Factors influencing form

IF 0.2 4区 艺术学 N/A ARCHITECTURE
{"title":"Factors influencing form","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/s135913552100018x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"straightforward, rational consequence of design decisions taken in relation to programme, site, and environmental and social conditions. There has been plenty of research – in relation to particular designers, design practices, building types, and numerous thematics – illustrating how modern architects’ judgements of what might be considered straightforward or rational played out. There is also much contemporary scholarship surrounding how other human and non-human factors produce form, such as: environmental agents (at a variety of scales); the multiple infrastructures into which buildings are connected; cultural and political ideas including those of gender, ethnicity, class, and power; the cultures of design in which architecture gets produced; the influence of regulations, contract, and specification types; and of digital and analogue representation practices. In this context, our current issue of arq addresses various factors influencing form, examining historical and contemporary examples. Matthew Mindrup examines how certain postwar modern architects and engineers imagined architecture as the clear expression of structure via the medium of models (pp. 4–16), considering how ‘clarity of form and function’ emerged through modelmaking practices. Anna Myjak-Pycia recounts how home economists of the 1950s and ‘60s ‘dismantled the traditional notion of architectural authorship’, analysing the function of spaces in direct participation with users, bypassing architects’ form-making ego (pp. 17–30). In contrast, Simon Richards shows how cultural forces play out in form-making by interpreting demolition traditions, relating together the works of architect Arata Isozaki and writer Ango Sakaguchi (pp. 31–42); and Stephen Parnell and Mark Sawyer document how architectural magazines, powerful influencers of architectural culture and therefore architectural form, can themselves be imagined as sites of architectural production or as architectural projects. Meanwhile, Mark David Major examines the multiple interconnected factors at play in the failure of the Pruitt-Igoe housing scheme in St Louis, Missouri, famously demolished in 1972 (pp. 55–68); and Aleksandar Kŭsić and Vladan Djokić examine Belgrade’s late 1960s Julino Brdo housing estate as a consequence of the wider dynamics of the city’s socialist urbanisation. Lastly, Jing Yang, Jonathan Hale, and Toby Blackman appreciate light, movement, and the effects of film editing techniques on designers’ and inhabitants’ imaginations, as factors influencing the experience of form, in relation to the Rolex Learning Centre in Lausanne designed by SANAA in 2010.","PeriodicalId":43799,"journal":{"name":"arq-Architectural Research Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arq-Architectural Research Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s135913552100018x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"ARCHITECTURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

straightforward, rational consequence of design decisions taken in relation to programme, site, and environmental and social conditions. There has been plenty of research – in relation to particular designers, design practices, building types, and numerous thematics – illustrating how modern architects’ judgements of what might be considered straightforward or rational played out. There is also much contemporary scholarship surrounding how other human and non-human factors produce form, such as: environmental agents (at a variety of scales); the multiple infrastructures into which buildings are connected; cultural and political ideas including those of gender, ethnicity, class, and power; the cultures of design in which architecture gets produced; the influence of regulations, contract, and specification types; and of digital and analogue representation practices. In this context, our current issue of arq addresses various factors influencing form, examining historical and contemporary examples. Matthew Mindrup examines how certain postwar modern architects and engineers imagined architecture as the clear expression of structure via the medium of models (pp. 4–16), considering how ‘clarity of form and function’ emerged through modelmaking practices. Anna Myjak-Pycia recounts how home economists of the 1950s and ‘60s ‘dismantled the traditional notion of architectural authorship’, analysing the function of spaces in direct participation with users, bypassing architects’ form-making ego (pp. 17–30). In contrast, Simon Richards shows how cultural forces play out in form-making by interpreting demolition traditions, relating together the works of architect Arata Isozaki and writer Ango Sakaguchi (pp. 31–42); and Stephen Parnell and Mark Sawyer document how architectural magazines, powerful influencers of architectural culture and therefore architectural form, can themselves be imagined as sites of architectural production or as architectural projects. Meanwhile, Mark David Major examines the multiple interconnected factors at play in the failure of the Pruitt-Igoe housing scheme in St Louis, Missouri, famously demolished in 1972 (pp. 55–68); and Aleksandar Kŭsić and Vladan Djokić examine Belgrade’s late 1960s Julino Brdo housing estate as a consequence of the wider dynamics of the city’s socialist urbanisation. Lastly, Jing Yang, Jonathan Hale, and Toby Blackman appreciate light, movement, and the effects of film editing techniques on designers’ and inhabitants’ imaginations, as factors influencing the experience of form, in relation to the Rolex Learning Centre in Lausanne designed by SANAA in 2010.
影响形式的因素
与项目、场地、环境和社会条件相关的设计决策的直接、合理的结果。有大量的研究——与特定的设计师、设计实践、建筑类型和众多的主题有关——说明了现代建筑师如何判断什么可能被认为是直接的或理性的。也有很多关于其他人为和非人为因素如何产生形式的当代学术研究,例如:环境因素(在各种尺度上);连接建筑物的多个基础设施;文化和政治观念,包括性别、种族、阶级和权力观念;建筑产生的设计文化;法规、合同、规范类型的影响;以及数字和模拟表现实践。在这种背景下,我们本期的arq探讨了影响形式的各种因素,考察了历史和当代的例子。Matthew Mindrup考察了战后某些现代建筑师和工程师如何将建筑想象为通过模型媒介清晰地表达结构(第4-16页),并考虑了“形式和功能的清晰度”是如何通过模型制作实践出现的。Anna Myjak-Pycia讲述了20世纪50年代和60年代的家庭经济学家是如何“拆除传统的建筑作者概念”的,他们绕过建筑师的自我形式,与用户直接参与分析空间的功能(第17-30页)。相比之下,西蒙·理查兹通过解释拆迁传统,将建筑师矶崎荒田和作家坂口安的作品联系在一起,展示了文化力量如何在形式制造中发挥作用(第31-42页);斯蒂芬·帕内尔和马克·索耶记录了建筑杂志是如何对建筑文化和建筑形式产生强大影响的,它们本身可以被想象为建筑生产或建筑项目的场所。与此同时,马克·大卫·梅杰(Mark David Major)研究了导致1972年密苏里州圣路易斯市普鲁特-伊戈(Pruitt-Igoe)住房计划失败的多个相互关联的因素(第55-68页);Aleksandar Kŭsić和Vladan djokiki研究了贝尔格莱德20世纪60年代末的Julino Brdo住宅区,作为城市社会主义城市化的更广泛动态的结果。最后,杨静、乔纳森·黑尔和托比·布莱克曼以2010年SANAA在洛桑设计的劳力士学习中心为例,将光线、运动以及电影剪辑技术对设计师和居民想象力的影响作为影响形式体验的因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Arq publishes cutting-edge work covering all aspects of architectural endeavour. Contents include building design, urbanism, history, theory, environmental design, construction, materials, information technology, and practice. Other features include interviews, occasional reports, lively letters pages, book reviews and an end feature, Insight. Reviews of significant buildings are published at length and in a detail matched today by few other architectural journals. Elegantly designed, inspirational and often provocative, arq is essential reading for practitioners in industry and consultancy as well as for academic researchers.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信