Can the forces that make the object, both in the generation of the broad strokes and specific resolutions, combine with an intelligence of fabrication to become a 'process product'? --michael speaks
Is architecture and/or design a process product rather than a finished product? When is a design or an investigation ever finished?
Ideally, architecture is a never ending process. However, architecture should be "product" in the completion of that idea. That's where versioning comes in.
Ideally, architecture is a never ending process. However, architecture should be "product" in the completion of that idea. That's where versioning comes in.
from WANDERLUST series, Troy M. Litten. http://www.troyland.com/index.htmlIn industrial design and consumer product design, many iterations are developed and massed produced every year. Each time the product is redeveloped according to new or anticipated needs, trends and/or technology. If you can imagine the first telephone by Bell in 1876 . . .
Bell on the telephone in New York (calling Chicago) in 1892. . . . the millions of iterations of telephones . . .
. . . the cellular phones
I don't think this process of re-iteration will ever be finished. Each time the act of communication is re-visited. Each generation has a different meaning of handheld communication. Each version is an un-finished model. (The investigation is never finished)
However . . . is it a "finished product" yes because you can use it, but no because by the time this phone hits the production line designers are already looking for the next "phone".
Versioning suggests that architecture is an evolving and dissolving differential data -- design that no longer simply 'exists' but rather 'becomes', as it becomes informed in and through the process's
differen t/ciation. -- ingeborg rocker
So in a way, architects need to think like industrial designers. They need to mass produce hundreds of versions. And through this mass production rediscover their design each time. Their designs need to be "process" in their investigation, but "product" in their completion of an idea.
2 則留言:
Versioning on a larger scale. There certainly seems to be a bias in celebrating the architect who, for each project, invents something entirely new. But, as Anita points out, there is also value in the iterative process (versioning).
I think it should be noted, however, that the buildings that result from this process needn't look the same. The same ideas can be explored with drastically different formal gestures, and they should be. Architecture is not industrial design, and it is not automobile design. People designing phones have the luxury of designing for the exact same function over and over, as well as never having to respond the the site, which many architects believe is the root of all design - improving the place (which is why a building using titanium skins in China should look and perform differently than one in Italy).
And of course there is the time issue. But in the time issue is exactly where versioning will help. By accelerating the fabrication process, the actual building construction (large scale model fabrication) can become aonther step in an iterative process.
But the fact, that the next building is on a different site, IS the point of drawing this parallel.
The new site conditions, different needs etc, become the factors that effect the each building just as prototype, just as trends, uses, new studies of ergonomics are the factors that effect the each prototype of a product.
Forget what happens to the product when it hits the mass production line -- of course architecture is somewhat more customized-- we're not looking at that.
I am speaking to the COMPLETION of the prototype--the study-- which is in a long endless process of design (whether driven by need, use, technology or trend). The prototype may have several studies and mock-ups, but comes to a point of completion (the production line were it becomes a product.) But it doesn't stop there. Before the product reaches the consumers, designers are already modifying it, adding functions, sleek curves and different paint. The prototype is in a state of flux between study and product. Each phone, if you will, is both a prototype for study and a object of completion.
(Sorry, as a former industrial design student, I have to write this.)
Phone design and industrial design is not designing that same function over and over again. This is one of the biggest misconceptions of industrial design. Just as the misconception of architects designing the same building over and over again. This is poor design!!
"Design", good design is adaptive to its environment and use as a building to its site and clients. And yes environment, industrial designers do equal or more research about the environment than architects. How a phone is held, stored, used, carried, seen, heard, even eaten. Who uses the phone and who can't because the keys are too small. New ways of holding the phone. Wear and weather of the phone. New materials.
A building on average these days are designed to last 20 maybe 50 years, during which if you live in Seattle you might experience 5 leaks, 10 earthquakes and 15 major wind gails. A phone has to last maybe 2-3 years . . . being dropped, smashed, throw, shacken, scratched, squished, greased, heated, frozen, drowned, drained, over-surged . . . need I go on?!
So, NO it is NOT the "same" function. Products are constantly being improved upon.
張貼留言