|
project:
Genital Messaging, or otherwise
|
|
| Logistical architecture strives to create a universal language understandable by varying cross sections of individuals. The transparency of this language increases an individuals ability to identify with the building. The idea, the language will be shared by many and this shared dialect will enhance the numerous spatial functions within a structure. This common language also increases the emergence of social interactivity amongst users. Bratton describes this as the “...visual discourse of first indexing and disclosing the intermingling agencies of peoples, processes and things, and then projecting the virtual resolution of their conflicts into a diagrammatic icon.” The diagrammatic image is projected into an architecture. Or, the diagram is the architecture, the structure, the system. The autonomous design solution. Still, at some point building results from this autonomy. What of the aesthetic? The visual must be the critical forum of linguistic exchange. What is the system for developing this [rhetoric free] building language? Perhaps, this is the least developed, yet most integral part of the process.
The struggle to autonomize interaction and programme inevitably leads to the question of aesthetic. If the aesthetic is defined by the designer, bias enters the equation. But, subjectivity is precisely what transparency seeks to eliminate. Bias creates confusion. Confusion creates opacity. Opacity impairs freedom of interaction. Remember, the aesthetic is the communicator of the language. Therefore, logistical architecture necessitates a designers ability to create an objective, ecumenical language. Architects as linguists. What are the extents a linguistic device can be applied? Does a successful aesthetic in Beijing translate to Cleveland? Can the aesthetics of an Intel chipset factory be applied to a Playboy mansion? Probably not. Architects as paralinguists. Take it back a step. The diagram is not ubiquitously adaptable either. This is the question of OMA's Stacked Towers in Louisville. At first glance, the aesthetic seems to contradict the context. This may be the result of a logistically incompatible context. Therefore the language is formulated sans context. Sans place. Sans subsisting history. Conversely, without the contextual significance the language may be opaque. Such an aesthetic risk demands translation. If not, a double failure occurs. If so, a breakthrough: the imagery of a logistical architecture cannot be restrained to existing contextual languages. How is failure measured in logistical architectures? Designer bias creates confusion. Or, designer bias creates accident. These accidental interstitials may actually be the looking glasses of the structure. Translation devices for the user. The zones reveal intention. Design needs to be separate of autonomy. If buildings become autonomously created, the designer is replaced with a linguist, a socialist, a psychologist, etc. Design becomes social engineering. The role of an architect would be to bridge these disciplines and remove selfish motivations. But, selfish motivations is what makes architecture interesting. Otherwise, sameness is applied to the whole. *see suburb development. The architect should retain the capacity to design. Design is choice. The logistical diagram may set a series of rules. Deviation from the rule is the point of design. The point of dynamism. This is where people are individualized and logistically driven architectures maximize intrigue opposed to genericism.
Written in response to: |
||