11 July 2011

MUYBRIDGE & MOVEMENT: the body in time and space

1. On Pg.59 Allen establishes a position that architecture has been marginalized because it is not part of the “great three variables: Territory, communication, & speed." This condition has architects reduced to working on the surface of the city. The architect’s lack of involvement in these three variables continues to pave the way for urban erasure resulting in utilitarian neutral environments devoid of meaning. He states for architects to stay relevant we need to be more socially and politically in tune. Allen points to dynamic architectural notations as the a component to the secret elixir. However powerful the notation may be, it does little to engage an architecturally ignorant public and political structure. What current mediums do we have for social engagement? How else might we engage socially and politically to instill the urgency of architecture ?

2. Can you think of examples in which Arnhiem’s studies of movement have been or could be successfully applied to Allen’s Notations: 5 Working Definitions: Anticipation, Invisible, Time, Collective (pg 64.)?

3. (pg. 406 - 408) Arnhiem posits that the delivery of scale and speed is critical semantics conveyed within the physical For the gesticulation of a dancer is equal in power to facial expression of a stage actor. Therefore through proper training anyone can be an actor if trained for the precise delivery method? However, Laban points out an additional variable, Antrieb, the nature by which the actor delivers or shapes the movement. How would you define Antrieb?

4. In what ways might the performance be extended beyond the corporeal? Ig: CGI effects, Stage sets, props? Ammar Eloueini's interactive Stage Set for John Jasperse all.net/core.php?sec=projects&id=7

5. Allen (pg 53) contends that the agency of Diagrammatic architecture of Koolhas, MVRDV, and Ito “undermine the semantics of architecture.” It does so in by reacting to the market forces, and in expediently, and thus the diagram becomes the building sacrificing the meaning of the architecture. Is the diagrammatic architecture devoid of meaning? How might Rem Koolhas defend his architecture?

6. Allen’s states “Diagrams are syntactic and not semantic.” Although, Allen refers to an architectural context, how might Arnhiem counter this statement from his standpoint?

No comments: