Covington_Aubrianna_222_1.1a

01 From Object to Field

This field of text that Stan Allen has written is a basis overall understanding of Field Conditions, which is what describes a space. Field conditions are the basis to our human understanding of spatial relation, and in this field section, Allen dove into transitioning an object to field. He defines a field condition as “any formal or spatial matrix capable of unifying diverse elements while respecting the identity of each.” I find this topic really intriguing because using this information, anyone can start to define spatial relationships in any aspect, whether that be the composition of the space, the usage of the space, or the circulation and movement of bodies in space. Sited from the source, it’s what defines the entire world, and that’s really interesting.

02 Geometric vs. Algebraic Combination

Architecture can be “organized into coherent wholes in means of geometric systems of proportion.” This topic dives into how natural and built ratios are determined wholly by geometry, organic geometry. Allen sites Alberti with the quote, “beauty is the consonance of the parts such that nothing can be added or taken away.” In relation to organic and natural geometry, beauty in architecture is determined by the geometric relationships that are formed to create an entire composition. Parts working on their own but together, working in serial order, or “one thing after another,” thus nothing can be added or taken away because they all piece by piece, naturally, and organically. Humans as we know naturally think geometrically and are designed in a geometric manner, so when defining this in terms of architecture, one can start to see the spatial relationships between what we know of algebraic understanding, and geometry, and how these work together daily to form our world around us.

03 Walking out of Cubism

Architecture has started to reach a minimilistic style, when these efforts became popular in the 1960s. Allen defines this as “cubism,” which, from my understanding, is creating a place with no real experience or real depth. Architects that design in such a way think more in sequences rather than in fields, creating a plane, “cubical’ space with no definition. Walking out of cubism relates to creating spaces where observers can interact with both built and natural environments, and they’re being controlled but still free in design. “Local relationships are more important than overall form,” thus one must create a place that creates planned experiences for observers.

04 Thick 2D: Moires, Mats

All grids are fields, but not all fields are grids. The 2D environment’s focus should be on figure ground and the idea that the figure is an object emerging from the ground. A moire is a figural effect produced by the overlaying of two different fields. This is to show relationships between sites which helps get an overall understanding of how the field works. It begs the question of the surface; it’s almost a way of testing this 2D interface to see more than, well, 2D. They begin to show dimension on a 2D field.

05 Flocks, Schools, Swarms, and Crowds

This topic almost goes back to algebraic vs. geometric combination and expression. Flocks of birds are similar to that of organic geometry, and the flock is a field phenomenon. Rules for a flock are defined locally which doesn’t result in catastrophic means to the whole, and smaller flocks still demonstrate this same pattern and idea as larger flocks. Human crowds, however, are a bit different. Human crowds are a lot more complex and follow a different dynamic, yet they still tend to have this same idea of sticking together and creating this whole. They may be more randomized and less generated, which makes it hard for an architect to imagine, but this ties all of field conditions back together because a good architect can create a space that controls this crowd while still allowing this freedom-like human tendency.