TERM [prosthetics].
In this article, Wigley describes "prosthetics" as an "extension" of being, whether physically, emotionally, spiritually, socially, theoretically, or cosmically. A prosthetic can be seen as an outreach of a body or thought into the inner workings of mesh networks at a planetary scale. Wigley describes prosthetics as transfering the flow of energy throughout the world, which relates it to "qi" (from traditional Chinese culture, also associated with Taoism). The flow of qi embodies living and non-living beings, energies, and dynamics. It can be thought of as the very breath of the collective ecosystem. Prosthetics become the methods by which qi travels, the paths that connect all elements in the cosmos. Prosthetics bridge the gaps between disparate elements and weave all components of society into an interconnected mesh, helping us to make sense of the conglomerated universe.
TERM [ecology/house].
According to its Greek etomology, Wigley discusses "ecology" as "knowledge of the house." Here, a house can be defined as anything that contains or shelters. A house can exist at a wide range of scales. As a cosmic ecosystem, a house exists at a planetary level. It becomes an encompassing environment which contains a breadth of life. On a smaller scale, a house exists in each prosthetic extension of life (as described above). The prosthetic house contains even the most subtle flows of energy throughout a larger mesh network. Regardless of scale, each house is a vessel for thought, for being, for living, and for breeding new growth. A house is a home for energy. It is a moment of containment of qi- a fleeting pause in the breath of life. A house therefore is perpetually transforming, evolving, and redefining the life of its inhabitants.
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
This piece, notably the latter half, is especially pertinant to our upcoming design projects. It raises the issue of what a 'house' might contain in all of its definitions, scales, and possiblilities.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
corner [eidetic operations and new landscapes].
TERM [landskip].
representation. static. picture. designed. passive. scenic. object. nostalgic. observer. appearance.
TERM [landschaft].
working model. dynamic. image. evolved. active. scene. system. ever changing. participant. performance.
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
Since I viewed the above terms as both topical and descriptive/active, I wanted to use a comparative format to outline the meanings of and differences between the terms. Each is best defined in relation to its counterpart- to understand one term is to value the uniqueness of the other. Though Corner describes each term in the context of landscape, the underlying principles behind the terms are widely applicable to any number of design solutions, systemic relationships, social behaviors, or even human personalities. I find these parallels to be of interest- the points at which design behavior mirrors that of human psychological impulses. Yet, it is a chicken or the egg scenario. Which came first? Do we impart these personalities on systemic solutions, or, do these solutions take on increasingly complex relationships that cite human characteristics? Is the psychology behind these ecologies attributed or experienced, and what causes either result?
representation. static. picture. designed. passive. scenic. object. nostalgic. observer. appearance.
TERM [landschaft].
working model. dynamic. image. evolved. active. scene. system. ever changing. participant. performance.
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
Since I viewed the above terms as both topical and descriptive/active, I wanted to use a comparative format to outline the meanings of and differences between the terms. Each is best defined in relation to its counterpart- to understand one term is to value the uniqueness of the other. Though Corner describes each term in the context of landscape, the underlying principles behind the terms are widely applicable to any number of design solutions, systemic relationships, social behaviors, or even human personalities. I find these parallels to be of interest- the points at which design behavior mirrors that of human psychological impulses. Yet, it is a chicken or the egg scenario. Which came first? Do we impart these personalities on systemic solutions, or, do these solutions take on increasingly complex relationships that cite human characteristics? Is the psychology behind these ecologies attributed or experienced, and what causes either result?
Sunday, July 18, 2010
smithson [a tour of the monuments of passaic, new jersey].
TERM [monument].
In this text, Smithson explores the "monuments" of Passaic, New Jersey, though the rationale of what qualifies a monument from another moment or artifact remains up to the reader's discretion. How is a monument defined? What makes it relevant and under what circumstances? If an object or moment is monumental, it must take on some relevance to the observer. Yet, from another vantage, this same object or moment can be irrelevant against monumental qualifiers. It is a question of perspective and scale. The space between relevance and irrelevance perhaps is what ultimately qualifies a monument. What the object becomes in the "in between", a space devoid of the observer's judgement, speaks of its essence as a monument. Can/should a monument therefore exist without human appropriation?
