ITS ALL ABOUT IDEAS

Its all about the ideas - that's the point of all this. As architects, our buildings should be about ideas, so it should be the idea that serves as the starting point(?). But it is the goal as architects to relate everything back to an idea, or multiple ideas.

If the idea is at the top of the pyramid we should be talking about how we represent the idea, and not the building. the building itself is a representation of the idea, so to talk about respresenting the building

again, as architects, archticture is the medium in which we work (painters/image writers/text filmakers/video(there has got to be a better word to use than video, I'm drawing a blank right now.) and finally architecture/buildings) but we are all working with ideas and representation of those ideas.

So. The question is what is the best way to represent the idea (not the architecture). This is why I want the final review to be in the style of PECHA KUCHA, watch the video below for a better understanding (and there are many more out there that describe pecha kucha - but this one I think is the most relevant to what we are doing).



This video is also relevant (and actually so GREAT!!!) because the presenter is is talking about using existing technologies in subversive (new) ways. this is exactly what we are trying to do - this IS CREATIVITY MADE VISIBLE. again these technologies have underlying systems to structure information. If you want a definition, this video is one of the things I will point to. - we need to understand the nature of these underlying structures in order to use them appropriately.


Looking back at my graduate school experience I was critical of the classes that didn't end with a building - but produced a film/performance or anything that wasn't a building. Now I understand architecture education should be about the generation of ideas - and the representation of those ideas. Not always is architecture an appropriate method of representation.

PECHA KUCHA CHA CHA CHA

and by the way, hopefully you guys see the logic of the playlists we have supposedly been putting together in YOUTUBE. - its similar to our flickr site (the accumulation of information/ideas in the form of image). In addition the intent of the playlists being similar to the "tags" we are using in flickr.

But there is a difference that I would like to discuss and I would like to discuss this difference as "native and foreign" (or perhaps local/barbarian) - meaning content that the studio has generated (pictures they have taken - text they have written - and hopefully video they have taken) would be considered "native or local", and the "foreign and barbarian" be in the context of any content (text/image/video) taken from other sources.

I think its a good idea we make sure we keep these things separate, or perhaps we want to play a game of ambiguity - either way, we should be clear on which strategy we are doing, and be consistent.



The difference being that some content we are creating, and some content we are pulling in from outside sources. For example, Posts I have written have involved the accumulation of image both