Diagrams Need Context
Peter Eisenman and Rem Koolhaas are both prominent architects that have greatly impacted the theology and practice of architecture over the past forty years. These architects shifted design in terms of drawings and sequencing. Throughout their work, their diagrams, which can often be void of place, and architectural objects are frequently designed without context in mind. However, these works are often still subject to their resting place. While it is important to reflect on architecture throughout the world, I believe theory and practice of design can truly be understood when it’s in context with the designer, project and site.
Diagrams IN CONTEXT
So should the theory and practice of design be considered with or without context and in turn, how do designers deem something as important? As we dive into the upcoming projects for the semester, should there be a greater understanding of the function, the local context or an even broader context- county, state, country?
I had similar thoughts to your questions during the readings and the lectures this week. I often found myself thinking back on different styles and architectural movements I've seen in many different regions, and the work that often struck me the most was the work that was defined by context and its place on its site, its city, and its region rather than the work that was designed from "form-first" thinking.
ReplyDeleteI feel like whether theory and practice of design are considered with or without context is very subjective; I don't know the correct answer but personally, I say with the context. What fits into that context is also subjective. It depends on the designer's interests or the overall goal of the project. Using our studio project as an example, are we only concerned with how our governor school is progressing within the state or are we trying to compete with the form and function of governor schools across the country?
ReplyDelete