TERM [historic absence].
Smithson describes the suburbs as a place that, "exists without a rational past... just what passes for a future" [pg. 72]. Being without a historic context implies that an object or place exists only in the present moment, without regard to previously established systems, historic calamities, or deep cultural underpinnings. Can an object or place have a future without a past, or will it be perpetually stuck in the present? The perpetual present is "of the moment" but over time will continually evolve to give the object or place at least a shallow measure of past and future. "Historic absence" therefore can only be defined as a temporary condition, one that will give way to at least a glimpse of historicity and the potential for future growth.
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
The stream of consciousness dialog style of this text further exasperates the ideas of living in the perpetual present and of the space between relevance and irrelevance as described above. The reader must sift through the presented information to find what is monumental not only in terms of the author's physical journey, but also in the greater theoretical context around which this tour of Passaic travels.
In this text, Smithson explores the "monuments" of Passaic, New Jersey, though the rationale of what qualifies a monument from another moment or artifact remains up to the reader's discretion. How is a monument defined? What makes it relevant and under what circumstances? If an object or moment is monumental, it must take on some relevance to the observer. Yet, from another vantage, this same object or moment can be irrelevant against monumental qualifiers. It is a question of perspective and scale. The space between relevance and irrelevance perhaps is what ultimately qualifies a monument. What the object becomes in the "in between", a space devoid of the observer's judgement, speaks of its essence as a monument. Can/should a monument therefore exist without human appropriation?
TERM [historic absence].
Smithson describes the suburbs as a place that, "exists without a rational past... just what passes for a future" [pg. 72]. Being without a historic context implies that an object or place exists only in the present moment, without regard to previously established systems, historic calamities, or deep cultural underpinnings. Can an object or place have a future without a past, or will it be perpetually stuck in the present? The perpetual present is "of the moment" but over time will continually evolve to give the object or place at least a shallow measure of past and future. "Historic absence" therefore can only be defined as a temporary condition, one that will give way to at least a glimpse of historicity and the potential for future growth.
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
The stream of consciousness dialog style of this text further exasperates the ideas of living in the perpetual present and of the space between relevance and irrelevance as described above. The reader must sift through the presented information to find what is monumental not only in terms of the author's physical journey, but also in the greater theoretical context around which this tour of Passaic travels.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
kwinter [wildness].
TERM [approximate systems].
Kwinter refers to the research done at the Santa Fe Institute for the Study of Complexity http://www.santafe.edu/ to introduce the concept of "approximate systems". These systems could be defined with similar descriptors such as "complex," "adaptive," "wild," or "intricate" (all of which Kwinter uses in the text). They can be thought of as a haphazard collection of unplanned planning, where everything is seen as sensible and logical, yet not sense nor logic went into the making of such systems. The parameters of these approximate systems are only defined in the present. What the systems are at the present moment is perfect and absolute. Yet what they are in the past and future is both indiscernible and critical. The natural world seems to be the most obvious example of an approximate system. The delicate balance of species co-existing in a series of ecosystems is a complex, messy, enmeshed collection of cooperation. Everything is dependent, but has potential for independence. Traffic seems to be another likely candidate for an approximate system (either that or my daily commute seems to still be weighing on my mind). In traffic, people move at varying degrees of speed in a multitude of directions that intersect and converge in fleeting moments. Using feet, bicycles, cars, trains, etc. people weave through the urban grid dodging each other, red lights, and the occasional roadblock to form a kind of rhythmic dance that is never repeatable in any given moment. Always evolving, adaptive, spontaneous, and unrehearsed, this movement is interdependent while maintaining individual agencies.
TERM [wilding].
