31 October 2016

Notations + Diagrams: Mapping the Intangible (Stan Allen)

1. Allen writes, “a drawing that tries to simulate those effects [light and shadow, reflections, atmosphere, movement, etc.] will always fall short, freezing diminishing and trivializing the experiential complexity of the realized building” (p.45). He goes on to say that the notation, “which makes no attempt to approach reality through resemblance, is better able to anticipate the experience of the real” (p.45). 

Are there any examples where drawings are successful in simulating those effects? Regardless, is it even the drawing’s job/responsibility to simulate those effects? Why do you think Allen claims notations are better suited for conveying those effects?

2. Allen cites Goodman’s discussion of notations which he distinguishes between two types of art forms: the autographic and the allographic (p.45). He says painting and sculpture are autographic art forms, while music and dance are allographic art forms.

In your own words, what are the key qualities/aspects of each type of art form?

3. He later writes, that architecture is a mixture of both types, and is neither clearly allographic nor autographic (pg. 46).

Can you think of any examples of architecture/architectural representation that is more allographic than autographic or vice versa? Are there pros and cons of leaning more towards one type? If so, why or why not?

4. He compares and contrasts Diagrams and Notations. He says “reading a diagram is more or less instantaneous; there is an immediate apprehension of the relationships between the parts, while the process of reading a notational schema is more extend, unfolding in time, like reading a text or musical score” (pg. 50).

What are some instances where someone may use the diagram over the notation or the notation over the diagram? Does it make a difference? If so, how? If not, how not?

5. Allen also discusses Diagrammatic Architecture which he defines as, “part of a new sensibility characterized by a lack of interest in critique or the production of meaning, preferring instead immediacy, simple forms, direct accommodation of program, and the pleasures of the literal” (pg. 53).

What are the advantages and disadvantages of Diagrammatic Architecture? Will adopting Diagrammatic Architecture be inevitable in the future, given we live in a world that’s increasingly becoming more diagrammatic?

1 comment:

Laura Valdivia said...

1. Goodman states that Architecture is both autographic and allographic notation by stating it’s a “curious Mixture”. Pg 46
Do you think architecture leans more to allographic or autographic notation? Is there a way that architecture can be either or and not both depending on the type of architecture such as installations or buildings?

2. Diagram and notation are used interchangeably. Based on James Clark’s definition of diagram in relation to notation. “ a figure is drawn in such a manner that the geometrical relations between the parts of the figure illustrate relations between other objects” all notations are Diagrammatic, but not all diagrams are notational. In what ways are notations diagrams??

It states on pg 50 that notations strictly speak digital while the diagram retains some analog properties which Good man thinks is a determining characteristic of notation: Each score designates a unique work, allowing little space or interpretation.
Can you think of anyways notation can be analog?

4. It states that reading a diagram is more or less instantaneous; there is an immediate apprehension of the relations between the parts, while the process of reading a notational schema is more extended and unfolding in time. Do you think this is why Diagrammatic Architecture came about? Do you think it’s a more direct way to translate the meaning vs having the notational abstraction? Do you think this may be a way of having diagrams become notational?

5 If a diagram architecture is not an architecture produced through diagrams(pg54) how does it “behave” like a diagram?