The reading for this week has been up on the R drive since last Friday and is now also on Sakai:
Gregotti, Vittorio. "The Exercise of Detailing." Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: an Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965 - 1995. Ed. Kate Nesbitt. New York: Princeton Architectural, 1996. 494-97. Print.
Frascari, Marco. "The Tell Tale Detail." Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: an Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965 - 1995. Ed. Kate Nesbitt. New York: Princeton Architectural, 1996. 498-515. Print.
Frampton, Kenneth. "Rappel a L'ordre, The Case for the Tectonic." Ed. Kate Nesbitt. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: an Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965 - 1995. New York: Princeton Architectural, 1996. 516-28. Print
The first and last readings were quite confusing. There seems to be more of a theoretical approach to the way things are constructed or have been constructed. I also agree with the quote by Perret stating that, a detail is certainly not just a matter of detail. Does this mean that the form of a structure comes from the detail? Can that even be? I don’t really think so. If anything the form is designed and the details are to follow no? But I think they must follow in a poetic way.
ReplyDeleteIn Frampton’s reading, he mentions that above all tectonics are suspended between ontological and the representational. Its interesting to think about the way that details in a design can be there but not really there. It implements both science and art in an intelligent way. We as designers need to begin provide details for a design in a way of producing and perceiving within architecture.
Frascari’s reading was interesting in the sense that there was a constant reference to a joint as the detail. This seems to represent a connection within architectural design such that the detail is found within the construction and construing of architecture. The details become the loci of the structure. I also found the theory of perception very compelling in the way architecture begins to receive its form. Then there is the theory behind the use of the building. Frascari states “ Perceptions are the ideas or signs of objects resulting from an interpretation of senses that is carried out by processes of unconscious geometrical inference. The placing of details has a key role in these processes of inference.” These makes the ideas behind perception and use a driving force to a meaningful selection of material and construction methods. So I guess we have an even greater challenge to implement sustainable materials within both the details and construction methods.
In these readings, It made it evident to deeply consider the details and selection of materials beyond a scientific way but also artistically.
I definately enjoyed last week's reading a whole lot more, maybe because I find sustainablility a more interesting topic. As far as architecture, I disagree with the statement, "Detailing does not necessilary depend on an overall guiding concept."
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that details can give form and be recognizable on their own parts but I believe that the details should enhance the overall concept and make it better.
I'll elaborate on Stacey's point by substituting a building as a metaphor for a sentence. Design details serve as words which form sentences (buildings). By themselves they can have a universal defintion(s). They can also change depending on how they are used in particular sentences. However, when you construct sentences (buildings), there has to be a main idea that the sentence is conveying (even if it is something simple) otherwise the most you can construct is a short phrase, if not plain gibberish.
ReplyDeleteFrascari seems concerned with word choice (detail choice), and with the Scarpa example he illustrates that details (words) can be both eloquent and functional to form an aesthetically pleasing structure or poetry.
Also an interesting note...in all the architectural art history classes I've taken (from modern to ancient)...a building would be presented and taught along with a description of its "intended" concepts and functions. Said entities, would then be supported and argued for by plugging its details and construction. This methodology of perception being in art history and all is rather retrospective.
All in all, I'm not sure whether the articles are saying if we should be designing new construction methods and details, or reappropriating existing ones. After all to spruce up a sentence, you can have a choice of making up a word (new detail) or try and re-use an existing one in a new way.
These reading seem to be about the theory of tectonics and details as the pertain to architecture and building. The authors seem to say tectonics is the mesh of objects that are useful with those that are good to look at. The other two readings were more towards the use of detail and how detail has changed its usage over the years. The author says that the way detail is portrayed and used has gone from an afterthought to being in the forefront helping to mesh the decorative details with the structural elements of a building. The pieces were a little difficult to understand with so many references to what other people had been saying as well as changing the ideas about the theory very suddenly. The one part of the reading that I did find interesting was how Frampton talked about the joint which I assumed was detail to being the “nexus around which the building comes into being and is articulated in its presence.” I understand this as being the point when details are starting to be added and the building starts to take shape and character.
ReplyDeleteI thought the readings were a bit tough to understand. All of them focused on detail of architecture and how that shaped our culture at the time, and how detail or tectonics and how we think about it has changed. From reading all three articles I gathered that detail has done from a finishing touch to a driving force throughout the whole design. I Nesbitt’s article she quotes, “Alberti’s search for “Beauty” is the setting of a precise relationship between detail and the attached meaning”. I think by this she is saying how detail is everything, as every detail shapes the whole picture. She goes on to say that concinnity, or the harmony of design, is composed of three things; Number, finishing, collocation. Numbering is calculation for construction or layout, finishing is where the detailed dimensions are understood, and collocation is the placement of these finishing touches, or details. From this she is explaining how detailing is within the design process, and though it is the last step, according to her, it is still pre-planned. I do agree with Nesbitt. From looking back on my work, detail is something that I take into account during the design process not after, but also, I think that the design process is long and never ending and details can grow and change based on how many times one drafts their design. For Landscape Architects, I feel that the details for us are constantly changing, but thought out with intent and passion.
