working title museum | the architecture of being... virtual fog |
While I agree with Alex about there really being no 'perfect' shapes in actual existence, I nonetheless can't help but believe that the real 'inspiration' for the perfect circle comes from the pupils of our very own eyes. Kind of like the medium being the message. The detective story that follows these traces comes into being."--Walter Benjamin "It suffices for a short time to follow the trace, the repeated course of words, in order to perceive, in a sort of vision, the labyrinthine constitution of being."--Georges Bataille "To all appearances, the artist acts like a mediumistic being who, from the labyrinth beyond time and space, seeks his way out to a clearing."--Marcel Duchamp Anyway, being at that point is like stepping back in time, seeing the difference over 300 years did not make. Nam, now both you and tammuz are being only abstract. "In 1978 (sic), one of the covers of Progressive Architecture looked almost exactly like this, and the copy-cats were now uncontrollably out of the bag. I remember professors in school being literally afraid that students will start doing the same thing." "being a warm personal and political friend of Mr. Clay, he spared no exertions, either as a writer or speaker, in urging his claims to the Presidency." "In his latter years, being brought into contact with faith of a more positive sort, his mind was too active, his heart too warm, and his conscience too sensitive, to allow him to dissent from the common belief of Christendom without an honest effort at least to ascertain the grounds of his own convictions." "being perfectly frank in the expression of his own unbelief or doubts, he appreciated frankness in the expression of belief on the part of others." "A stolen, single-engine plane being pursued by a Coast Guard helicopter on Saturday slammed halfway up the 41-story Bank of America building in downtown Tampa, authorities said." Personally, I see neither good or bad architectures as being a problem, rather it is the global nimiety of mediocre architecture that I wish were extinct. So, again, the notion of the Renaissance and Modernism or the Baroque and De-constructivism being parrallel movements is a simplistic fiction, or, in other words, a heavy distortion of reality. This is interesting in terms of the Ichnographia Campus Martius then being the completion of the puzzle (and beyond), thus providing Hypersize SagaCity with its opening premise. Nevertheless, I manage to pay somewhat close attention to what is being taught, but really only looking forward to the first hands-on session scheduled for the second part of the afternoon class. Sorry, but that part is already being written specifically for the future superstar actress Malibu-bu Childes. "A collective definition of myth composed of many theories might be framed by the following paraphrases: Myths are stories, usually, about gods and other supernatural beings." (Frye) "Some of them are explanatory, being prescientific attempts to interpret the natural world." (Frazer) "But, being semiotic expressions (Saussure), they are a disease of language." (Muller) Perhaps all abstractions are highly idealized reenactments of reality, rather than reality being a reenactment of highly idealized abstractions. What I like most about memory (i.e., remembering, being reminded of) is that it is a seminal manifestation of reenactment. Both the profane and the sacred are human "being". "Such being the case, we can conclude that Decon has run out of steam as a manifesto-led movement, and we must look to its successor. Ideas, anyone?" Has the now pervasive and generally accepted way of looking at and being critical of architecture also run out of steam? I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the architecture that receives attention and the industry surrounding it being akin to the fashion industry, but I do think there is something wrong about not recognizing the phenomenon as such. If you back-up your drawing files regularly, you then have a fully operational record of the entire design process (with each back-up file being its own drawing). Regarding Steven's point on 'design legacy in drawings,' I'd add that all architectural drawings, from the far past to the present, have an innate 'virtual' quality in that they're all about a building except for being the building itself. Perhaps one could say that drawing with CAD is like being able to go into a video and manipulate things. The notion of Schinkel's architecture being a glorification of German culture came after the fact. The notion of their work being "rebellious" is a prefect example of "History" (written, taught, regurgitated) at a divide from what all actually happened. In any case, Venturi accepting the prize does not mean that Venturi and Scott Brown were also completely satisfied with Scott Brown not being included. And hopefully I'm not impressed because of my own ignorance of where "CAD" is at these days--being a very 'old-school' CAD guy myself. The point being there was a lot of back and forth between Northern Europe and Asia Minor, bringing about a 'cultural exchange' moving mostly from East to West. A two-dimensional being can only go only in two dimensions, x and y, therefore a two-dimensional being cannot travel along a mobius strip because the differential of every point on a mobius strip relative to every other point on a mobius strip is three-dimensional, x,y,z. What the example you saw seemed to leave out is that the (so-called) two-dimensional being traveling along a mobius strip was actually traveling through three-dimensions, thus not actually a two-dimensional being. The actual geometry was being misrepresented. Yes, it is easy to imagine an imaginary being that only exists and perceives two dimensions, and such a two-dimensional being can only exist on a flat plane. The point is, however, that the two-dimensional being cannot percieve three dimensional space, even though three-dimensional space does exist. The two-dimensional being just can't see three-dimensional space just like three-dimensional beings cannot see four dimensional space. Thus, a two-dimensional being cannot travel along a Mobius strip because such a being cannot even percieve a Mobius strip because a Mobius strip is not a flat plane. Here we have two two-dimensinal beings, a white line and a white rectangle, living on the flat plane of my table top. There is also a mobius strip resting upon my table top. Because the two-dimensional beings exist only in the two-dimensional plane of my table top they do not even know that the mobius strip is there. I distinctly remember being asked by Mike, "So, what do you think of the arch?" Now being somewhat older (and hopefully somewhat wiser), if I were today asked what I thought of the arch, I'd say, "The St. Louis Arch is very likely the prettiest architecture-sculpture hybrid I will have ever perceived." Plus, I'm not sure what the reference point to register movement is within the wiki example above of being able to move only in 2 dimensions on the surface of a sphere, because when the reference point is the center point of the sphere or the reference point is a plane (like a plane slicing through at the equator), then all movement along surface of the sphere would register a steady differential of three dimensions. Following that logic, a two-dimensional being on a flat surface (that is actually curved) is then also actually curved (ie, 3-dimensional). You then say that because this (so-called) 2D being on the actually curved surface percieves the curved surface as flat, then the curved surface actually is flat. And then it became virtually nauseating again when individuals try to project their comfort zones as being somehow axiomatic. |
|
www.quondam.com/38/3812m.htm | Quondam © 2020.04.25 |