Talk:Notes
From Open Source Urbanism
A couple of thoughts from my initial reading:
Architecture as metaphor
I agree that the towers are symbols of an immaterial/invisible architecture.
Been reading some interesting stuff about metaphor recently: that metaphor "figures an outside" of logic (Claire Colebrook, Certeau and Foucault: Tactics and Strategic Essentialism). From my limited understanding of her argument this seems to be a way of thinking about the metaphysical gap between thought and the world. Dominant forms of thought 'figure' a particular type of world that is given as the 'real' world. But other logics, such as those traced by Certeau in The Practice of Everyday Life, figure alternate worlds; hence the possibility of resisting dominant practices from within. Using a language you can not escape, to figure reality in a different way. Maybe this is the power of Fuller's world map; he uses the accepted language of map projection and the logic of representation to reformulate our perception of the world, to figure the world differently.
Maybe architecture as metaphor is not necessarily a bad thing. Presumably we need to have some understanding of the invisible structures that we navigate and that navigate us. Perhaps physical architecture can help us to figure the world that arises from these data flows.
Skins
This division between function and form (the towers and the data networks) is quite strong within modding communities. Mods often take the form of 'skinning' a particular object or technology. This can be a game mod skin for the characters and cars, or a Case Mod, the computer in the antique radio, Millennium Falcon, etc....
Skins are not critical to the function, in modding they are often a juxtaposition of extremes (e.g. the mobile in the old phone). The skin is superfluous but maybe it is also critical to our conceptualisation of the technology.
The Proposal
I agree that it is really important to understand the "qualitative meaning" of the data but to throw a spanner in the works the project could proceed through the steps in another order, say:
- Make
- Collect
- Generate
- Analyse
- Evaluate
- Make, and repeat...
Actually, now I think about it, this is really the same as the order you proposed.
--Scott 19:59, 25 May 2008 (EST)
Response
Architecture as metaphor
Sorry, you'll have to explain the first bit to me, preferably over a beer, as I'm not really down with metaphysical theory. But I do get the Fuller bit, in that he's using established media (maps) to present a new idea (non-political earth). So yeah maybe we do need the old spatial language (concrete architecture) to represent the new one (invisible data). But maybe we don't need to 'represent' it at all, (metaphorically or otherwise) as this still implies a disconnect between the two. Can the physical give added meaning and relevance to the digital and vice versa? That's pretty abstract, I'm not sure I can imagine how that might manifest.
Skins
I really like the skins idea. Reminds me of the disguised mobile phone towers. I like the olde skins as an innocuous housing for a new - and perhaps threatening - piece of technology.
Proposal
No your order is different. Making first is a really good idea, it will force the student to predict what the outcome of the project could potentially be, which can then be evaluated for it's usefulness before it's too far down the track. Maybe this step is called mock-up? I do think analyse needs to go before generate though, so that how the information is implemented or interpreted by the system is directed toward the qualitative aims.
Cool.
--Rory 18:50, 26 May 2008 (EST)
Response (again)
Metaphors
Ok, been thinking more about that metaphorical issue. It's a damn thorny one and I think it's important. I think the projects have to DO something, not just REPRESENT something. If it's just representational, then it's metaphorical. Of course it can be both, but the point is to get away from mere expression of the age.
Sorry, looking back, this is exactly what you already said. I totally agree with this:
"Maybe architecture as metaphor is not necessarily a bad thing. Presumably we need to have some understanding of the invisible structures that we navigate and that navigate us. Perhaps physical architecture can help us to figure the world that arises from these data flows."
In that it has to be both functional and representational.
I think the challenge here may be to understand the representational as functional; to not fall into the trap of thinking functional as purely mechanistic. It is a thorny one! In design I find the idea of skins quite a difficult concept, but at least an object generally requires this outer surface. Architecture may have a different relationship to data flows, if the future is handsets then architecture that deals with data becomes an accessory to the handset, what can it do that the handset can't?
The Proposal
Was thinking we might need an intermediate visualisation step, as this is a good way to bring out the qualitative relevance of the data. I'm thinking of the They Rule project by Josh On etc. which visualises board members of US companies and their relationships to other boards to build the image that America is controlled by a very small handful of people.
Ok, so to redraw the list again:
- Mock-up
- Collect
- Visualise
- Analyse
- Generate
- Evaluate
- Make, and return...
Yes, I agree, I had conflated 'generate' with 'visualise'. Was thinking that the 'mock-up' may actually 'collect' in a very rudimentary way and that it would 'generate' an output (visual) and the students then analyse what is being generated and adjust the collection/generation program to be 'meaningful' and from here they 'generate' or 're-generate' the next phase, architecture or whatever (in effect my proposed order sits inside the 'collect' phase of your initial order - expanded, it probably becomes what you have above)
Alright, got to stop thinking about this one for a bit and hopefully it will just settle into a neat idea. Speak soon.
--Rory 09:38, 27 May 2008 (EST)
