Reading 1

Murray Fraser, “A Two-Fold Movement.”

1 “…. The world of the lake and the river, a typology without history”. Aldo Rossi indicated that he discovered his architecture by investigating the city with all its designed characteristics. In the project of the cabins of fishermen, isn`t this a study of past events occur in the geography and the topography of the design location which is part of the design research?

2- The work of the Shigeru Ban in the temporary cardboard cathedral considered as design research with “R” or “r” where he designed a solution of material and structure by searching and experiments in comparison with “Radical Reconstruction”?

3- What were the design influences of the Koolhaas work of the Netherland Dance Centre, Can we consider the reflections of his publication of the Delirious New York?

Reading 2

Jane Rendell, “A Way With Words.”

1- Is the concept and the strategy of the critical spatial practice applied in the education system “design research studio” the same as the practice especially the self-reflection?

2-Is the role of the audience included in the system of multidisciplinary of the research design of the social aspect? What is the educational system of the urban planning in comparison with art and architecture, can we considered as one of the disciplinaries or not?

3- Compare the activity of writing and the description of the spatial qualities of the art and architecture with the Picasso`s expressive concept of the artwork?

A two-Fold Movement: Design research as dialectical critical practice

1. Is critical practice a direct consequence of limits of architecture to instrumentally deliver a specific social or political transformation?

2. Retroactive manifesto places people and their messy urban lives at the heart of architectural discourse, but who is the audience of “Spaces of Possibility in Palestine”? It seems that this work’s subject has the potential to discuss the issue with public, however, its medium avoids the project to go beyond architectural discourse.

3. Is subjectivity of work of Koolhaas similar/close to superiority of a fully three dimensional town-design in Eliel Saarinen’s book?

A way with words: Feminists writings architectural design research

1. Making problematic artefacts versus application driven design, can help to understand the problems of architectural design, and to understand what architecture can do for problems outside its realm at the time. The second one investigates what architecture might be, but where are the limits of this extension?

2. Site-writing is an evident of structural similarities between architecture as a medium and textual media. How today’s forms of design research can use literature to find new structures for architecture beyond the poetic use of literature?

3. The discipline of performance studies has been well connected to feminists writings in architecture because of the conceptual depth to the thinking through performativity. What is specific about feminist notions which pushes its writing more than other fields of architecture in using performativity?

‘A Two-Fold Movement’: Design Research as Dialectical Critique Practice, Murray Fraser

Fraser says, “design research is to act as a mechanism for a wider critique of architecture itself,” (220). Critique of what? How can a thesis do this?

“Counter-space is carving out new cultural and urban realities against the forces of power,” (Fraser, 225). What power? Is this truly important to the majority of architects? Is this present in every-day designs or are these just contemplations for academia?

“The narrow mindset of existing social hierarchies needed to be replaced […] by more inclusive hierarchies, and need a full-frontal critique of official architecture and the power relations it aims to produce and reproduce,” (Fraser, 231). What is an “inclusive social hierarchy” in architecture? How is it represented? What works show this?

A Way with Words: Feminists Writing Architectural Design Research, Jane Rendell

“It [architecture] engenders multiple modes of operation, which explore the boundaries of disciplinary knowledge in order to reveal and expose the workings of power,” (Rendell, 119). Does the workings of power need to be exposed, or is it already apparent? Why is it important to reveal/expose power? Why is this important to architecture?

“[…] the architecture design process is not solely an activity that leads to the making of a product, but is rather the location of the work itself,” (Rendell, 123). How do you design an architecture product without a specific location for it? Is it then meant to be built? If so, where is it’s “place”?

“Across the area of experimental and critical writing, new possibilities are being invented, often performative, which question the distanced objectivity of academic writing styles, this includes artists producing text-based works,” (Rendell, 130). Conceptual artists, such as Joseph Kosuth (below) have done this. How have architects done this, and why?

Joseph Kosuth, C.S. (Neon) #6, 1989. neon, transformers. 8 1/2 x 104 inches (21.6 x 264.2 cm).

