playtime

hi!

for those of us in 435 this morning... what a great lecture! for those of you not enrolled or missed, here is what Garth lectured on this morning (and 1 minute into the afternoon).

the major topic of the lecture was deconstructivism. he didn't approach the lecture as many other guest have by reciting architects, their buildings and the relevance (although that did come a bit at the end) but instead explored the theories and ideologies behind de-construction itself.
(items in quotations are from Garth's lecture/slides)

'how can intellectual or physical processes that take things apart, liberate (or improve) putting them together?'

'is discarding tradition and standards of excellence (i.e. repression) necessary to find freedom and innovation?... or are boundaries necessary to navigate, discover and verify where, what and how these freedoms provide value?

do guidelines and parameters provide guidance and serve as the gutter-guards to our architectural explorations? or do they limit the dimensions of our educational foundation? by encouraging certain ways of thinking or doing, are other ways, by default, discouraged?

additionally, do rules and standards prevent anywhere from being populated by any building designed by anyone? would a strict set of guidelines guarantee success in design?

he ended the lecture by interrogating our traditional idea of 'play'. i've thought about the value of play in regards to primary education, but never had applied the concept to our architectural education.

'the art, humor, adventure and comedic dimensions of deconstructivist work is inherently critical, proactive and trans formative... without knowing for what purpose or end'

would our studio projects and exercises be more beneficial if we weren't aware of the NAAB standards that we were fulfilling? what is the point of fully exploring a thought if the primary purpose of the exercise is to have stellar line weights? a foundation of basic skills is beneficial, however could the student or professional with the worst line weights benefit from misinterpreting their drawings and finding new layers of understanding?

'does canonizing (industrializing) deconstruction, ironically discard or diminish the promise of play'

by giving 'play', architectural or otherwise, a name, does it pervert the initial purpose of the act? freedom of outcome is one of the beauties of play.

i know that my thoughts have been mostly in question form, but i am hoping to not only extract and dicuss thoughts from you guys, but also from myself.