In my experience, in the decades from 80-00, it was not hard to find architecture that was theoretical and intellectual. 00-10 years grew out of that climate, of course and then grew into what we have now. There was a strain of intellectualism in those 80-00 years that held my attention through 00-10 to this day. How to characterize the work of the majority since? it is certainly manifold but I have focused on pragmatics, clung to that. Perhaps the majority was pragmatic all along, and that is likely. What I saw as good work in those early 80-00 days was significantly more daring and adventurous than I have aligned with since. Trying to go back to what appealed to me early on, when I got started. Two key concepts I kept with me from those days: Theater and Theory.
Good architecture, not even the best architecture, but just good architecture is ineffable. Maybe architecture of any kind is ineffable. We should just enjoy it. Do not overthink it. Enjoy when you think you find it.
[stop here if you are averse to argumentation]
OR
[click here for a few opinionated paragraphs]
Okay, so here I would like to suggest, along those lines, that architecture is not easy to fairly describe, that furthermore, architecture cannot be ordered or ranked or filed adequately, in any way. At least I have not seen such a way, beyond opinion. These may get pretty elaborate but they are what they are. Honestly, I limit myself pretty strictly and do not easily call buildings “architecture” at all, let alone try to prioritize or numerically order them.
It bugs me, then, when a question such as this highlighted one, or similar, is posed or implied, “who is the world’s best architect?” when a best American architect, between the choices of Frank Lloyd Wright, or Louis Henry Sullivan, slips and falls from some ranking schema into an easily debatable opinion.
If you do not know who Sullivan is, ask me sometime, I can help.
I mean there are whole books framed to make you think of how highly ranked Frank Lloyd Wright is in the pyramid of architects or whatever the hierarchy may be, such as Frank Lloyd Wright “America’s Greatest Architect” (Herbert Austin Jacobs, 1965) . And an infamously brazen story of a lawsuit where Wright testified under oath that he was “the World’s Greatest Architect”. Nowadays licensed architects must avoid advertisements or claims that place them above the norms and tendencies of other licensed architects, which is called the ‘Standard of Care”.
I have studied Wright and his work for years, I honestly like his work. I appreciate the shelves upon shelves of Wright scholarship, I too have written about his work, gone inside, drawn it, discussed–and am still not sure what his claim to fame is, except for indulging in so much fame, his buildings are good but seem secondary to his attention seeking.
Back to the question in bright yellow, now. I would suggest here that Wright was not even the best in his office, when he worked for Adler and Sullivan. The principals were both better (I have began listing why in another post for later).
Wright was not the best in Chicago. He might have been maybe pretty good in 1910s Spring Green, Wisconsin or in 1930s Scottsdale, Arizona–if there was such a thing. Towards the later half of his life when superlatives about his career swirled and were invoked, many of his own proteges and apprentices were more talented and capable in the 1920-50s. They did the work he was credited with. Wright was frankly too old.
Either way, enjoy this “step well” “light well” I drew a few years ago.
If you do not know this form of architecture, ask me or ask around.
I have a few things to share this week which I found out was National Library Week. Honestly I did not know that there was such a thing, because every week is Library Week for me. Apparently it has been celebrated for 60 years!
What I would like to share are some designs. First is a multifloor library design, hand drawn in 2024.
Second I would like to share this home design, from the same sequence in 2024.
I love the feeling of being around a lot of books, I like reading but I like the mass and gravity of books.
While I am on the topic of books, here is my own book, my dissertation.
There is a desert notion of the sun angling or cutting away what is not sustainable and leaving a hardened thermally resistant outside and geodic crystal interior. This has been called “solar carve” and I made some explorations of the idea this week. Getting those optical angles and natural light and sunshine without the excess heat gain is the goal. Here are a few of my efforts.
Drew these schematics the other day. Was thinking mostly about Scottsdale Road, near where I live. So many cars, not a lot of people, completely exposed to the scorching heat. There are some meagre trees and some more details and nuance but I just drew the height and width in an average.
These drawings below (from 1920s journal Planificacion) by Architect Carlos Contreras were where I got the dimensions for the world cities I included. There are other studies of transverse sections out there, interesting to think about.
I will make this as clear and concise as I can. Let me know if this makes sense.
The question here is, why does the matter of form and content resonate with architecturally aligned writers ? What about formalism can cause critics to take issue?
The critique of formalism can dismiss work leaning too much towards form in a spectrum or scale of form and content. A prerequisite is a duality of form and content. Whether it should be or not, form and content have been construed in analogues such as the following:
Form is to exterior, as content is to interior.
Form is to book cover, as content is to writing.
Form is to bottle, as content is to fluid.
Form is to enclosure, as content is to program.
Form is to building, as content is to occupants.
NB: I do not subscribe or buy into these, but I see them, they are out there. Not sure how durable any analogy is. I see these, and most analogues or dichotomies as spectrums and scales where some degree of balance and synthesis may be found to optimize any design.
Rereading M.M. Bakhtin this week. This post was written in one sitting (broad brush) and is an intentionally incomplete (unfinished work in progress) essay. I will write something with a little closer reading soon, as I am waiting for more books that are on the way. What I have found interesting about Bakhtin’s writing, since I first read his work, is the same point of interest I have with respect to Immanuel Kant. That is, their philosophies often appeal to architectonics.
Bakhtin and Kant undoubtedly held quite different conceptions of architectonics. Should we associate Bakhtin’s sense of architectonics with the avantgarde of his time and place? I know these three modes I am about to mention are so vastly and fascinatingly different, but was anything other than a classical, rococo, or gothic conception of architectonics possible in Kant’s time and place?