Reading 1

Fraser, “A Two Fold Movement”

Question 1:

“Design research in architecture thus needs to see itself as being entirely framed by socio-economic and cultural factors, with, as noted, these largely located within urban practices and processes.” Is Fraser stating that all design research needs to do this? Or is he saying this in response to what the Architectural ideology is in the previous paragraph?

Question 2:

Is the example of Rem Koolhas looking at history in reverse an new way of looking at how research is done? When looking at design research, don’t we generally find precedents that relate to what we are trying to do and then research the history of the particular type of design we wish to research?

Question 3:

The idea of “research toward design” is an interesting way at looking how one might conduct research. But is it practical? Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to design while researching? This method would allow one to gather information and put it to use simultaneously rather then collect all of their information and then react to it afterwards.

Reading 2

Rendell, “A Way With Words”

Question 1:

Does design provide the best avenue to work in an interdisciplinary way? It is true that many other professions, especially the sciences, only focus on their own sector of research. Does design include so many fields that it is inevitable that almost all design research will require one to work on a diagonal axis? From the aspect of gaining new knowledge, interdisciplinary research makes sense, but does it then make you a “jack of all trades” and a “master of none”?

Question 2:

Is feminist architecture a new form of practice? Does it help further architectural design, or is it being used as a statement against the norms of it?

Question 3:

The design by writing approach is an interesting idea when thinking about conceptualizations of positionality, subjectivity and textuality, but is it enough to just write about design? Should there be a physical act of making besides writing pen on paper?

“A Way with Words” by Jane Rendell

1. The comment that design research puts “work first, and then later considers the larger field”; to me is only partially true. Do designers not have an overarching problem that drives the research, are they simply making in a vacuum?
2. I find Diller’s “Choreographed Shirt Folding Project” very fascinating, primarily through the lens of locationally informed skill sets or habits. Does the viewing of the product made through this manipulated skill, generate a new viewing of the space in which it was presumably performed?
3. “Black Tent consisted of a flexible structure, a number of steel framed panels with black fabric screens stretched……..” Even though Rendell argues for a more creative and thoughtful use of writing within Architecture she still describes her first work that would fa along these lines in a very typical way. Must all Architectural writing at some point be so purely spacial?

“A Two-Fold Movement” by Murray Fraser

1. The practicality and social benefit associated with critical practice makes it a very honorable and appealing way to conduct one’s practice. Would  contributing solely to these critical issues however alter the nature and skillsets of the Architectural Designer?
2. Lebbeus Woods writes, “To the knowing , this is supposed to be read as ‘irony’ or ‘critique’. To the regular people it is just business as usual in an authoritarian state.” I often find that Design carries with it an attitude of superiority, that in many ways causes an inappropriate value system. How can this be combatted in such a visually motivated field?
3. Is the shortcoming of Architectural Theory, in regards to its relevance and success over time not a result of misinformed design decisions but more so a factor of Architectures physical and permanent nature? Society and technology are changing at very rapid rates, whereas a built work is a permanent fixture that despite intense research for the time is undoubtedly going to become obsolete.

Murray Fraser, “A ‘Two-Fold Movement’: Design Research as Dialectical Critical Practice”

1. Sharif states that even though she knows her design proposals regarding Palestine/Israel doesn’t solve anything between them, it can be a “creative tool of resistance when backed up with a clear strategy”. Is it possible that architecture can be more than that, that one day it could help solve conflicts as big as this one?
2. “Architecture is, first and foremost, a process of creating knowledge. Because of this, the making of architecture is a major coalescing activity in society, bring together many flows into a single complex stream.” Is this the goal of what Lebbeus Woods hopes architecture could do, bring peace and fix damaging cities?
3. The definition of two-fold movement Saarinen describes is having town-design from the future toward the present and town-design from the present toward the future. Is this a concept that would still work today as Saarinen’s book was written 70 years ago? Have we gotten to a place in regards to technology and methods that we would want to work backwards?

