corektion (re:c4-r3kN.txt (urls))

[brian carroll]

additional correction/repair of perspective anomalies and errors...

> ../correction_regarding; = "last {urls} list", a needed clarification
> about applied concrete, its also massive and important role in
> reconceptualization. bridges, hi-ways, skyscrapers along with steel,
> office parks via CMUs. innovative material- and form-based aesthetics
> (its own language or dialect, syntax, grammar, etc). medium for ideas,
> shapes ideas, opens up new areas for development & interpretation.
> (note: basis for approach of Le Corbusier (aka 'the crow'),
> structure/order- 'organizational logic' as parti; and FLlW use of
> concrete masonry units and precast concrete as vital to new ideas).
> yet architecture is still much more than these things, it remains a
> detail, sometimes of major significance other times not in the 'ideas'
> involved. sometimes innovative, etc. yet in a larger context or
> situation, larger goals and functioning than just concrete itself,
> alone, as the variable. in other words 'the ideas of architecture' are
> not containable just within concrete, though it can and does have
> major influence at certain stages and within specific approaches. its
> conceptual innovation feeds into architecture and vice-versa,
> symbiotic, including conceptual stagnation due to loss of larger
> vision (ideas) and greater purpose at scales involved due to
> narrowed_focus(), etc(etc).

######################################################################

.// further CORRECTION: once again clarification is needed regarding a
previous statement. this is both due to my own limits in
conceptualization and writing and also problems of language, when it
is extremely difficult to encompass all possible cases in a general
view without having contradictions. in my latest errored statement,
the mistaken view is quite large and so must be countered with more
information. i do not have the particular language nor have i
developed the understanding or framework for these dynamics as of yet,
so wrote into a realm or beyond a structure already developed and thus
encountering significant failures in approach. i.e. stating that
'concrete is only a detail' in architecture. the problem is that this
is not true in some situations, and also the word/concept 'detail' is
not the correct word for what i am trying to describe though i am not
sure what a better word would be, feature or substructure or element
or component or structure yet none of these likewise fit either.
though of course there are many who could better state the same ideas
within an improved POV with more accuracy and much more insight and
more knowledge of the issues involved.

so my approach is limited. the language also. and i equate it to is
the following mistaken viewpoint about concrete in architecture, in
special cases:  it is to assume that the sand is only a detail of the
beach. and this is largely false. it _is the beach, or a major or
significant element along with sky and water and wind and waves. it is
a major component, not minor.

and yet in most architecture the concrete involved does not take
center stage, it is another component, so it tends towards a larger
assemblage of components functioning together and is not the main
event. many times concrete is dressed by other facing materials,
skins, that shield it from the weather and provide a different facade
than CMU or precast panels and yet there are also buildings that are
just CMUs and precast walls and-or floors/ceilings. though their
significance in terms of the total building may still remain that of a
quasi-detail or more minor component or insignificant beyond just
being a barrier or boundary, such that the language may not be
explored or developed or insightful and may have inert presence, such
that it is more about 'nothing' than 'being'. say an industrial
warehouse with no windows and a simple door on an exterior that is
otherwise all concrete, with a company logo as sign.

perhaps this is not just a detail though it is also not going beyond
certain dimensionality in its functioning, it is basic and not
necessarily interwoven into other themes beyond utility, such that it
provides structure or boundary, security, enclosure, perhaps texture,
color, scale. it may be unwise to compare it straight away with a CPU
enclosure, as it relates to what is inside the box, though to some
extent this can be a disconnection or simple boundary that is already
defined in its functioning in many ways, by default, unless explored
further. and thus building is often differentiated from architecture
as it does not have this additional layer or level of investigation,
inquiry, innovation, questioning of parameters, function, beyond this.

so in some sense it is a big SIN to not have remembered epic examples
to the contrary where concrete cannot be said to be just another
element or, again wrong-worded, only a detail, as this warps its
contribution and conceptual potential that has been explored (most
notably by Le Corbusier and others). a few examples to provide
counterpoint...

Notre Dame du Haut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre_Dame_du_Haut

[images] https://www.google.com/search?q=Notre+Dame+du+Haut&client=firefox-a&hs=cqz&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch

this chapel by Le Corbusier located in Ronchamp, France, is singularly
in concrete, it defied the existing conceptualization of how the
material could be used and likely still does. it is the determiner of
many architectural dimensions, space, massing, light, enclosure,
walls/ceiling, roof, and if memory serves the massive roof appears to
float when inside, even though made of massive concrete. thus the
gravity of the material has been reverse or inverted. this is the
height of aesthetic mastery, the language of architecture through the
medium of concrete. and more, the use of a ship analogy and metaphor,
its significance in architecture, rendered in concrete as the roof. it
is assumed also medieval fortifications which used to have walls of
several feet thick were related to concrete thickness, when such walls
were once foundation and required to be this thick, which continued
into tall buildings such as skyscrapers when supporting several floors
above them, prior to steel and concrete construction. so perhaps those
(correctly stated) details of windows refer to that earlier language
or pattern. further, there was innovation with formwork such that
textures on the formwork would transfer onto the set concrete forms,
thus revealing wood on its surface, as part of a new technique that
was developed by Le Corbusier. and so this refutes any notion of
concrete only as detail. it is the defining feature across many
dimensions and structures, it almost singularly defines the building
beyond its stained glass and wooden pews. completely captivating in
its essence, and this essence is concrete. and it is a deep
connection, deep awareness, grounding within the material as it is
made into form and functions within a myriad of different parameters.

