannot be successfully done while not disrupting freedoms, as crowds are another example of a field which is terribly tricky to define (Allen 100).
The field understanding taught throughout this essay points to an ultimate idea of individual things which add to the whole while still keeping their individual traits. Crowds are created through individuals, the multiple dualities of the crowd, such as the “quick” and “slow” moving crowd, are only able to exist because of the rules for the individual participants of the crowd (Allen 100). When individual aspects, or in this case people, come together with the same rules and all act upon them then the crowd can be born. The classifying of a whole from the sum of its individual parts is the idea which has pushed humanity into the modern age. If one was to take a looking glass onto any one person in the crowd each would be different but the rules they stick to are the same. Voids are how we see the crowd, if the crowd covered everything then there would be no crowd, just a floor of people; the movement and space between the people is what creates the discernible space (Allen 95).