Jane Rendell- “A Way with Words: Feminist Writings Architectural Design Research”

1. The concept of a diagonal axis is mentioned when talking about interdisciplinary and calling the construction of one a difficult business. However, what is a “diagonal axis”? Is it interacting with colleagues and sharing information or is it something else?
2. The article states that muf has had a huge influence on the development of feminist architectural design even though muf isn’t referred to as being feminist. If this is so, then why relate the two together? How could it be considered feminist architectural design if they claim not to be?
3. “One particularly important aspect of feminist critical spatial practice has been its desire to relate theory to architectural design, to make connections between built practice and written text.” Is this really anything new? Haven’t people done this in the past and still use it in non-feminist critical practices?

John Mellas_Week 3

Fraser

1:  There are plenty of instances where the assumed correct method of design was implemented but investigation years later reveal that it was almost the worst possible design. Fraser uses the example of Tafuri’s 1920’s social improvement and economic redistribution by architectural means, to highlight this dilemma.  How then, can we be certain of the right thing to design? Is there a “correct” method of design?

2:  Can the architect’s role extend beyond the realm of design? The Palestine Regeneration Team (PART) that Fraser founded with Yara Sharif and Nasser Golzari raises a question as to how impactful architects can be in conflict stricken areas. The conflict between Palestine and Israel is one of the oldest in history. Can architects take this conflict and enable a new generation of Palestinians and Israelis to carve out their own cultural identity with design? Is this something that architects should take the forefront on in other areas of conflict or destress?

3:  “How one might design a whole city which would take decades to realize, and thinking of how one might possibly be able to do that.” In those decades, things will undoubtedly change. How can we plan for a future that might never materialize, or one that we never saw coming? How can we design for a future (especially in this day and age) where our cultural, social, political, and economic realities change so fast?

Rendell

1:  If interdisciplinary, and even multidisciplinary, are such a key element in today’s design process, why are we only taught architecture in school? It seems that to have a greater understanding of the world around us and not just design, theory, and history architecture classes. Why isn’t a broader curriculum taught to architecture students to give them a better understanding of the world around that they design in?

2:  Jennifer Bloomer’s work “demonstrates that the feminine, and perhaps theory, can be a radical element in architectural practice.” Has there been a separation between theory and architectural practice? If so, what would the benefit of bringing theory into design work?

3:  Rendell mentions “active writing, which aims to perform the spatial qualities of an artwork or piece of architecture through textual approaches, reconfiguring the sites between critic and work, essay and reader, as an ‘architecture’ of criticism. Here site-writing operates as a form of architectural design research exploring how architectural processes of structuring and detailing spaces through can work through textual media, offering new insights into what architecture is and what it might be.” Is the written word of architecture (theory, history, critique, etc..) just as important as built, and even unbuilt, designs? Can Rendell’s site-writing be a form of architecture in and of its self?

Reading 1: “A Two-Fold Movement”

1. Based on the article, the author mentioned that “Design research in architecture thus needs to see itself as being entirely framed by socio-economic and cultural factors”. Isn’t it mean giving people what they want but not what they need?

2. According to the two-fold movement, one of them is town-design from the future toward the present and the other one is town-design from the present toward the future. How can we make balance between these two?

3. Based on Lebbeus Wood’s comments about Rem Koolhaas design, how is it possible to judge the outcomes of a design if it was never built? Doesn’t it imply that the chosen design which was built is less worthy?

Reading 2: “A Way with Words”

1. In the previous articles the main focus of architectural design was to provide solutions. A new concept is introduced in this article: What are the examples in which architectural design research can raise questions and make ‘problematic’ artifacts instead of solutions?

2. The author believes that “critical spatial practice” projects are situated at a triple crossroads: between theory and practice, between art and architecture, and between public and private. Public and private are antonyms therefore, they can be compared. On the other hand, art and architecture are not antonyms and also theory is perquisites of practice. So, my question is that how they can be compared with each other?

3. Based on muf’s work which implies that process is the product, can this notion extend to the thesis in academia? To be more precise, is this method acceptable as the outcome for thesis of a Master of Architecture student?

