This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

MAAS thesis

IG_big_white3by4_small

This page is referenced by:

What is Architecture?
The building on the left is the seminal modernism architecture, Villa Savoye by Le Corbusier. On the right is an ordinary French mansion. What makes Villa Savoye a seminal work and not the mansion?

You may believe in an esoteric nature of the “form creation.” If so, then both of the below buildings should be considered as equally valuable. However, the one on the right -Abbots Way House by e-architects- rarely gets an attention. The truth is, this particular style is old; even Villa Savoye looks old today. It is valuable only because it represents an ideology or ways of seeing which lasted for a while in the contemporary history.
Wes Jones explains that “architecture distinguishes itself from building by the degree and character of the thought given to it during design,” but who is to say which degree and character of the thought should be more appreciated? Le Corbusier might have spent days thinking about the ideal machine for living, but equal amount of thought -perhaps related more directly to the occupants’ daily lives- might have been placed in the design of the French mansion. Allegedly, the important question is not the quantity of time spent on the thought. The “degree and character of the thought” is something more profound; or is it? There seems to be no reason why machine for living should be respected more than the immediate needs of daily lives.

As Peter Wyeth argues in The Matter of Vision that our sensitivities to how things appear is mostly, if not all, influenced by how we want to produce our self-images. For this reason, architecture always have to stay away from the banality of “daily-lives.” In order for the discipline to substantiate its worth, architecture is destined to continuously invent something different and new. Architecture, therefore, is a REFLECTION of how we want to be seen, today. It does not project the future (it may project the ideas of the future), nor does it recreate the past. It does not somehow lead humanity to the right direction either. It is nothing more than what people want to add in their bags of self-images.

back to: | GAME Top |
Mechanism

For a while architects have been haunted by the prescriptive idea of form (ever) follows function*. It advocates functionality above all design considerations and helps to set a precedents to how anyone might approach design, yet the term functionality could be understood in many ways; it could sometimes mean how the buildings stand (engineering), but other times, it means usabilities or economic feasibilities. Even the Deconstructivism -which was supposed to be the antithesis of conventional functionalism- is haunted by form follows function as it deconstructs by layers of functions: i.e. skin vs. content.

*It is the prevailing law of all thing organic and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of all things human and of all things super-human, of all true manifestation of the head, of the heart, of the soul, that the light is recognizable in its expression that form ever follows function.
-Louis Sullivan | 1896 |

It could probably be interpreted that the contemporary history of architecture has been about fighting to break away from this idea. However, as long as architecture is meant to do something for humans, it does not escape form follows function because the forms it produces "functions” in one way or another.

Ironically, in order for the discipline of architecture to protect its self-esteem, architects must be irresponsible to immediate human needs and create new interpretations or replacement of form follows function because many functions have already been addressed. Today, structural integrity could be easily achieved, and the economical advantages are realized through standardized construction methods. Even the social functions are being replaced by the ubiquitous mobile devices. Perhaps, our proneness to rely on data is rooted in this ironic battle, but as we know, data does not produce anything neutral. There is always a will or an intent when using and selecting the data, creating the gap between the intent and the seemingly natural (that it was generated from some natural necessities) shape or form. Architecture always situate itself in the dichotomy between the image of how we want it to be seen and what it actually does or means for the users. The game simulates this dichotomy of architecturally manifested image “I” and the conventional utility “U.”

For example:

back to: | GAME Top |
Seeing

What is seeing?
We often find ourselves being unable to answer this question because of the very fact that we can see.

Colin Ware in Information Visualization says that seeing is a means of pattern recognition. We extract outlines (distinction lines) and apply our knowledge. But, how do we make such distinctions, and how do we know what lines to draw on which objects?

Peter Wyeth in The Matter of Vision explains that our vision -through our nonconscious (“automatic” in his book)- is capable of processing 10 million bits per second (bps) of data, as opposed to maximum of 45 bps of semiotic data by the conscious, and that the nonconscious makes the distinctions based on the likelihood of survival. We “nonconsciously” choose to see what would help us to survive. Of course, we rarely encounter a life-or-death situation, but on the flip side, we often find ourselves needing to create self-images to prove our worth in our society. What makes a person choose Apple over Dell computer is often the “aesthetic preference,” programmed in our nonconscious for the purpose of self-esteem. This is the mechanism of how we decide what shapes/forms in architecture are more valuable than others. >>

back to: | GAME Top |
Credits
Created by
Gentaro Makinoda | USC School of Architecture M.AAS Thesis 2015

Video references
14 rooms: Interview with Jacques Herzog (Herzog & de Meuron). (2014).[Video/DVD] FondationBeyeler:
AD interviews: Norman foster. (2013).[Video/DVD] ArchDaily. AD interviews:
Peter Eisenman. (2011).[Video/DVD] ArchDaily. AD interviews:
Renzo Piano - part I. (2013).[Video/DVD] ArchDaily. AD interviews:
Richard Meier. (2013).[Video/DVD] ArchDaily. AD interviews:
Steven Holl. (2013).[Video/DVD] ArchDaily.
Exclusive interview with Rem Koolhaas, dutch architect. . (2014).[Video/DVD] CCTV.
EXPERIMENTS IN MOTION | Mark Wigley. (2012).[Video/DVD] Ramón J. GOÑI SANTALLA.
Frank Gehry on cones, domes and messiness | the new york times. (2014).[Video/DVD] The New York Times.
Shigeru Ban archiculture extras interview. (2014).[Video/DVD] Arbuckle Industries. Spain:
Star architect Jean Nouvel. (2010).[Video/DVD] CBS News.
Thom Mayne archiculture extras interview. . (2015).[Video/DVD] Arbuckle Industries.
Zaha Hadid talking about challenges of architecture. (2010).[Video/DVD] JOMagazine2003.

