"Program can easily become reified, unexamined square-footage designation that is shoved into form--an act euphemistically called 'programming the building.'" How often do we find ourselves becoming subjected to doing this in projects? Why do we do it? Our forms are becoming vessels for these abstract ideas (food, bathe, sleep, entertain) and concepts, but why don't we let our abstract ideas and concepts rule instead of become subjugated to "classical" functions? A room to bathe should mirror that action, something to entertain should...but they don't. All are boxes, why? "Function fucks with form." - SNAFU - 05
---
Is the very practice of architecture actually making the world of architecture anything but? On SNAFU's commentary on convention, 06 + 07, it states that the very standards and practices we are employing to create are almost defining the work for us and our concepts of creativity are being driven by social norms and codes, and standards. Is this bad, noticeable, or just an exaggeration?
---
On SNAFU's explanation of bomb shelters (07), the over abundance and proliferation of the idea of bomb shelters made them normal to domestic life, thereby making nuclear threats domesticated as well. Are we taking absurd ideas such as this and almost domesticating them through architecture and over exposure? Ex: radical architecture of Zaha Hadid, structural expression, poor housing construction? How detrimental is this to real life, or not at all?
---
"A critical architecture challenges the familiar." - SNAFU - 07 How come not very many projects are doing this anymore? The radicality of Sagrada Familia appears to have worn off, but 100 years ago, it was completely outrageous. Are projects pushing the notions of familiarity and what is acceptable, or are projects nowadays becoming standardized strip malls along yet another stretch of highway?