‘A Two Fold Movement’: Design Research as Dialectical Critical Practice -Murray Fraser

1. “Nothing can be prefigured. All has to be questioned.” At what point can researchers stop uncovering new investigations?
2. Would Wood’s process of research be considered social research/design?
3. “It was sort of functionalism in reverse. But what he was attempting most of all was to switch who held the power over what kinds of spaces were built in cities, who could use them, and for what this was to be removed from official governments and design professionals.” To some extent, would society be considered as the designers?

A Way With Words: Feminists Writing Architectural Design Research – Jane Rendell

1. Rendell mentions in the text “the importance of exchange across art and architecture, the participation of users in the design process…” Is this movement essentially stating to the world “we care about people now”?
2. “Although muf architecture/art have never referred to themselves as feminists…” Then why use this practice as an example?
3. “One particularly important aspect of feminists critical spatial practice has been its desire to relate theory to architectural design, to make connections between built practice and written text.” Isn’t this done everywhere?

Fraser:

1. Fraser critiques the modes of research through design put forth by Le Corbusier’s idea of process as a spiral form and Donald Schon’s as a sequence of iterative loops. These modes, although based in design are still chronologically linear as opposed to the two-fold movement which alternates between past, present, and future.  How might a two-fold approach relate more clearly to the interdisciplinary nature of design research?
2. “Design research in architecture thus needs to see itself as being entirely framed by socio-economic and cultural factors, with, as noted, these largely located within urban practices and processes.” Cultural and socio-economic factors are always shifting.  How can critical practice best address these shifts?
3. “But what architecture is certainly able to do is to examine, and experiment, with the conditions under which it is conceived and produced, which means that a very real task for design research is to act as a mechanism for a wider critique of architecture itself.” Is a two-fold approach more effective at this than other methods?

Rendell:

1. Rendell defines four critical research methodologies. Research in building science, social sciences and humanities in buildings, history and theory, and practice led research in architectural design. How can these be applied to Fraser’s analysis of historical and two-fold approaches?
2. There is a clear ascertain that muf does not identify as feminists yet they identify their work as furthering feminist architectural design. How do we clarify the distinction between design research and feminist design?  Is there a distinction?
3. Site-writing is defined as taking the location of the critic into consideration to condition their interpretative role. How do we navigate this condition in design research?

Reading 1 – Fraser

Q1_  In general the other is always pushing design research in a social, economical or environmental way.  Why is this being celebrated over other research areas.

Q2_ Foucault is response to Corbusier’s work, “I think that it can never be inherent in the structure of things to guarantee the exercise of freedom.  The guarantee of freedom is freedom.”  Here, what I understand is that is it very difficult for a static object to fully affect people’s social problems or issues.  Does this mean that Patrick Schumacher’s philosophy that architecture is not the profession to solve huge social problems has validity?

Q3_ “Design research in architecture has to form its operations around a dialectical engagement between ideas and practice.  Nothing can be prefigure.  All has to be questioned.”  Is this why we haven’t seen architecture manifestos published in our lifetimes?

Reading 2: Rendell

Q1_ In reference to multidisciplinary research, “…increasingly such knowledge may not be valued if it is not seen to be of direct relevance to the needs of commerce and industry.” Unfortunately, this seems to be a growing trend across education in general.  Should this not be addressed by the oppressed research groups and responded to in a way that shows the importance of research outside of economical value?

Q2_”…instead showing how design is a research led process, while research can also be thought of as a form of design”  I am having a little trouble wrapping my head around this idea.  Does this mean they are “designing” knowledge.

Q3_”Although muf have never referred to themselves as feminists, their work has had a huge influence on the development of feminist architectural design.”  If you are not labeling yourself as a feminist, and your work is not driven with that in mind, how are you contributing to the idea other than practicing architecture like normal.

READINGS:

Murray Fraser- “A ‘Two-Fold Movement’: Design Research as Dialectical Critical Practice,” in Fraser, M. (ed.), Design Research in Architecture- An Overview, Ashgate 2013.

Jane Rendell- “A Way with Words: Feminist Writings Architectural Design Research” in Fraser, M. (ed.), Design Research in Architecture- An Overview, Ashgate 2013.