29 November 2011

Tactics + Strategies/ SNAFU

Walker, Bartlett, Tretow


What/is there  a responsibility for architects to interpret the world as philosophers do?
How can we create something new from the damaged old? How do we as architects interpret Acute self-reflection? (P27 end pp1)

What are second order designs? Is designing the architecture of architecture similar to tactics? Pg. 28 (bottom)

Should we design as if we are in a post-apocalyptic city? Are their more appropriate times to design post apocalyptically? Or, Is the message about doing something radical, and the apocalypse is how radically the world is changing? 

Can you design for the radical future and still be timeless, or is timelessness even important?

Is it more efficient to be political as opposed to ideological? Does a series of ideologies lend to a political view? Is it appropriate to be political in a post-apocalyptic scenario? (P30 pp1)

Woods states that, “Only be neglecting purpose and meaning may [architecture] once again have them.” When a building no longer has meaning or purpose, what becomes the role of the architect in a post-apocalyptic scenario?


What does SNAFU stand for?

What significance does ironic paradox have in architecture? How is abnormal included in normal? (P4 pp3)

How do we pervert the ritual of design? Can something like the Habbakuk only come out of restraint of material, or is it a perversion of design ritual? (P6 PP1)

If eaves dropping is normal in art galleries, what tactics can we employ as architects to assimilate the abnormal in projects? (P 8 PP1)

What is the architectural equivalent of the slippers? P8 (pp3)

What role does speculative architecture play in the future of architecture?

No comments: