FORMGIVNING
"Giving form to that which yet has been given form or give form to the future."
As I do agree with Somol and Whiting that architecture is more than just form and is engaged more with the "social, intellectual, and visual culture," I believe form is the starting point of which we begin to ask those big picture questions. As Bjarke Ingels states that we give form to the future, I believe that form of architecture must suit and have purpose for the design intent that can further dive into the questions of symbology, visual culture, etc. Not only will form ask these questions but it will help shape and answer the questions that benefit the social aspect of architecture.
I agree that form is an obvious need for starting any design, but do we really begin there? Do we ask the cultural and contextual questions simultaneously? I think this process must be simultaneous, or we risk separating architecture from any clear purpose other than its sculptural existence. Using form as a mechanism for shaping social questions is an interesting approach to design.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the notion that we must think of form and context simultaneously. They influence one another and, with each iteration, will shape and change to reflect what is being asked or answered. You cannot simply pick a form and move on, it has to be thought about in the context and then changed or modified to fit the social, intellectual, and visual culture.
DeleteNatalie I agree with your statement. Is there a definitive begining in the evolution of architecture? I posit that various scenarios dictate diverse trajectories, with one facet possibly taking precedence over the other, or perhaps, they unfold in tandem. In instances where these elements unfold concurrently, I am inclined to believe that this convergence yields the most optimal and exquisite outcomes.
Delete