Monday, August 31, 2009
response 1_Mateo
Jose Luis Mateo, in my opinion, is a very daring individual for taking on the challenge of describing and attempting to define an architectural process. Agreeing or disagreeing with his methods and delineation was not my focus when reading this article. Instead, trying to comprehend a fellow architect's thoughts on the importance of a process is one of the most intriguing aspects of architecture.
Mateo's breakdown of the architectural process is defined through three main stages driven with a fixed direction. While I find his overall approach, that is composed from an abstracted idea to a "phantom" with a skin, fairly successful, I think Mateo has almost over-simplified the process, or perhaps intentionally left his steps open for additional stages and these act as guidelines. The most resonating part of this article for me, is his references to this idea of an "organism". Particularly his concept of a process paralleling contamination; "it is like the organic growth of cells which little by little fill the organism eventually to give it flesh and body." [1]
The architectural process thrives on growth; the most difficult part of the process is that there are so many irresolute factors [inspirations, ideas, landscapes, skins, structures, textures, etc.], especially from project to project. The thing I've found in my short architecture experience is that during a project the key is movement; trying new things, realizing when something fits and something else fails, but with this movement comes growth. The growth of knowledge, rigor, problem solving and a greater resolution.
Mateo's breakdown of the architectural process is defined through three main stages driven with a fixed direction. While I find his overall approach, that is composed from an abstracted idea to a "phantom" with a skin, fairly successful, I think Mateo has almost over-simplified the process, or perhaps intentionally left his steps open for additional stages and these act as guidelines. The most resonating part of this article for me, is his references to this idea of an "organism". Particularly his concept of a process paralleling contamination; "it is like the organic growth of cells which little by little fill the organism eventually to give it flesh and body." [1]
The architectural process thrives on growth; the most difficult part of the process is that there are so many irresolute factors [inspirations, ideas, landscapes, skins, structures, textures, etc.], especially from project to project. The thing I've found in my short architecture experience is that during a project the key is movement; trying new things, realizing when something fits and something else fails, but with this movement comes growth. The growth of knowledge, rigor, problem solving and a greater resolution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)