Images (In no particular order)
"girl-looking-in-mirror," Source: https://reverandandys.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/girl-looking-in-mirror.jpeg;
"Guggenheim Museum Bilbao," by Frank Gehry, Copyright-JoseIgnacioSoto (ID:16672265), iStock;
"Parthenon," a perspective drawing, author unidentified;
"Johann Sebastian Bach," AP;
"Neoclassical facade of the Evmentev House," saint-petersburg.com;
"80's fashion," photographer unidentified;
"Monumento ai Caduti," Antonio Sant'Elia;
A hair-style photo, Model Jean Shrimpton, GP;
"Stockholm Public Library" by Gunnar Asplund. Image Sam Teigen;
"Princess Leia from Star Wars series" by Carrie Fisher. Photographer unidentified;
"TWA terminal" by Eero Saarinen. photo by Ezra Stoller;
"No Shave November is Back!" Jason Savage. Inquisitr. Photographer unidentified;
"Villa Savoye" by Le Corbusier. Photo by Omar through Creative Commons;
"Asymmetric Geometric" cut," a haircut by Vidal Sassoon. Model Peggy Moffitt. Photo by Barry Lategan;
"Zuev Workers' Club" by Ilya Golosov. Photographer unidentified;
A hair accessory, Image Getty;
"Chrysler Building" Photograph by User:Leena Hietanen;
"Hane Kamikazari" Kasyosyo Dress Shop;
"City Hall, Hamilton, Ontario" by Stanley Roscoe;
"How to Choose Flattering Spectacles" Photograph by Craig Landale;
"City in the Air" by Arata Isozaki;
"Types of African American Braided Hairstyles" by Excellence Hairstyles tirazarte.com;
"Hubert H. Humphrey Building" A photo of a man with scars by Bruce Giffin;
"M2" by Kengo Kuma;
"Shoes with Hair" All rights reserved by juje80bis through Flickr;
"C1 House" by Gwenael Nicolas - Curiosity + Tomoyuki Utsumi - Milligram Studio. Photographs by Curiosity;
"Rue du Mail fall/winter 2012 runway" Photo by Imaxtree/Rue du Mail;
"Disney Concert Hall" by Frank Gehry;
"Mohawk Girl" (Digital painting) by SugarHigh Tyrant;
A computational design rendering. Image Daniel Gillen;
A cover photo of "Capelli" magazine, Vol.7, 2009;
"Neo eclectic home" in Salinas, California;
"Clipper Cut" Supercuts webstie;
"Suburban tract house” Wikimedia Commons;
“Sweet Hello Kitty House” http://hellohellokitty2012.blogspot.com/2012/08/sweet-hello-kitty-house.html;
“CCTV headquarters” OMA;
“Randy’s Donuts”;
“Vanna Venturi House” Robert Venturi, Photo by Matt Wargo;
“Solar-Powered House” University of Illinois;
"Abbots Way House" by e-architects. photo by Martin Gardner;
"VitraHaus" by Herzog & de Meuron. photo by Iwan Baan;
"LUXURY HOME MANSION" http://www.kotanyisofrasi.com/ ;
"CHÂTEAU SAINT-AIGNAN" www.purefrance.com/ ;
"Imaichibunka Hall" Kamiya Associate;
"Photographic portrait of architect Louis Sullivan" Circa 1895;
"Tokyu 8000 Series" (Photo by Zettai Norimono Chushin Shugi);
"CCTV Headquarters" (Photo by Flickr user An Pu Ruo);
"Los Angeles through a windshield" (photo by Gentaro);

Special Thanks
Kanako Makinoda
Hanbay Makinoda
Nene Makinoda
Kyu Makinoda
Setsuko Makinoda
Shujiro Makinoda
Yukihiro Sumikawa
Toshiko Sumikawa
Wakako Sumikawa
Chie Sumikawa
Eduardo Soares
Felipe Guimarães
Hanze YU
Jiadong Chen
Jiaqi Che
Joshua Dawson
Kaining Li
Kevin Zhong
Ronaldo Belló
Siyu Cui
Suyang Ling
Wesha Kundu
Yiting Ma
Yuan Zhuang
Jose Sanchez
Wes Jones

back to: | GAME Top |
I know nothing about architecture

I know practically nothing about architecture. I live in a suburb—everywhere in Los Angeles, excluding maybe few suburban centers, is a suburb—and drive my ‘89 BMW 325i on 12-lane Freeways to commute. There is not a day that goes by without seeing a “boring” house built with the two-by-four studs method, but I rarely see a house worthy of color spreads in architecture magazines. I have been to France, more than once, but each time, I gave into the temptation and spent all of the leisure time smacking my lips on the French gourmet, missing the chance to see Villa Savoye. I did see the Pompidou Center, although I must admit; I did not go inside.

