Field Conditions

From Object to Field

There are very interesting things being stated in this portion of the article. The main idea I found was that a field condition can be any matrix capable of unifying diverse elements. This basically means that anything that can unify other elements of a landscape is considered a field condition. This was cool to learn because I never thought of using something to unify other aspects of a landscape. This shows how elements can form relationships with other elements to form larger masses.

Geometric vs. Algebraic Combination

The way I interpreted this section of the article is that architecture can be formed geometrically. While it does this, it forms a relationship with individual elements of the building and the landscape causing it to flow and benefit from itself. Within this can also be a strict set of rules (axiality, symmetry, or formal sequence) that are well demonstrated throughout the building. The idea that buildings are designed in this way is very believable to me. I’ve always looked at things as a pattern so I can easily see how designing like that would be beneficial.

Walking Out of Cubism

The main idea I got from this section of the article is that minimalist work can be very elegant. It wanted to bring focus to the architecture of the objects instead of looking at their figurative or decorative character. This is elegant to me since it shows the backbone of what the object is by showing the architecture. This then leads to a better understanding of the object for me. The article also discussed how artists such as Carl Andre, Dan Flavin, Morris, and Judd wanted to engage the space of the galleries they looked at.

Thick 2-D

The main idea I understood from this section of the article is that fields are more than a flat surface. This is meaning that fields have a deeper meaning to the overall approach of design. This is indicated when you look at how fields have an impact on local infrastructure. There is also an idea that not all fields are grids which I do not agree with. I feel no matter what shape there can still be a grid in place to measure even irregular edges.

Flocks, Schools, Swarms, Crowds

The main idea I gathered from this portion of the article is that coming together in large groups is a common thing to happen in nature. There were tests done with rules that did not say anything about coming to a flock and the test subjects still did it every time. It also demonstrated that no matter the size of the group, they all had the same configurations from the tests. This is showing how flocks are a field phenomenon that are naturally occurring. Crowds however are not as predictable as flocks so they have a different behavior than flocks.