Movement is often attributed to being perceived uniquely by both observer and the designer. How does architecture imply movement differently/similarly to these two groups? (ie spaces, structure, dynamics, etc)
Movement can require two or more objects to interact with each other; spatially and physically. How does architecture interact with people? How does it interact with other architecture? With the surroundings?
Sometimes what is necessary to create movement is a framework and an object. (ie a dancer on stage. The stage is the frame and the dancer is the object) What situations place architecture as the framework? What situations place architecture as the object? Can it simultaneously be both?
The use of hand-cranked cameras allowed us to play short and long spans of time back at more human-appropriate speeds to view movement in new ways. (ie. a time lapse of a flower making it grow quickly, or the dropping and shattering of a glass spanning minutes) How could altering the speed which we perceive architecture allow us to see its movement differently?
Succession v. Order "Everything that came before is constantly modified by what comes later." How important is the succession of experiencing architecture? Does the order which we experience architecture always matter?
(Regarding paintings) "The observer scans the various areas of the picture in succession because neither the eye not the mind is capable of taking in everything simultaneously, but the order in which the exploration occurs does not matter" In this case, the observer must explore the entire picture before being able to fully comprehend its value. Must the observer fully explore architecture to understand it as well?
Often the object of movement has predetermined attributes. Large objects move slowly, Small move quickly. Fast objects are strong/fierce, Slow objects are weak/shy. Does architecture have similar attributes?
No comments:
Post a Comment