Exercise 1.1 – Arik Dela Cruz

Exercise 1.1: “Field Conditions” by Stan Allen

Geometric vs. Algebraic Combination

The difference between geometric and algebraic combinations is the unity that each design style creates. The text describes geometric design as “… figures (lines, planes, solids) organized in space to form larger wholes” (Allen 94). In other words, each and every shape comes together to create one big thing. According to Stan Allen, unlike geometry, the algebraic design consists of “working with numerical units combined one after another…” (94). Instead of having shapes working together to create one thing, in algebraic combinations, everything works independently; however, these structures all follow the same guidelines in order to maintain unification.

Walking Out of Cubism

            The transition from cubism to minimalism architecture was portrayed in the reduced amount of materials used. Minimalism architectural structures seemingly appeared to be less voluminous, or in other words, more open. Allen states, “Barnett Newman… used a sequence of plane/line/plane…” (95). By doing this, Newman totally ignored the “solid” aspect of the geometric combination, focusing on a less voluminous and more open design. The shift from cubism to minimalism architecture can be compared to that of geometric to algebraic combination. There is no whole, but everything works together uniformly.

Thick 2D: Moirés, Mats

            “Moiré effects are not random. They shift abruptly in scale… [and] are often used to measure hidden stresses in continuous fields, or to map complex figural forms” (Allen 98). The purpose of the field is to identify the figure and the ground. Moirés, however, take that a step further and can portray more information than a regular field would – in other words, they are more abstract.

Flocks, Schools, Swarms, Crowds

As long as architecture designs follow the same rules, laws, or guidelines, there is no reason that it would all come together uniformly. As the “boids” from Craig Reynold’s simulation followed three simple principles, all together they formed a flock, perfectly, from the bottom up. Architecture, too, can work the same way. Similar to flocks, crowds and swarms each start from the bottom and work its way up. According to Allen, “… Architecture could profitably shift its attention from its traditional top-down forms of control and begin to investigate the possibilities of a… bottom-up approach” (101).

Distributed Institutions

            “Architecture’s capacity to represent and shelter that collective memory has in turn withered. To design a library or a museum today is to contend with an entirely new set of expectations” (Allen 102). Architectural designs cannot provide a purpose that would last forever. As time passes by, new trends come about and technology advances. Architecture must grow and change in the same way that the society, economy, and environment do, so that it provides something resourceful for its current surroundings. We cannot expect a library from many years ago to function the same way today with resources that are just as helpful on the internet. An architectural design should no longer label a building.