Matter is a storage device.
Energy conveys information.
If so, is architecture intrinsically unable to communicate and static, and vision, as in the perception of energy, is the medium of conveyance?
And therefore, vision is susceptible to interpretation, meaning that objectivity is impossible?
If matter is stored energy, can it also be a signal or an answer? Assuming that it is static, it can only really be an answer, because a signal implies the ability to broadcast, which matter can't do.
But can a composition of matter broadcast an idea? A high CMU wall can convey "Stay out" while a single CMU sits mute?
But doesn't a single CMU convey "This is how much a laborer can pick up and place accurately with his two hands"?
Funny - I'm currently searching for a microwave oven for my client that will not conflict with their already-purchased wall oven. Does the energy (information) of microwave ovens convey cancer? (kidding)
Seth Lloy will argue that the universe is about computation, or rather about information processing.
A concrete wall will eventually decay, bits will fall off. Lloyd will argue that this is the result of the universe using this bit of matter as part of computation. The computation is carried out by energy being transferred from the bonds between concrete molcules, being transferrd to where it is needed.
This implies that the world is finite, because in an infinite world, there would be infinite energy, and therefore no energy transfer would need to take place.
in any case, what is the computation? What is the signal? We could argue that the decayed wall tells us that the illusion of materiality is fallible and stretched, and therefore life.
However, everywhere you look you see this message, Is it something we need to be continually reminded of - is the universe saying something to us? Or is this arrogant, egocentric and naive, and that the universe has nothing to say to us at all... Nothing to say, but something to show.
I favour a model of the universe in which every moment is generated/computed seamlessly. Any 'speed' in which the intervals of movement are seamless or unable to be percieved, leads me to believe that time does not/cannot exist. Time needs something to be compared to. We can't compare between events, only recreations/simulations of events.
I'm wondering, in decay of a concrete wall, where the embodied energy goes? It is transferred to where...I guess eventually it all becomes dirt, which means all material is, metaphysically and physically, "alive". Maybe.
... is the universe saying something to us? Or is this arrogant, egocentric and naive, and that the universe has nothing to say to us at all... Nothing to say, but something to show?
Well, what about you, diabase? As Merleau-Ponty said, we are made of the same stuff as the world is. You are of the universe: do you have something to say? Or to show?
And I don't mean that sarcastically, I mean it literally and it is a serious question: are you trying to "say" something via your existence that might to relate to what other elements of the universe are trying to "say" via their existence?
vado...quick comment on that Folk Art Museum stair not meeting code: the small treads cause the user to look down for good footing. This draws attention to the stair, and makes the experience of climbing it a more involved one. that's how I read it, personally. (I haven't read the whole thread, just to the point where vado made that comment, sorry if something along those lines has been mentioned)...
the code issue vado knows (indiana) is likely the same code issue that would be raised in ky. the widely spaced metal bars (a 4" sphere - or a small child's head - could pass through - strike 1) are running horizontal (presenting a ladder/climbing temptation - strike 2). it's all about the kids in the midwest.
quondam - allow me the opportunity to falter now and again, and theres nothing terribly architecural above... as far as I can garner.
I am skeptical of universe as a computation process because it relies on the premise that the processing is 'for' something, that it produces a meaningful result. This is why I dont think that any answer can be about decay, but decay is an effect of the processing. Much like a bomb going off; the aftermath or destruction is the effect of the bomb, but not the bomb, not the reason for the bomb, etc, etc.
nice one vado.
Mar 22, 06 3:51 pm ·
·
diabase, you can't falter "now and again" because time doesn't exist, or did you already forget that.
Besides, if architecture can't communicate anything, then certainly I can't communicate anything either, thus I don't expect any meaningful results.
I love seams.
Real architecture is all about seams that architects most often want covered up.
There is the illusion of seam, and the illusion is hard to resist. Speaking of seams, one of my favourite quotes from Mark Rakatansky:
INSTITUTIONAL SPACES ARE THE PRINCIPLE SITES THROUGH WHICH IDEOLOGIES WORK, AND THUS… IT IS IN THE INSTITUTIONS INTEREST TO EFFECT (OR AT LEAST GIVE THE IMPRESSION OF) STABLE CONDITIONS. AND LIKE THE NARRATIVE, BOTH INSTITUTIONS AND IDEOLOGIES ARE CONSTRUCTS - THEY ARE NEITHER NATURAL, NOR UNIVERSAL, NOR TIMELESS, BUT ARTIFICIAL STRUCTURES… IT IS THE VERY INCONSISTENCY OF THE SOCIAL FIELD, THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ITS SEAMLESS CONSTITUTION, ITS GAPS AND RESIDUES THAT IDEOLOGY HAS TO MASK, CONCEAL SCREEN. AND IT IS IN SUCH GAPS - AT THE LEVEL OF THE SUBJECT, THE INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAM, THE BUILDING, SITE AND SO FORTH - THAT CERTAIN CRITICAL ARCHITECTURAL NARRATIVES MIGHT EMERGE.
Also, my point is that communication is mediated by vision. The information you recieve is what is processed and captured by vivion. Is then communication an internal or external process? Is architecture signalling statements of information or requests for information? Or are we inventing and answering our own questions, and architecture is a static facilitator [a lump of material, a benign storage device]?
Mar 22, 06 4:34 pm ·
·
Too bad you didn't know how the Danteum manifests the promenade architecturale forumla.
quondam, that was fully understood. Not sure why you think I did'nt understand that. In any case, this exercise was'nt about an investigation of the promenade in itself, but the links to the language of the Divine Comedy. and for its absolute iconic value [to allow one to mark the changes]. You misread the intentions of the thesis.
Mar 22, 06 4:53 pm ·
·
Well, then you missed that misreading was my intention.
to expand: if form is the condensation of matter, the hypothesis is that the forces that allow this condensation is the repulsion between two opposing poles. The form then occurs equidistant between the two poles.
Architecture as Signal
I'm sure John Devlin could add something to this conversation, re: Cambridge Architecture and significant numbers and sequences.
related:
Matter is a storage device.
Energy conveys information.
If so, is architecture intrinsically unable to communicate and static, and vision, as in the perception of energy, is the medium of conveyance?
And therefore, vision is susceptible to interpretation, meaning that objectivity is impossible?
If matter is stored energy, can it also be a signal or an answer? Assuming that it is static, it can only really be an answer, because a signal implies the ability to broadcast, which matter can't do.
But can a composition of matter broadcast an idea? A high CMU wall can convey "Stay out" while a single CMU sits mute?
But doesn't a single CMU convey "This is how much a laborer can pick up and place accurately with his two hands"?
Funny - I'm currently searching for a microwave oven for my client that will not conflict with their already-purchased wall oven. Does the energy (information) of microwave ovens convey cancer? (kidding)
Seth Lloy will argue that the universe is about computation, or rather about information processing.
A concrete wall will eventually decay, bits will fall off. Lloyd will argue that this is the result of the universe using this bit of matter as part of computation. The computation is carried out by energy being transferred from the bonds between concrete molcules, being transferrd to where it is needed.
This implies that the world is finite, because in an infinite world, there would be infinite energy, and therefore no energy transfer would need to take place.
in any case, what is the computation? What is the signal? We could argue that the decayed wall tells us that the illusion of materiality is fallible and stretched, and therefore life.
However, everywhere you look you see this message, Is it something we need to be continually reminded of - is the universe saying something to us? Or is this arrogant, egocentric and naive, and that the universe has nothing to say to us at all... Nothing to say, but something to show.
I favour a model of the universe in which every moment is generated/computed seamlessly. Any 'speed' in which the intervals of movement are seamless or unable to be percieved, leads me to believe that time does not/cannot exist. Time needs something to be compared to. We can't compare between events, only recreations/simulations of events.
Maybe I'll go back to the Buddhist Temple.
Sorry, that should be Seth Lloyd.
I'm wondering, in decay of a concrete wall, where the embodied energy goes? It is transferred to where...I guess eventually it all becomes dirt, which means all material is, metaphysically and physically, "alive". Maybe.
... is the universe saying something to us? Or is this arrogant, egocentric and naive, and that the universe has nothing to say to us at all... Nothing to say, but something to show?
Well, what about you, diabase? As Merleau-Ponty said, we are made of the same stuff as the world is. You are of the universe: do you have something to say? Or to show?
And I don't mean that sarcastically, I mean it literally and it is a serious question: are you trying to "say" something via your existence that might to relate to what other elements of the universe are trying to "say" via their existence?
the embodiment of transfered energy...
diabase, I thought you were architecturally smarter than all that. Seriously.
vado...quick comment on that Folk Art Museum stair not meeting code: the small treads cause the user to look down for good footing. This draws attention to the stair, and makes the experience of climbing it a more involved one. that's how I read it, personally. (I haven't read the whole thread, just to the point where vado made that comment, sorry if something along those lines has been mentioned)...
the code issue vado knows (indiana) is likely the same code issue that would be raised in ky. the widely spaced metal bars (a 4" sphere - or a small child's head - could pass through - strike 1) are running horizontal (presenting a ladder/climbing temptation - strike 2). it's all about the kids in the midwest.
quondam - allow me the opportunity to falter now and again, and theres nothing terribly architecural above... as far as I can garner.
I am skeptical of universe as a computation process because it relies on the premise that the processing is 'for' something, that it produces a meaningful result. This is why I dont think that any answer can be about decay, but decay is an effect of the processing. Much like a bomb going off; the aftermath or destruction is the effect of the bomb, but not the bomb, not the reason for the bomb, etc, etc.
nice one vado.
diabase, you can't falter "now and again" because time doesn't exist, or did you already forget that.
Besides, if architecture can't communicate anything, then certainly I can't communicate anything either, thus I don't expect any meaningful results.
I love seams.
Real architecture is all about seams that architects most often want covered up.
There is the illusion of seam, and the illusion is hard to resist. Speaking of seams, one of my favourite quotes from Mark Rakatansky:
INSTITUTIONAL SPACES ARE THE PRINCIPLE SITES THROUGH WHICH IDEOLOGIES WORK, AND THUS… IT IS IN THE INSTITUTIONS INTEREST TO EFFECT (OR AT LEAST GIVE THE IMPRESSION OF) STABLE CONDITIONS. AND LIKE THE NARRATIVE, BOTH INSTITUTIONS AND IDEOLOGIES ARE CONSTRUCTS - THEY ARE NEITHER NATURAL, NOR UNIVERSAL, NOR TIMELESS, BUT ARTIFICIAL STRUCTURES… IT IS THE VERY INCONSISTENCY OF THE SOCIAL FIELD, THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ITS SEAMLESS CONSTITUTION, ITS GAPS AND RESIDUES THAT IDEOLOGY HAS TO MASK, CONCEAL SCREEN. AND IT IS IN SUCH GAPS - AT THE LEVEL OF THE SUBJECT, THE INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAM, THE BUILDING, SITE AND SO FORTH - THAT CERTAIN CRITICAL ARCHITECTURAL NARRATIVES MIGHT EMERGE.
MARK RAKATANSKY, SPATIAL NARRATIVES
And in the spirit of that, see my thesis here in which I investigate this very subject.
Also, my point is that communication is mediated by vision. The information you recieve is what is processed and captured by vivion. Is then communication an internal or external process? Is architecture signalling statements of information or requests for information? Or are we inventing and answering our own questions, and architecture is a static facilitator [a lump of material, a benign storage device]?
Too bad you didn't know how the Danteum manifests the promenade architecturale forumla.
"love is an illusion"-Kevin
Maybe some architecture courses should be taught by blind people.
quondam, that was fully understood. Not sure why you think I did'nt understand that. In any case, this exercise was'nt about an investigation of the promenade in itself, but the links to the language of the Divine Comedy. and for its absolute iconic value [to allow one to mark the changes]. You misread the intentions of the thesis.
Well, then you missed that misreading was my intention.
And what was the intention of your misreading?
diabase, just so signals don't get crossed, the next ten years of my life are my "I don't give a fuck decade."
ahhhhhhh!!
Nice one quondam - I might join you.
thought:
form is the result of the relative separation of forces.
to expand: if form is the condensation of matter, the hypothesis is that the forces that allow this condensation is the repulsion between two opposing poles. The form then occurs equidistant between the two poles.
"The spectacle is not a collection of images; it is a social relation between people that is mediated by images."
Guy Debord
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.