(also, this built organic form (1954) in relation to sculpture...)

Brancusi sculpture Bird in Space (1930-40) or other
http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/collections/collection-online/artwork/669


consider then another structure...

Sydney Opera House
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Opera_House

it is iconic for its form, resembling billowing sails made of precast
concrete. having visited neither of these structures, it appears
likewise a majority of the building exterior consists of precast
concrete panels. thus another example that 'concrete is not just a
detail', which in these cases is an absurd and ignorant viewpoint,
when universalized. it is the major or prime structural component
though also the basis for conceptualization, the medium that is relied
upon and explored to express or develop such a unique language of
form, based upon the specific and unique properties of concrete in its
various techniques and approaches, many of which are invented by
architects for buildings and have never been built before. thus this
is a realm of large-scale experimentation, the limits of construction,
and daring work even.

it should be noted that recently i encountered a reference to this
building which said how beautiful it was on the outside as a concert
hall, yet the acoustics on the inside are or were horrible, and thus
the building aesthetics and its interior programmatic functionality
were not matched- though this is also why acoustic engineering exists,
which can often optimize a space in such scenarios. the difference
here is that buildings in the past, when having a main function like
'music hall' or 'opera house' were designed around acoustic properties
firstly, if not mistaken. and this is not about chance, how sound
exists in a given space in terms of its size, shape, proportion,
materiality, etc. and thus the outside-in approach, versus inside-out
approach, and how this can conflict perhaps most especially in terms
of the present day where 'image-based' buildings have their external
form as the main development or feature and functionality is presumed
to default to a usable correlated equivalency, yet can also be
hollowed out of meaning, superficial, merely about the surface and not
insightful in other realms or other substructures or components. a bit
like a building that is masquerading, and appears one way yet under
the mask is another way. like fancy aesthetic structures that are
miserable to be inside or just mediocre, yet praised for their looks
or drama, yet less livable or even dysfunctional or needy, requiring
high-maintenance, concessions by its occupants, which is its own type
of lost economy or friction that indicates peculiar approaches,
values.
--
it is hard to convey how central aesthetics are to knowledge yet when
removed of its role as a grounding of philosophy, of shared belief and
truth, values, knowledge, as materialized, it then can become detached
and move into a realm of relativistic babble, greater accounting does
not take place, and images can be deceiving, illusion or manipulations
of the senses.

another realm of 'concrete is more than detail' it is
conceptualization itself is within the realm of Brutalism, a
particular movement or style in architecture...

Brutalist architecture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture

as should be obvious, my observations are only limited and there are
people with vast understanding who have researched these issues and
who have expertise, though some of this also is intuitive, from living
in civilization and environments where such buildings exist and define
a space, within given parameters. and I have a fondness for a local
example, at least in its appearance, which tends towards fortification
though has also been evaluated as a response to student unrest on
college campuses, an embodiment of the fortification of the
educational system against students and populations, visible in
aesthetics of built form.

Boston City Hall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_City_Hall

so in the history books i read that defined a particular shared
consciosuness, this building is one of the main examples. and it is
implicitly 'concrete' in more than detail, it is seemingly in its
conceptual entirety, in that it melds what is material also with the
mental awareness of concrete as metaphor or analogy, as if anchoring
something into the ground, making an idea it into a tangible truth,
via securing of spatial-order vis a vis security or fortress, or
whatever. in that an underlying realm of hostility and unrest or a
different mapping of experience may better be realized or understood
in these more stark forms and encounters, as if the realm of
ubiquitous surveillence maps more readily into these aesthetics even,
then those buildings of high gloss, shiny distracting objects. in
other words, you could probably use this building for military
purposes even, or some such structures, because of their more
fortified nature than all-glass facades, and a more primal or
primitive relation could be established, more natural perhaps with the
social Darwinist/Spencerian survival of the fittest dynamics, if not
even towards a Planet of the Apes retro-futurism of some kind. again,
concrete here is more than the material, it is a larger connected
essence and its language is developed in depth.

