#studio qs

Now that I am taking courses in structures and the civil engineering department, my first fear was I would stop thinking architecturally and in types.

This ignores the fact that learning is continuous and not discrete. I guess going back to math after a gap kind of scared me. But in truth the experience has only been good; I have a deeper understanding of mathematics now. I believe that whenever one has obscure feelings, it could be because they are re-orienting themselves; so they are leaning more than they can say they “know”. When one grows older, do they have a tendency to stop re-structuring, accepting instead what they have, and structuring in only what fits? In the past I took this fear to the expense of quality of investmetn.

Now with this structures I found 2 things:

1) Enjoy where you are, because it is a success in itself. This is the true joy of the moment; it is agenda-less not as “not planned”, but as not judgmental. Its priority is being fully present, whether that requires cleaning the floor, or studyign nuclear physics. That is the gift of life.

2) When I design something, I am a designer that chooses the materials etc... used. As architect, it is perfectly feasible to use the knowledge specifics of materials etc to contribute to your design; actually it is highly required. Only at that point does one get architecture. Unfortunately for me, I used to think that architecture was not something I could pick up without the specifics knowledge. However, this is just because it was a world view I chose to pick up. Or if I didn’t choose it, notice how it was something specific to my needs. And notice too how that is fine. Great; now I can be a real designer and give myself freedom, my perfectionism and my mind a rest!

so I think I understand design basically: you have a thesis or stance toward a site. you develop that.

maybe you will be wrong about your assumptions, or they will change, but regardless the starting poiint is that thesis: unlike scientific hypotheses, in that it depends a lot on imagination and feeling and reasoning of the site. Like it, in the sense that our hypotheses can change or develop through investigation.

That is the research we do in design schools.

So for example, you go to a site, you realize it has problems of remediation, and you propose a thesis on what to do. That thesis is your argument on what needs to be done, and the design is the investigation into that.

can it be debunked by engineering?

can you be convinced to move that program elsewhere because of engineering?mmmnnoononon can you be convinced to move it elsewhere, because it doesn’t feel like it found its’ niche?

i.e. what these questions point to, is on a level of spatial reading (multiple levels) how is it defined? this is a very subtly nuanced question. definition means both how it is used, how it is named, how it is occupied, but it must be multi/dimensional. how it is defined in a way is the space talking to you about it (kind of like the Universe does)

test 2

can you imagine people occupying this space? what are they doing? how? how does the space suggest occupation?

test 3

how does this occupation create energy, or embody it, or further suggest the metamorphosis and the next step?

pps every space, like every face, like every soul, is beautiful. just listen.

what defines it? what defines the system? the thing that first seems to define it might not end up giving the most salient order. The order is usually inherent, but not at first apparent. Thus, therein lies the testing and trying different things out.

Typically I google too much and try to seek outside of myself. It is good to do so, but as with everything, only in mediation. So, why not start with the self?

i.e.

List all you think makes good architecture

List the stuff you know

List the stuff you know you don’t know

List the stuff that just comes to mind stream of consciousness that might be interesting

List the topics in Energy you’d like to explore

List how architecture makes sustainability

List what you like about architecture (should be #1)

But, if I become so proficient in modelling in sketchup, will that make me biased to my understanding of the world? i.e. Would I start seeing things in that manner too. As if everything is a system or component of everything else... Or, whatever the thing or method of seeing is. I suppose that is my fear of committment, because I fear exclusion of possibility. 

So apparently I have got this whole architecture/school (or just school) thing wrong or off... like the whole concept of how to learn, what to learn and when to learn. And even what learning is in itself. LIke how you ask questions, how you focus, how you stay on topic, and how you outline knowns and unknowns. How you determine those in the first place. Those are what you see as important (or not).

In fact... what is school? Even though this is university, it isn’t nearly complex nor “hard” as real life.... and yet it’s still so hard! Is that because that is what learning feels like, no matter the context?