ReplyDeleteThese readings focused on the art of details and “joint”, turning a building from a structure into architecture. Details have changed over the years from being looked at as something that just goes into a building to something that gives form and accentuates the overall concept and vision of the architect. Frampton states joints to be the “nexus around which building come into being and is articulated in its presence”. What I think Frampton is talking about is a joint essentially holds something together structurally, but when look at as a detail, that joint can take on a new form, that functions not only as a structural element but as something that brings meaning to the building. I also agree with Christine, which just like a sentence a building needs words (details) to be understood and convey a central idea or message.
ReplyDeleteThe Exercise of Detailing
ReplyDeleteTo first touch on Zeina’s comment, I think that Vittorio was saying that there are different languages of architecture, form being one and details being another. The form is so heavily reliant on the details because the construction makes the form possible.
I thought the introduction provided a great observation of what we know of the architectural vernacular, and how we have not focused as much attention to the language of the tectonics. As Vittorio said, the details offer a non-objectional understanding. I think that what Vittorio was trying to convey through this writing is that the details are the science of a project, thus they have such a profound, supportive relationship to the other components of that project.
Many people commonly appreciate the elegant detailed “ornaments” we commonly see on classical architecture. As Vittorio informs us, these “ornaments” have a purpose, and were intended to testify the integrity of the building. Maybe our attraction to these ornamental details, especially the ones that highlight the construction and structure of the architecture, stems from a subconscious observation of the tectonics and our subtle fascination with the details.
The Tell Tale Detail
Frampton defines an understanding of details in an architectural sense. Similar to what Vittorio mentioned in The Exercise of Detailing, “detail is certainly not just a matter of detail”, Frampton writes that they aren’t simply a small part in relation to a whole, that they are both the small part and the whole.
The re-occurring understanding of details that he writes about is that they generate the building and define an architecture’s greatness. Through reading about the details, I see architecture as a complex being and that the details equivocate to the cells that make up our bodies.
The Case for Tectonics
The intro seems to state that Frampton is referring to tectonics in a more geological plate tectonics sense and how our building materials may have an impact on the way the earth moves. But then he switches back to the material assembly definition. Is he using it in both ways?
After reading further, Frampton was trying to distinguish the different elements of a tectonic object as well as compare the different material procedures, tectonic, the framework, and stereomic, the compressive mass. He talked about tectonics in both the metaphysical the representational sense. From my understanding the metaphysical tectonic object is the initial representation of the structure and the representation is the finished structure that is described here as symbolic.
I thought it was interesting that the framework of the building was described as the equivocating light and sky as the steroeomic (mass) was described as darkness and
....
ReplyDeleteearth. The mention of the Crystal Palace was a good example of this description; “a victory of light”.
What I am wondering is how do you describe the joining of the stereomic and tectonic? Does if fall under tectonic or is there a need for a different term or none at all?
The detail can be expressed through two forms, its being and its symbol. Its being arises from its need to exist, its function. This is represented in its construction. Its symbol is used to illustrate or embody a hidden message; this is derived from its form and can be used to tell a message. This is represented in its construing. In a sentence we can have a word that is a functional joint to have a complete sentence and that word can have a meaning depending on interpretation. In this sense a detail can be both purposeful and stylistic, at the same time the style must have a purpose which I interpret as the direct connection back to nature and as the relationship to Gottfried Semper’s would describe in the “Theory of Formal Beauty.”
ReplyDeleteContinuing with Jason's articulation on "Joints" and their theoretical and empirical meaning, Frascari repeatedly mentions the idea that details are from my understanding our own personal muse in design. Details can tell us where to go in a design, tell us when to stop and change direction when it doesnt work, or even bring to light ideas that you would never think about if you never gone to such detail in the first place. This is represented by Frascari himself, "The result of the inquiry is the conceptual identification of the detail with making the joint and the recognition that details themselves can impose a order on the whole through their own order."
ReplyDeleteThese readings were fairly heavy at times, but they also explained and connected ideas and terms in somewhat poetic ways giving the almost human characteristics which was interesting to try and decipher exactly what the writer was saying and sometimes took a few goings over and help from a pocket dictionary to understand it.
ReplyDeleteI also found it interesting to see terms and phrases in the writing that made me make direct links to classes i've had with Brian Osborn.
For instance: "An architectural whole is seen as a phenomenon composed by details unified by a "device" a structuring principle." As the seniors will remember, our entire jamaica bay studio was based around a "device"
there is also a lot of writing about details and the history of details and how they have evolved as the key components to design in architecture. I feel as though this captures the essence of our construction details class from last fall, starting all our designs from a detail.
And of course now the term tectonics, which until this point i had never used outside of my planet earth class and it certainly wasn't refering to building materials. I'm interested to see where it takes us in this class...