In 2006, I lived in the new business center of Beijing, only 5 minutes (on foot!) from the famous “pants” building designed by Rem Koolhaas. Everyday, I would look up, from the back seat of a shabby Beijing taxi (taxi fare in Beijing was very reasonable so I took one every morning to work, only about 2 miles down ChangAn Avenue), and watched it go up slowly, until I realized that this was no ordinary skyscraper. In truth, I had no idea that it was designed by Rem until later (I was working at an advertising firm back then and it didn’t seem too important to find out who the architect was). Nonetheless, I enjoyed watching it from almost directly under the enormous cantilever, which always gave me an impression that it could topple over me at any moment. The image of the “pants” building is still fresh in my memory as if my last commute on ChanAn Avenue was only yesterday. After leaving Beijing, I have done almost nothing to feed my architectural wisdom, other than the wishy-washy chit-chat, the pecha-kucha, or the bara-bara (deconstruction) exercises in the architecture school.

But I know a little about train design. I was,and still am, a trainspotter. When I was younger (much younger; too young to know the meaning of the word “architecture,” which admittedly I still don’t know), my parents took me to a nearby viewing spot for a local train in Tokyo. Everyday, I would cling to the fence along the train track, and watch the trains go by. Luckily for my parents, trains came every three or four minutes, so the little-me would contentedly urge them to take him home after spending just half an hour or so on the precast fence. I watched one particular train go by so many times that I could catch the slightest design changes adopted in the new models. Of course this was a thing of the past, but it occurred to me that maybe this relentless love for the trains was what shaped my aesthetic preferences, or “taste.” I like things that are linear and directional. I like them even more if they are composed of repeated units. I do not like random curves “akin to nature,” but I relish the fillet corners. Basically, I am prone to favor the “mechanical” look. What I saw through the fence during my childhood seemed to have programmed something fundamental into my (in Katherine Hayles’ term) nonconscious.

What then is “seeing?” I often find myself being unable to answer this question because of the very fact that “I can see.” Colin Ware in Information Visualization says that seeing is a means of pattern recognition. We extract outlines (distinction lines) and apply our knowledge. But, how do we make such distinctions, and how do we know what lines to draw on which objects? Peter Wyeth in The Matter of Vision explains that our nonconscious (“automatic” in his book) makes distinctions based on the likelihood of survival. We “nonconsciously” choose to see what would help us to survive. Of course, we rarely encounter a life-or-death situation, but on the flip side, we often find ourselves needing to create self-images to prove our worth in our society. What makes a person choose Apple over Dell computer is often the “aesthetic preference,” programmed in our nonconscious for the purpose of self-esteem. For me, it would most likely comes down to the train, and maybe the CCTV tower (the “pants”).

So, then, what is the real significance of architecture? Everyone has his, or her way of seeing the world. No two persons will view my design and “see” exactly the same thing. All architectural projects—the thought, the lines, the words, and the colors—are sincere, but there is nothing (I’m sorry) intrinsically valuable about the forms or the shapes. In thinking about this, I turned to Kant’s “Thing in themselves” and Graham Harman’s Object Oriented Ontology in a desperate attempt to find the values in the forms themselves, but this route came to a dead-end. The dilemma is that the more you believe in them, the more the object (architecture) slips away. To this end, I must conclude that I still don’t know anything about architecture. But there is an architecture I know. This one exists in the wishy-washy chit-chat, the pecha-kucha, or the bara-bara exercises. It is purely a human enterprise.

My wife should not be the only person who believes in the esoteric nature of the discipline; that architects are oblivious to banality, but this belief is based on the shallowest of understandings. The truth is that we know it all too well. We are very aware of the precarious nature of the discipline. All of the ‘isms, the fashionable codes we have created, were designed with precisely our proneness to banality in mind. They were meant to block the discipline from falling into decadence. Otherwise, we would forever give into the temptations of French gourmet, and continue building the stud-wall houses as guided by the “force of the economy.” Arguably, the “parametric” method made its way onto the list of banality because it gave into the popularity of seemingly neutral “data.” Architects cannot escape this Karma. We are destined to continuously invent something different so we won’t fall into the banality. This is the game of architecture, an image creation game.

I have heard of an iOS game where the objective is to assume the role of a dull middle-aged man and transform him into a smartphone expert. We are sometimes oblivious to this fact but smartphones are turning into a platform to learn about the smartphones. I play video games about sports games, so do 100 Million other eSports fans. Will there be a video game about playing video games? I certainly think so, just as the series of video games I have developed is simulating the game of architecture. Such simulations, I would like to believe, should not be considered as an act of imitation, but rather one of discovery.

back to: | GAME Top |