Firstly, we were expected to go and talk with an artizan for observation process of a product. My choice was tailor. With the help of the informations which I gather from the Tailor Kadir, I created a flowchart. That flowchart was a dynamo til some actions. Then, with the help of the flowchart, we were able to create our first model, the “linear model”(former name, structural frame). My linear model consisted of basic actions such as = Rotation, Adding, Branching.Linear Model
After that, we were asked to do a “planar model”(Variation I). I produced a planar model only with the planar elements. So it means, planes consisted of lines. And we could improve our flowchart and I was expected to test and consciously operate by taking the new potantiels of my operations. Did I take into consideration these new potantiels ? Not much in Variation One.
After the planar model, we were asked to create the “merged model” (Variation II). Adding, rotating and branching were still valid, but a new operation now entered the building, streching. We could also eliminate certain elements that were present in either model.Merged model
Then we were wanted to create Variation III, by using transparent acetate also. With the new variation, we have extrusion, change transparency, duplicate etc. I have a theme “poriforus centralisation”. And with the theme, we were asked to create volumes, define volumes with the theme and the actions.
First of all, I could have read this text before my architecture study. There is no special requirement for read. This book should have been recommending for those who thinks study architecture.
The architect works with mass with form and mass as the sculptor does
But in my opinion, it was new and a sort of philosophical way to look at architecture. But if we consider the book written in 1959, it might have worthy. Buildings were no longer monuments that mark a person existence in Earth. All buildings had life and function and we can experience them through our senses (it is not ARCH121, it is ARCH201). While I ve been reading this, I was focused on the functional and engineering part of architecture that I totally forgot the more philosophical and social duty attached to a building like a house a hospital or a museum. All of these buildings have different colours, textures, sounds, light. But still my opinion stays steel. Still, I’m thinking the same as before because more than the philosophical way of thinking architecture, it was in past. But the book is in 1959, so it was in past too. I don’t know what to write sorry.
What is an architectural design studio ? Design studio is where the creative work happens; it is an environment common to both architectural education and the profession. In short, place to practice professional architectural office. All the techicians and the architectures works in a harmony for one project at the same time. According to my experiences that I got em in last summer, an architectural office is a creation place. So the studio too. Of course there are differences between them, like, in studio, every student just work for their own sake. And you have deskmates around you, you have to be careful while working, wont interrupt their work. It is pretty important because you dont want to get interrupt too. And the equipment usage in studio is important too, no one can effort all the stuff that they need, economically. Whatever, no need to off-topic at the moment.
Can architectural design(architecture) be tought ? Yes, indeed.
In his book Why Art Cannot Be Taught, James Elkins
defines six different answers to this question. To read them,
substitute the word ‘architecture’ for the word ‘art’:
1 – Art can be taught, but nobody knows quite how.
2 – Art can be taught, but it seems as if it can’t be since
so few students become outstanding artists.
3 – Art cannot be taught, but it can be fostered or helped along.
4 – Art cannot be taught or even nourished, but it is possible to
teach right up to the beginnings of art, so that students are
ready to make art the moment they graduate.
5 – Great art cannot be taught, but more run-of-the-mill
6 – Art cannot be taught, but neither can anything else.
There is kinds of toughts in this topic, but this one might be the strongest one, which you can’t argue. And in the education part, critics are the most important thing in the project progress. It’s pretty important what your professor says for your project.
1-Critic : Unresolved
1-Meaning : Needs more work
2-Critic : Interesting
2-Meaning : Strange (not fatally flawed but certainly not
making sense yet. I don’t want to de-rail your
3-Critic : Consider
3-Meaning : Needs more thought: try this possible solution/
4-Critic : Powerful
4-Meaning : A very good idea expressed in a compelling way
5-Critic : Inventive
5-Meaning : I wish I’d thought of that!
This part was the most important thing for me in the whole text, maybe its because that I am a student at the moment. All those educations are of course important, but in the consideration of “this student is going to be a technician, or a architect” we have to underline the Bauhaus system. Bauhaus make students architect when they get diploma. Bauhaus teach to how to create. Not how to build some construct. Of course, it is my observation.
What happens when people talk about architecture ? For those who think it is fabulous as the Queen of England, you entered wrong place. I can not see any difference between talking bout architecture and talking bout “something”. The important thing in the assignment, and important for the last sentence is, you might have difficulties to understand some kind of archi-words sometimes, though, you can not argue with this thing. Every “category” in art or anything has their own specialities in itself. For example, “denizlik=windowsill” is a pretty much special word for architecture but it has literally worth no meaning for any whom in the public. Like this. In the beginning of the essay, this issue seems pretty important, critic but I think it’s not. And that was the arguable thing that I found in text. I mean, you must not be that certain as there was. And I found lots of thing agreeable in text of course, but the most important one for me is the, “language and languages” part. I got what it says, although, it is documented pretty undergrated. That part does not deserve the interest of its own. And the most interesting thing in text for me is that the “Build, don’t talk” part. Ok, the sentence is “architects build, they don’t talk” but, van der Rohe just “talks” about it. Of course this can’t be the interesting part that I found, I just want to open it little bit, architects can talk though. This level of certainity is wrong. Just like my professors, all the time they saying just do something or we can not comment on your project, because we can imagine different things and no one wants to lead people wrong. So that was the part that I found interesting about the first text.
Well, the second text was way more easy with the comparison with the first text. Has easy language, has clear definitons itself. The beginning part, God-the-creator part is the most interesting part that I found. Because “creating” things are most likely specified for architects. They create desings, people living in it. God does the same thing also. Creates worlds, people living in it. Of course I’m not comparing those two phenomenons, like I’m not saying, as a freshman, architect word is the synonym of God or something. Of course not. But I mostly found interesting this thing for the sake of it’s mentioned. I found arguable the “windows and doors” part. Text says it has some common points with the life. Windows seem as the new opportunities in life, and you close your doors for the activities that are not you desire for. It is already a known thing, what is the common point with the architecture ? And these were my comments on the text two. Thank you.