What does topology change about our notion of "space?" (and remember mathematics has areas, "geometry," "algebra," etc. -- are these areas discovered? did they Naturally exist?). Read the text by
When we look at many of the projects during the '90s by diller/scofidio, Lynn, Spueybroek, UnStudio, Koolhaas, etc., we see there are a series of these attempts at folding: folding of the inside and outside, folding of site and building, folding of ground and envelope. This changes the way in which we can experience and understand spatial relations in architecture -- they make it potentially more dynamic.
As I continue to write on this, keep in mind the last part of the lecture: topology has, among other things, enabled architecture to shift from the concept of the grid and metric space and bounded form to networks and folds. The latter introduce not limits and positions, but rather transitions and therefore intensities.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
1 introduction - intensity
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I like to start as simple as possible and since we are still introducing themes, I'd like to nail down a solid understanding of TOPOLOGY. Perhaps a little basic, but my style nonetheless. During the first class, you described a donut, a mug, and a box. topologically speaking, isn't the mug identical to the sphere and NOT to the donut? Then handle on the mug, however, best compares to the donut.
Topology as I see it is a two-dimensional surface that occupies three dimensions. It has no thickness, just like a point and line. So, topology is (the study of representing) a series of planes, essentially?
The donut/mug comparison was explained pretty well in the Barr reading (I had some trouble with it before reading that as well...) - he shows how you can take a torus (donut) and stretch it and manipulate it in such a way that you can form a mug shape, without interrupting any of the surfaces. The idea of topology (at least how I'm interpreting what we've read so far) is that you can have what seem to be disparate forms that actually follow the same rules in how they relate to their vertices/edges/faces and are thus topologically identical (if typologically leagues apart).
I'm finding this look at topology fairly interesting, but i'm not quite sure what makes it important, i.e. why we're concerned with it. I suppose I can see that a different way of looking at internal vs. external can arise and can free some of our initial understanding of space and form, but I wonder how much of this study is helpful when approaching architecture as a problem of function. I would hate to live/work/play in a building resembling a klein bottle (but i guess that's a bit too literal and facile an example - though, actually, maybe not).
My response was almost prophetic regarding the Barr reading, he hit the nail right on the head. I would have to agree that towards the end of the reading I was back in high school trying to prove two lines were indeed parallel. I am sure we can extract some relevance from this, somehow..
i think the point by daniel is relevant, on two counts. 1, the system is mathematically abstract but diagrammatically interesting and 2, it isn't clear how we make this functional in architecture. (a third is that simply importing the topological figure into architecture is by now banal. right. ok, but look at what happens or has happened to architectural space when, say, you pull a street up in and through a building? that's a topological move and in the case of Le corbusier, introduced one of the most effective reorganizations of architectural relationships -- the architectural promenade where the city could be folded into the building and back out again. and if you think this is merely a kind of conceptual trick, consider virtually how many buildings were designed with these complex ramps and relations. especially during the 90s with computation.
Post a Comment