Rarig Center for performing arts at U of Minnesota (local example)
https://www.google.com/search?q=rarig+center&client=firefox-a&hs=Ixf&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch

so there is a difference in how a medium develops, in what terms and
parameters, what ideas are explored and what conceptualization is
involved. it can be contained, and thus a material could exist only as
a detail in some or many circumstances, yet in others it could become
a major or main event and take on a primary role, and become a realm
of peak inquiry and innovation. this both in terms of language and
geometry/mathematics, of structures and aesthetics, as it relates to
concepts, patterns. or it could be unquestioned and an issue of
utility, relied upon to do once again what has been provably done
before within given parameters. yet to describe all of this dynamic
range within linear strings is impossible and arbitrary, because it is
far more involved, and requires clarification for each and every error
or misconception and thus words words words to seek to repair faulty
frameworks and reasoning that is limited, bounded, to particular
constraints or points of views, etc. and thus this condition of
language could itself be the gap or mismatch with the issues of
existence, the impossibility of accurately relating to what is going
on in its ubiquity and depth within the parameters it exists within,
without being trapped in warped, distorted, and biased if not untrue
or only partially-true statements that then function as communication,
frameworks.

there appears no way to fix this within linear language itself. this
as it relates to code and to programming likewise. it is a trap, ideas
and concepts cannot be empirically developed within words to a degree
of fidelity required to attain 1:1 conceptual models. thus, also,
software ever disconnected from what it seeks to represent in these
same scenarios.

it is the artificial and misleading, false 'nature of things', this
language-based communication about events and seeking to model events
within signs that are linearly described, looped, versus within
molecular dimensional structures - circuits - that can actually
account for all components, elements, details and events in whatever
degree and fidelity they may exist.

one stray example arises repeatedly in my mind about the nature of
architecture as it has become detached from a larger accounting and as
this relates to core principles. it used to be a goal to have a
structure last, to endure over time, as part of the goal. today
instead planned obsolence has taken hold so buildings may stand for
only 30 years before being demolished. consider this in terms of how
it influences design, what issues are addressed and ignored, and how
much material is wasted to continue such an inefficent process that
also stands-in for development as an engine, process, or flow of
activity that circulates money around. in that it is a circuit, how
this functions.

no doubt there is aesthetic beauty in many buildings though what it
often hides is that other issues are being ignored (such as
environment, planning, social relations) and architecture can just be
about the image. perhaps like those apps that can be easily created by
putting various parts together, throwing an interface on a given
structure, yet that is not innovating beyond a particular level of
inquiry or set of relations, which then become bounded, limiting.

the following observation is not to question the legitimacy of
approach for the building in its functioning, which is built like
others by star architects all around the globe. so it is not to single
it out as an example, though it provides a case in point regarding
certain values that are taught of in school that in practice are
seemingly no longer of significant importance...

consider the birds nest stadium built for the 2008 Summer Olympics...

Beijing National Stadium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_National_Stadium

while of great beauty, there is also great dismay at the material
design involved due to issues of economy. in school they teach you of
surface area, how this relates to heating and cooling of a structure,
and how each and every joint or connection is a potential weakness,
whether for water or rust or expansion/contraction failures from
stress and strain, including between different or particular
materials. how a building is put together and funcdtions over time.
that this is part of its success or failure.

and my immediate thought or reaction really upon seeing this 'visual
structure' was the known extreme maintenance it would require over
time, in having to maintain/upkeep the 'visual structure' via
presumably paint and-or rust protection, for each angled connection
and joint and surface. perhaps it will not rust, perhaps it requires
no painting. yet if it does it is certainly non-trivial as to the way
the building functions over time. unless like most stadiums these
days, it is destroyed after 30 years time.

(in some way the detachment from larger considerations allows this
narrow 'design development' to take place in architecture, it is in
some significant way a form of luxury, yet detached from
responsibility, afforded by ignoring other vital aspects, decadent or
based in excess, disregard for economy beyond economics, as if
architecture is financialization writ large even. the embodiment of a
business philosophy detached from the surface of the earth in its
actual truthful accounting and functioning instead within parameters
of a fairy tale that is never spoken against, to sustain the illusion
or delusion that aesthetics can be primary without also securing their
foundation, connecting it with deeper truth. instead it can be
shallow, hollow, or unsteady, and may not withstand the momentums of
culture as it continues to advance or stall out over time. there is
something of a treachery involved in 'image-analysis' that lacks a
larger framework for its evaluation, and yet this has become the
guiding 'philosophy' of architecture likewise, to which students must
kneel down before such ideas as if of superior nature and awareness
versus cutting corners and in effect, cheating the discipline of its
integrity and substituting it with a lesser set of goals and ideals
that tend towards the profane instead.)

in some ways it seems that code can be like this also. that there can
be structures that are difficult to maintain or upkeep yet are
developed in a way that there is no way to sustain them over time.
tens of millions of lines of code say, that cannot simply be renovated
or simply tweaked or fixed up. it appears almost as if a prevailing
ethos of development both online and offline, in software, hardware,
and material development, processes and procedures as this maps to
business, social relations, and how knowledge exists and moves into a
particular direction, as if a kind of momentum or flow within a given
circuit whose parameters best or most optimally function in this way,
yet may not add up to more over time, and more require a limited or
bounded relation or condition for their existence. in that this
interaction or limited engagement is the nature of the material so
conceived, considered and that another system or material approach may
be required to develop other options that are not preconceived or
pre-wired into the existing approaches and "economical" methods that
can lack the foundation needed to develop cohension in other areas,
shared realms of inquiry, larger modeling or conceptualization beyond
the finite, separate, iconic isolation that becomes based and reliant
upon principles that may function against larger, longer goals, simply
by using existing approaches that have ideological functioning
built-in.

######################################################################

niner  double  exo