The 1910s and 1920s avantgarde developed a challenging and radical sense of architectonics. Artist visualizations from the time, might fit on a spectrum somewhere between Malevich’s “Architectons” and Popova’s “Painterly Architectonics”. Let us suppose there is some purity of geometry or trigonometry as it may be. Some mathematical functions involved to compound the forms and their barren angularity. Maybe the work is form only and no tone or the opposite, and it is a fragmentation of all colors. What might these options mean to a young philosopher such as Bakhtin, who wrote extensively about the “architectonics of seeing”? A more traditional and stable sense of Architectonics might gravitate in meaning towards order, structure, and their synonyms even while these notions were alternately evoked and banished by the architectural avantgarde.
Architectonics is a rarely used word. It might mean different things to anyone asked, as architecture is so manifold. Where, when, how did architectonics enter the modern philosophical discourse? Who might have explored the topic in detail? It is certainly appealed to in the “Critiques” by Kant. In the 1780s,would architectonics have conjured in Kant’s mind some recent rococo or baroque or the turning away from those to Classicism or something else? Some archaeological idea of J.J. Winkelmann? Some kind of about to be built Brandenberg Gate? Classicism and its derivatives often lend themselves as supporting elements, imposing and reinforcing order, solidity, systemization, endurance.
[This quick essay draws on design and art to visualize what Bakhtin and Kant might be conjuring. Expect another post soon with more focus on the philosophical and philological implications, in text more solely]
The site I visited and decided to write about was Kiyomizudera (Japanese: 清水寺 or translated into English: clear water temple). It is an interesting area for many reasons, one of which is that it is as old as Kyoto1 (over a millennium old former capital of Japan), as well as a Buddhist temple complex that is appreciated by various sects,2 and a unique and moving experience surrounded in absolute darkness in one area of the temple.3
The ascent up to Kiyomizudera began in a normal part of the city and went fairly directly for miles upwards most the way. We climbed through the shop-lined city then up a steeper hill and onto the temple grounds through a park. Along the way were other shrines and temples, crowds of worshippers and tourists, orange-red pagoda balancing elegantly, painted wood joinery, age-darkened wood. This area was more meandering, due to mindfulness towards the mobility difficulties of some of our party we took ramps winding around the edges rather than the stairs in the middle. We passed charming baby-sized stones adorned with handknit bibs in one area and hand knit head caps in another. (NB: These are called Jizo statues, very charming, learned the term later) Next were ponds and temples surrounded in ponds. Several hand cleansing basins (手水鉢) were along this route, and we washed with their elaborate shining ladles. Finally we arrived at an overlook above everything else. The main temple was being restored, not sure what the planned changes or restorations entail. Along the first side of the temple was our main destination. At this point we were instructed to place our shoes in plastic handbags and read instructions before heading inside.
The instructions mainly concerned how to proceed and how to make a wish at the Buddhist stone deep beneath the temple. I bid (a temporary) farewell to the visible world and went down the stairs. Light faded to all-encompasing darkness. I just closed my eyes or kept them open, it was the same. Adjusting to the pitch black I could see a dark blue or purple marbled pattern on my retinas, the marbling sensation was like the suminagashi (墨 流 し) process where ink is floated on water then paper soaks in it. When my eyes no longer served me, my auditory and tactile senses became the guides. I could hear the rustle of the bag with my shoes, as well as others’ shoe bags in the room. I could feel the beads along the handrail. They were similar to the beads on a Buddist bead bracelet but were much larger, about the size of a fist. I kept one arm extended so that I would not run into the person in front of me with my face.
I kept thinking of my wish.
After one final turn there was light. A pointed spotlight type of illumination (I could not see or recognize the source) shone on the stone described in the instructions and bearing a Sanskrit resembling the number 4 to me,4 I could see the Buddhist letter and other hands making wishes on the stone but the luminance had such a short falloff that I could not see up their arms to their faces. I placed my hands as well and made my wish. Then I went towards louder noises that were from an upper level up stairs, where I rejoined my group and continued exploring Kiyomizudera.
(Segment of Kiyomizudera Engi Emaki from Tokyo National Museum, 1517-20)
OCTOBER 2018.
NOTES
1 Mosher, Gouverneur. Kyoto: A Contemplative Guide. Tuttle, 1964
2 Ibid.
3 While writing this I learned that there is a waterfall experience at Kiyumizu-Dera (likely the namesake) known as Otowa Waterfall, that we completely missed and were not told of by our guides.
4 Was not able to find this character online while writing
The main point here, and in the last posts I submitted on the topic of prefab 3D printing at scale, is that while most printed full size structures are done from the ground up, this might not actually be optimal. What I am suggesting here is that when we have fully developed 3D printing, at scale, techniques similar to off site prefab or on site tilt up concrete construction might be an improvement upon the ground up approach. We will see. The construction industry might go this way it might go another. If full scale is anything like desktop printing, then a prefab approach is going to be better in many respects (about those later).
Here are a few suggested steps for the prefab approach.
Step 1. Print by component. Can be prefab or on site –this is a matter of equipment availability.
Step 2. Tilt up walls with a hoist or crane, or transport them to the site and then hoist or crane them into position.
Step 3. Assemble and join the structure. Finish. Enjoy.
Here is another model of precast 3D printed forms for buildings. This is an ongoing project, I have made incremental steps and improvements over the last few years.
I anticipate the full size of these to be printed either in an on site printer or in an offsite printer. The model looks a little more like light frame spacing intervals, it might be spread out to take advantage of concrete span potential. Or it might stay at the compact spacing for extra strength.
Here are links to previous efforts I have made along the same lines. Whereas this post is more about the tilt-up walls, these previous ones were mainly about roof, ceiling, or floor slabs.
drdrr.work 