3/4 review interior view |
In
a desk crit after the 3/4 review, Enrique Walker gave me some interesting
feedback about my design process and further steps to take. I was frustrated
for not succeeding in explaining my project to the jury, that kept asking
literal things such as "why is the building not camouflaged" or
"where is the pixelation?." Walker's answer was that none of these is
my main subject.
As
designers, we tend to divide our activities into two different categories:
practice and theory. One of the main consequences to that is architects saying
they do not like theory, or that they think it is not important, or even that
we should leave it to the critics. This is probably due to the overall notion
that theory is "difficult", "untouchable", or "too
academic". What is often missed is that designing is inevitably about making
decisions, which involves thinking, which is essentially theorizing. The very
definition of theory in the Oxford Dictionary involves practice: "1.1. A
set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based”. Tschumi
illustrates their interdependence: "Kill theory and practice dies. Kill
practice and theory dies. [...] Think theory is dead? Don’t worry: it will come
back when everyone is bored with the hegemony of good feelings and widespread
complacency. Practice is dead? Unlikely, unless a moratorium on building
becomes a norm."
Once
I came to the concept of the 3d labyrinth in my design process, I left behind
the pixelation, and in the same way, once I came to the pixelation, I left
behind the camouflage. That does not mean that these exercises were in vain, on
the contrary: they were tools that helped me advance my theory through design.
Now I have to look at my project as an outsider, understand what it is actually
dealing with, its potentialities and weaknesses, and edit both: my discourse
and project. Practice also injects ideas and perhaps it is in this feedback
loop that design can truly be seen as research rather than just the
representation of an idea conceived a priori of everything (that might be
wrong!).
Walker
in his seminars keeps insisting on the idea that concepts are [too] formed
after we design and suggesting "we learn by making". I would add a
word to this statement: we learn by consciously making, conscious of our precedents
and of our own designing methods (why do I chose or discard this or that option
over another?). Here I believe is where we as designers have the opportunity of
advancing ideas in which design and theory are by default connected.