Theoretical Framework _ Primitive Future by Sou Fujimoto

In his text “Primitive Future”, Fujimoto questions the notion of locale and unintentional spaces. He relates architecture to the idea of a cave that allows people to spontaneously adapt to its various contours and hollows. As to re-introduce this theoretical format into physical terms, a spacial intervention is proposed in a way to suggest improvised means for inhabiting public spaces.  Mis-using urban objects creates a sense of disturbed relation with the context, questioning our conformity to conventional habits.

VIDEO

Image of Radiolaria from Christan Toche, Radiolaria Project, eCAADe 07 Conference Proceedings, Frankfurt, Germany

Text _ Parametricism – A New Global Style for Architecture and Urban Design, Patrik Schumacher

How brave one can be to proclaim a new dominant and single style in architecture nowadays? Even though Patrik Schumacher defines the style as design research program, going far away from what we usually consider under this term, it can be argued that this declaration is too strong.

The author is writing the text from the position of certainty, which does not leave much room for  questions. But still, his writing has launched plenty of doubts in reader’s mind. One of the first doubts is whether it is convincing enough to verify this proclamation with a need to organize complex post-fordist society. If the main characteristics of this society are diversity of life-styles and desire for customization, does this immediately call upon various research programs rather than believing one can respond to everything. The author claims that Parametricism does not only consist of a new set of techniques, but is complimented by widely shared design problems and similar ways of approaching them. Without these new techniques and tools Parametricism wouldn’t be able to fulfill all 5 agendas specified in the text hence they have enormous significance for the development of the aforementioned design approach. On the other hand,  style defined through these agendas and in correlation with Frei Otto’s work on natural structures assists in deciphering the logic behind the appearance and computational skills. At the same time, their purpose could be understood as emphasizing advantages of new techniques, and not as an argument for the annunciation of the style. Additionally, could these explanations be (mis)understood as an attempt to justify parametric design.

I am not convinced that architecture that belongs to some other “style” couldn’t be able to answer all demands of customization. I believe that Parametricism has its own aesthetic recognizability, despite all ideas and logics that stand behind this recognizability. Upon this, I wonder does parametric design appears as customization at all.

This idea of emerging need for customized design relates to the topic I am personally interested in. Further research could go back to the moment in history where everything was handmade, and as such, customized, and make a comparison with the moment of thrill when mass production was achieved. In reference to this idea, the recognition arises that now we are in a very different historical moment. We presently desire to combine both, and to have customized production, which would lead to greater understanding of the process of making and simultaneously help us, as individuals, achieve greater control of it.

Image _ http://urban.arch.virginia.edu/arch544/startpage.html

Sou Fujimoto _ Primitive Future

Text _ Primitive Future, Sou Fujimoto

Case study _ Wall House, FAR

It can be argued that first architecture was a shelter from natural environment. On the contrary, recent architecture tends to investigate in more depth how to be one step closer to the nature. Nevertheless, we don’t want to expose ourselves to it completely, but rather find a way to control it, or find a right measurement of how much of it we want to let in our closed and secure shelter.

In the process of addressing this topic, the most relevant factor seems to be the envelope around inner space, the place where inside and outside are closer than anywhere else, but they never seem to meet. Simply a barrier, clear in protective role and appearance.

The Wall House, designed by the FAR architects (Frohn and Rojas), directly explores possibilities of an envelope, simply referring to it as a wall. By dividing the wall into different layers, they are trying to create space that gradually opens to the nature and merges with it. Although, it can not be doubted that spaces created inside provide different atmospheres and levels of protection, it is still a barrier. When inside the house, one can feel and touch divisions between these spaces. The last layer towards nature is thin and transparent, but still a closed surface. This wall is successful in the environmental terms, manifesting very strong relationships with natural factors, and it does make outside part of the inside. On the other hand, the envelope itself remains strongly defined as in the case of a shelter, however without providing spaces that are really somewhere in-between, spaces that are hard to argue whether they  belong to the inside or outside.

These spaces in-between are further examined in Sou Fujimoto’s text Primitive Future. Fujimoto argues that the envelope represents a border between the inner and outer space.  According to the author this border should be blurred towards nature, as a place where outside and inside merge, where there is no clear barrier between the house and the city. Aside from the theoretical concepts proposes in the text, this type of architecture is further realized through his projects, the N house  in particular. In this house spaces are merging, and it is not possible to say in which space you are currently in, or when one starts and other begins. The absence of strongly defined barrier, allows for the matter of moment and the environmental factors to create and shape the space and define its borders. It is in-between. There are no clear divisions, solely gradation. By merging different environments, Sou Fujimoto expresses a lot of different relationships in the space, and they can be sensed with all of our senses. Apart from the environmental and positional factors, individual experience should also be taken into account as something that makes gradations and defines envelope around space. The existence of many intangible relations in this border between inner and outer space, induce the disappearance of the border. The more senses an architecture wakes in us, the more advanced it is.

Moreover, Sou Fujimoto also refers to the cave, and further investigates its importance for the development of his ideas in architecture. This relates to the topic that I am particularly interested in, and would like to pursue further research on. He describes cave as space that exists regardless of human activity, but at the same time, by inhabiting it, humans shape it in a manner that they find appropriate configurations for the execution of certain activities. Expanding on Fujimoto’s initial idea of making accidental spaces, I am wondering whether the design based solely on the logic of functionality is even able to control the way people inhabit spaces. As much as we, architects, think we have control over activities by creating limits to certain spaces, we are not able to control individuals who are driven by their own experience and emotions. People tend to choose their spot in every space they enter at the same manner as they chose it in the cave. Are we then ultimately designing the cave every time without knowing it? If that is the case, we should perhaps think in terms of designing the cave, and consequentially shift the focus from the question of functionality towards thinking in terms of primal instincts and intuition. Maybe only then we would be able not to design a cave.