As we concluded the class earlier this week we were asked to evaluate the class, and what we had learned. We were asked to draw comparisons between the various exercises we were given such as the counterpoint and point exercise. It was quickly summed up that those two in particular were used as methods of getting us to evaluate the material we had been presented, and to express our own understanding, and take on it. I appreciate this opportunity. It allows us to engage with the topic, and to grow as designers as well as humans in general, causing us to open our minds, explore the possibilities, and make our own mark on society, while carrying this knowledge of past precedents with us.
I think it's an interesting notion that with as far as we have come with architecture in our current age of modernism we still at this stage continue to produce cookie-cutter style homes for the masses. It is saddening to me to think that with the design minds we've had and still have that this is the case. I hope that the designers that come out of the program at UNCG will take strides to change this; to leave their mark. I know that the instructors lead us with the hopes that, that will happen, with a “no nostalgia” frame of mind and design.
I do however appreciate the structures as we advance; the ingenuity, playfulness, and creative bent. I suppose if it were on every street corner, however, we might lose appreciation for it.
The image I chose with the shapes and colors to me relates to the different styles that we now see next to each other. They do not relate to the one next to them, instead they stand out. This reminds me of the lecture when Patrick was talking about how we see modern structures placed in between structures of the past and they have no congruency, no consideration of the structure next to it, instead it looks as though it has just been stuck there.
The image also delighted my heart simply because it was produced at the Glasgow School of Art and is a reinterpretation of color theory of Wassily Kandinsky. Seeing as we learned about both the school, and also Kandinsky as a designer and artist, I found it fitting.
In turning back to the notes from the beginning of the semester I want to bring things back Vitruvius’ idea of commodity, firmness, and delight. “In architecture, as in all operative arts, the ends must direct the operation. The end is to build well. Well building hath three conditions: commodity, firmness, and delight.”- Sit Henry Wotton Let me remind the reader that commodity is the function fitting the purpose, firmness is stability, and delight is the experience/culture/location of the structure or design. It is important that we remember these values, and carry them into our designs as we move forward. We cannot forget the past as we proceed into the future. The foundations that we began with still influence our culture and society today. The ground rules were set for a reason. Certainly to be modified, and one’s own interruption to taken from it, but at its core these rules must remain.
I’m reminded of something Patrick said in class "Looking at the world requires you to be in it." He is absolutely correct. We as designers, and humans (the ones inhabiting the spaces being designed) must be present in our world in order to impact and alter it. Without seeing what is in front of us, and understanding the cultural context we cannot fully embrace our world, and ourselves as a society.