"The fundamental mistake is in taking the patterns we observe around us as facts of nature. They are not; they are the result of rational individuals adjusting to a particular set of constraints... Change the constraints and, given a little time to adjust, the patterns change."How does this relate with architectural design? The function of buildings is first and foremost to shelter and cater for beings and/or things. In architecture, this information becomes data – which interpretations depend on whomever happen to hold the set of data – upon which design is based on. Yet, are they ‘facts of nature’? – or are they ‘set by particular contraints’?
Say for example you want to design a house. And you talk to an architect about your needs and desires for this new house. A good architect, in turn, will start asking you questions about your activities in order to get ‘patterns’ of your needs, requirements, wishes, and constraints for this new house.
But if the above quotation holds true, then it means that your constraints are only particular for certain period of time, set by the current needs projected by your current house. Once the design of your new house is done, you will encounter new sets of constraints – which will come out of the new design of your house (which, by the way, explains why not one single building is perfect).
If the above quotation holds true, buildings then tend to ‘freeze’ patterns from a particular time and a particular set of constraints – which will no longer be applicable by the time the building is constructed, or if you’re lucky enough to get good architects, for longer period of time (because s/he has taken into account of these future contraints as part of the design). If such is the case then, let me ask the same question again: does design matter? Can architecture be ‘liquid’ and adjust to new patterns and constraints? Can it be timeless?
No comments:
Post a Comment