Jungmook Oh
Architecture. Science. Technology and the Virtual Realm
1. Another way to understand the dynamic nature of structure
is to pay attention to the fact that we actually never “see” a structure, in
the ordinary sense. We only perceive its result, an assemblage of parts and
materials. Structure is what makes this assemblage possible. Structure is a
potency.
- Do you agree that we “never” see a structure? If so, how?
2. The virtual dimension at work in both architecture and
science might very well account for the constant circulation of images and
metaphors between the two fields. Throughout its history, science has
repeatedly made use of architectural notions. In their quest for the
regularities of the universe, sixteenth and seventeenth-century scientists, for
instance, often referred to the architectural principles of order and
proportion.
- According to the book, it constantly put emphasis on the
relationship between science and architecture. Can you come up any examples
that science had made use of architectural notions?
3. To the various critics who tend to play down the impact
of the computer on architecture, there is this response: the computer is only
the tip of the iceberg. It is not that the computer in itself has changed
architecture; it is that, because both nature and society have changed,
architecture is confronted with new challenges. Its intensive use of scientific
metaphors appears as a consequence of such a situation
-Do you agree with the author’s statement that the computer
is only the tip of the iceberg? If not, why?
Terminal Velocities the computer in the design studio
1.
What are the advantages of CAD program described
in the reading? Besides of these two, what else techniques are we using for
“visualization”?
2.
According to the reading, a moire is given as an
example of figure and field. How can we define the moire and what are the
features of moire? Can we find any real-world architectural examples that has
moire?
3.
What does the author wants to suggest by
introducing an oxymoron, “digital materiality”?
No comments:
Post a Comment