![]() ![]() ![]() On the other end of the spectrum, the latter, a physical instance of a bike, is so concrete that I can take it at will to drive it. This concept is so abstract that it applies to almost all actual bikes, including the one stored in my own shed. To refer back to the example of the bike: The concept of a bicycle is two wheels and a frame. When talking about construction, ‘abstraction’ is a term that is very well applicable.For example, ‘driving’ remains ‘driving’, no matter if you narrow down the specification of the kind of driving by pointing towards the use of a car or a bicycle. When talking about functionality and quality, there are no different levels of abstraction, only different levels of detail.In fact they express that they feel uncomfortable with a viewpoint presented when it does not match with their perceptions of reality that they are used to. People tend to call something ‘abstract’ when a certain viewpoint confuses them.Recently I found some answers and I hope others can benefit from them as much as I do: Even worse, at times, my architectural work was discredited by people, claiming “its level of abstraction was too high to be useful.”įor a long time I have been looking for a way to tackle this challenge and the serious waste of time it causes, keeping architects from doing real work. One of the most popular topics to debate amongst architects is: what is the proper level of abstraction needed to be applied when creating architectures? Although always a lengthy debate, I don’t ever recall reaching a conclusion that was satisfactory to me. Architecture Levels of Abstraction and Detail: How to Make Those Work For You ![]() It is affective in that it requires both the body and the mind and the eye in order to understand it.”. It is space as a matrix of forces and meaning. (…) now figure/figure is a figural condition that is no longer necessarily abstract. Spacing produces another interstitial condition. “In the context of architecture, spacing as opposed to forming begins to suggest a possible figure/figure relationship, which in turn suggests a new possibility for the interstitial. Spacing in architecture is opposed to forming/formal, just like Deleuze’s figural is opposed to the figurative. In other words, spacing is the implied, affective reading that a subject can make within the mental and corporeal architecture, not limiting itself to merely meandering through it. ![]() Derrida distinguishes writing from architectural writing, claiming that the latter involves a condition of creative reading that did not previously exist. “Spacing”/“espacement”/“espaciamiento” is a term defined by the philosopher Jacques Derrida in reference to writing. Diagrams are no longer simply a strategic-informative technique that represents, they have become a technique or poetic operation that, in addition to representing, also presents and evokes. Functioning as hypertexts and creative and affective interfaces between the human imagination and architectural form, they propose a new type of reality in a permanent becoming, integrating both order and chaos, intention and the unexpected, mechanical and organic, real and virtual. Alluding to the notions of diagrams, machinic and figural of Deleuze and Guattari, these diagrams are constituted as strategic-communicative-productive intermediate matrix-space among architecture, the architect and the digital machine, and between architecture and other disciplinary fields. In recent decades, digital diagrams have taken on a greater role in architectural projects, permitting, in terms of graphic prefigurative artifacts, other creative, relational and perceptive possibilities in the process of conceiving and representing architecture, which is increasingly focused on topics of complexity, transformation, flexibility, versatility, interaction, imprecision, virtuality, etc. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |