Midway through the 3rd week of Gradschool2.0 and things seem both fast and slow.

On one hand, I'm surprised that things are moving by quickly.
My electives are going full speed ahead and they are pretty great thus far. Studio is a bit slow...I'm waiting for it to kick into high gear; we seem to be treading water.

Regarding my classes thus far:
I was apprehensive upon reading the course descriptions that all of my classes would lean heavily towards either technique or theory and disregard the other, but they've generally been pretty balanced. There's seems to be a healthy level of skepticism too for what we're doing; every time parametric design is mentioned there is the disclaimer to follow that we are still designers, and although we may let the computer make some decisions, at the end of the day, we go to school because we want to be designers (not programmers, scripting geniuses, renderers, or psuedoscientists) - parametrics (colloquially used...swap it for "scripting" "algorithmic" etc) is still design because we are designing the parameters and have complete control over the outcome

Regarding studio:
The Post-prof's are split into 3 sections with Winka Dubbeldam coordinating - I'm in Ferda Kolatan's section; Roland Snooksteaches the other. I think the skepticism towards psuedoscience is the most surprising thing about studio and I'm glad because that was one of the things that I continually have issue with – fake biomimicry, feigned structural efficiency, digital-for-digital-sake-because-I-can-just-3dprint-it, etc. Although we look to science for logic, form, etc; we're making the decisions and this is design studio...we're going to be designers (and architecture is more than just design too).

The real difference here is that in the past, I've felt that my studios have at times ended up being a week of half-hearted wikipedia research which is encouraged to fully fuel your project...until midterms when the experts come in and tell you the real answer. At this point, it's a rush to spin your idea around to the new “right answer”....

when in actuality, we're pretending to be experts in something in 3 months and pitch it to people with full confidence...this has it's time and place but isn't the only right way.

At this point, I'm drawn to a paraphrased thought from the Stephen Kieran lecture this past Monday – he talked about the importance of a 4 part sequence of design - Think, Do, Evaluate, Learn - and how in school we're really good thinkers, we're just starting to get to the do part (rarely), but almost nobody actually gets to the Evaluation and Learn sections of the process – we do something once, get a grade (or a paycheck) and move on to bigger and better things. It becomes looked down upon to re-investigate old ideas which is maybe the opposite of what we should be doing to really solve problems and get to inventive solutions.


All this aside, we are hitting research and digital really hard - I've been taught the basics of Maya on three different required occasions, so although there seems to be skepticism toward the digital-for-digital sake, the goal is to become so immersed in tool-use that it can be an uninhibited design method – We talked in Ali Rahim's class of how technique drives technology...

to be continued.

So much to write, so little time. Feel free to ask questions.

STEPHEN KIERAN
Mon. 21 September, 6:00pm - 7:00pm
Meyerson Hall Room B1

Lecture by Stephen Kieran, FAIA, of KieranTimberlake.

"Dwelling"

Hosted by the Department of Architecture


Should be cool

This will likely mark the only time that I'll be able to blog the night before a project is due while having completed it.

Tomorrow...

Studio begins.

But now for a numbered list of thoughts:

1. It's odd to see my work in the context of my classmates - I'm so used to knowing familiar styles / fonts / colors / design tricks of my Kent-mates, that in a new setting, I'm surprised at everybody and everything (and wonder if they feel the same way). Are people stretching out of their comfort zone? Relying on old tricks?

I'm probably doing a bit of both

2. Wholly crap, free food. Two times today. Once last week. ...insert your favorite "tuition joke."

3. Coming from Kent, I'm significantly less picky than my classmates on the quality of plotter output. This is both good and bad. I could probably be a bit more critical of colors and such, but maybe that's a wonderful stress to not have discovered yet.

...From my experience at Kent, it was a minor miracle every time a print comes out in general. In fact, what seems more miraculous is that I didn't have to physicall hand my flash drive to the tech guy so he could load the photoshop file on his computer, check to see if it was flat, and then push PRINT . I also didn't have to walk a quarter mile, from one studio to another, where I didn't even have key card access. The price is unbelievably cheap. $1 a foot? That's practically free!

