1.1 a Diagramming

Geometric versus Algebraic Combination:

In the field of architecture, virtually all hierarchies are read through geometric relationships. While parts of the whole can exist individually, it is the sum of the parts which contributes to the variation in design, creating a whole that is bigger than any individual element. To preserve the unity of this relationship, we as humans looking for patterns, tend to gravitate towards mathematical relationships to preserve the implied hierarchy. To further this sentiment, we can use geometry and its relationship to the space to both construct and allow for growth of future construction in architecture, which must be planned in advance for the most efficient use of adaptive space.

Walking out of Cubism:

With the popularization of cubism in modern architecture, it is important to recognize the transitional relationship that had grown with the new art style. When looking into minimalism, the field and the object become one, blurring the lines of transitional space, by creating an object that in theory, has always been. An example in the reading being a painting or a sculpture being additive in nature, whereas minimalism is about the unification of forms to create a singular, whole object in definitive space.

Thick 2D:

This section of the reading was difficult for me to wrap my head around, however I found the idea of the field and the object merging to create a singular space very intriguing. Rather than creating spaces that lie on top of planes, we as architects can view the plane as part of the design to create more cohesive and conscience designs. Another part of this section that was new to me as a concept, was that “all grids are fields but not all fields are grids”, implying that there is a certain distinction that lies in intention. There needs to be a coherent understanding of both the field and the object in order to merge the two ideas seamlessly.

Flocks, Schools, Swarms, and Crowds:

While looking at the mathematical relationships present in the grouping of individuals, there are distinct rules that come out of these almost primitive groupings that appear subconsciously. For example, birds, although individually motivated, will always group in flocks in simulation. The same goes for humans walking in large crowds, being defined by growth, equality, density, and direction. While we believe we are individually motivated, we tend to group ourselves in these set relationships our of comfort, whether or not we are acutely aware of the situation. These relationships can be especially interesting watching in large scale, as the individuality of the people get lost in the masses.

Distributed Institutions:

As we learn to design more human centered spaces, it is interesting to look at how designed hierarchies and implied equality can be lost in practical use. The examples of our democratic buildings only showing the illusion of transparency while still upholding these oppressive systems are a great example that often goes overlooked. “Liberty is practiced”, and while designed spaces with equality in mind is not a bad thing by any means, I did enjoy the idea of design intent versus application in this section of the reading. Architecture is not an un-biased profession, and we must be conscience of the designed and implied relationships we construct.