Though this term seems to be an obvious choice for the article, I feel its definition is important to explore. Similar to the approximate system, "wilding" is also a force which is unplanned, unpredictable, and unrestrained. It is messy. Yet, it differs from the aforementioned in its absence of logic and sense. Whereas a complex system works together to maintain balance, a wilding system is inherently off balance, out of control, shocking, and oblivious. Dependence and balance are the enemy. Guerrilla warfare (to cite an example from Kwinter) is the goal. Wilding can best be imagined as an image. Kwinter displays a photo of a flock of Red-billed queleas to make this point. The birds fly together in a swelling and contracting mass that undulates as individuals follow one another's lead. A similar phenomenon can be seen in the swimming patters of large schools of fish. What individual moves first? Who is the leader? How do the other individuals decide who to follow? How do so many move as one? What happens to the system if an individual chooses the opposite path? In short, if an approximate system were to rebel, it would be called "wilding."
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
Kwinter discusses the urban environment as a complex system of wild and numerous contributors (a familiar argument). Though, the discussion of planning for the unplanned wildness of a city seems interesting in this context. If wilding is to be unplanned, how does one plan for the known unknown? If it is a planned complexity, is it still approximate or does it become trite and sterile? Which begs the greater question- can these approximate systems and wilding behaviors ever be created, or just discovered?
Kwinter refers to the research done at the Santa Fe Institute for the Study of Complexity http://www.santafe.edu/ to introduce the concept of "approximate systems". These systems could be defined with similar descriptors such as "complex," "adaptive," "wild," or "intricate" (all of which Kwinter uses in the text). They can be thought of as a haphazard collection of unplanned planning, where everything is seen as sensible and logical, yet not sense nor logic went into the making of such systems. The parameters of these approximate systems are only defined in the present. What the systems are at the present moment is perfect and absolute. Yet what they are in the past and future is both indiscernible and critical. The natural world seems to be the most obvious example of an approximate system. The delicate balance of species co-existing in a series of ecosystems is a complex, messy, enmeshed collection of cooperation. Everything is dependent, but has potential for independence. Traffic seems to be another likely candidate for an approximate system (either that or my daily commute seems to still be weighing on my mind). In traffic, people move at varying degrees of speed in a multitude of directions that intersect and converge in fleeting moments. Using feet, bicycles, cars, trains, etc. people weave through the urban grid dodging each other, red lights, and the occasional roadblock to form a kind of rhythmic dance that is never repeatable in any given moment. Always evolving, adaptive, spontaneous, and unrehearsed, this movement is interdependent while maintaining individual agencies.
TERM [wilding].
Though this term seems to be an obvious choice for the article, I feel its definition is important to explore. Similar to the approximate system, "wilding" is also a force which is unplanned, unpredictable, and unrestrained. It is messy. Yet, it differs from the aforementioned in its absence of logic and sense. Whereas a complex system works together to maintain balance, a wilding system is inherently off balance, out of control, shocking, and oblivious. Dependence and balance are the enemy. Guerrilla warfare (to cite an example from Kwinter) is the goal. Wilding can best be imagined as an image. Kwinter displays a photo of a flock of Red-billed queleas to make this point. The birds fly together in a swelling and contracting mass that undulates as individuals follow one another's lead. A similar phenomenon can be seen in the swimming patters of large schools of fish. What individual moves first? Who is the leader? How do the other individuals decide who to follow? How do so many move as one? What happens to the system if an individual chooses the opposite path? In short, if an approximate system were to rebel, it would be called "wilding."
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
Kwinter discusses the urban environment as a complex system of wild and numerous contributors (a familiar argument). Though, the discussion of planning for the unplanned wildness of a city seems interesting in this context. If wilding is to be unplanned, how does one plan for the known unknown? If it is a planned complexity, is it still approximate or does it become trite and sterile? Which begs the greater question- can these approximate systems and wilding behaviors ever be created, or just discovered?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)