4. My class is extremely international (by almost 2/3). The language barrier will be interesting; noted by some odd misspellings / mis-grammars on printed boards

5. Almost everybody here can render circles around me. This is something for me to work on

6. I can 'Maya' circles around almost everybody else (model, animate, etc). (Yay Kent!)

7. The year I spent at the CUDC seems to have rubbed off on me. I feel like I'm on the extreme non-technical side of projects - what I've developed is all about "selling the vision" (very urban design) This is also something for me to work towards; a comfort zone issue

8. The actual studio space is "okay." Though, it's weird to be in a school with pinup space.

9. Hey, if you go to (or went to, or teach at) UPenn and read this, come say hi. I'd like to hear your thoughts on what I've said in person.

More after we start. We've gotten a digital copy of the studio brief, but I'll wait until we hear it in person to tell the world what we're doing.

...although it's slightly reminiscent of my studio from last fall at the CUDC

I'll be in these:

Ali Rahim's Contemporary Processes in Architecture: Experimental Design & Its Effects

The mastery of techniques, whether in design, production or both, does not necessarily yield great architecture. As we all know, the most advanced techniques can still yield average designs. Architects are becoming incressingly adept producing complexity & integrating digital design and fabrication techniquesinto their design process - yet there are few truly elegant projects. Only certain projects that are sophisticated at the level of technique achieve elegance. This seminar explores some of the instances in which designers are able to move beyond technique, by commanding them to such a degree so as to achieve elegant aesthetics within the formal development of projects.

Cecil Balmond's Form and Algorithm

This course explores a new definition, based on the proposition that architecture consists as much in the design of tools as in their department. This conceptions of design stems from the internal logic and richness of a non-liner process and, in turn, operationalizes it. This approach to design as tooling extends the imagination and nurtures intuitions about the possibilities of universal logic. The course includes non-linear algorithms, scripting, and design of structures. It considers the relationship between research and practice from this perspective.

Manuel de Landa's Self Organization & Dynamics of Cities

A course on the history of the dynamics of western and non-western cities, focusing on evidence of self-stimulation and self-organization, turbulence and stratification not only in the physical form of cities and their infrastructure, but in their market and anti-market economies, biological metabolisms and human disease, developments of language, and technologies of defense.

Winka Dubbeldam's (with Roland Snooks and Ferda Kolatan) Post-Professional Architectural Design Studio

An Advanced Architectural Design Studio specifically tailored to post-professional students. Through this studio, students engage in the challenges and opportunities presented by changes in society, technology, and urban experience. Through design projects, they explore alternative modes and markets for practice,along with new directions and new tools for design.

So, ...

I'm pretty psyched about the all-star cast.

And we're off.

I'd previously blogged on archinect during grad school 1.0 at Kent State's Cleveland Urban Design Collaborativehere

In typical blog fashion, I'm going to immediately apologize for not posting enough and resolve to do better...now that that's out of the way.

I'm at UPenn in their post-professional MArchII program. It's a 1 year program for students with a professional degree. There are about 40 students in the program.

Since it's a post-professional program and many students are coming from odd backgrounds (different schools, work, countries,) we start the year off with a week long "intensive digital methods" class to bring the class to a generally equal level. This class is/was taught by Justin Diles. I expected this to be a general technique class regarding rhinoceros, grasshopper, maya, and generally hit all of the typical areas of parametricism. On the contrary, it was pretty much a week long Maya tutorial, focusing on the parametric capabilities of the program: animation, dynamics, with a bit on rendering and polygon modelling as well.

Diles refers to the method he teaches as the "Digital Workflow;" designing parametrically in maya, using rhino for preparation and fabrication, and then Adobe Creative Suite for presentation. I'm possibly the sole member of the class that has used this workflow extensively. (Good job Kent!). Nonetheless, the class was great for me to really have some time to practice and feel comfortable with the program.

IDM lasted a week and on first day of classes (Sept.9) we're presenting projects to test / prove our skills - using the PS1 YAP prompt. This week will be some extensive studio wood-shedding.


I went to NYC (my first time...ashamedly) this weekend with some classmates to check things out (including PS1, by MOS). After having seen pictures and perpetuating the snuffleupugus joke, I was surprised at how nice the space actually was. While I still kind of think that MOS phoned it in terms of detail / construction / material, it's an okay place to be.

More to follow! Including; pictures of the rarely photographed UPenn studio space.