interior/exterior

Currently, judging the airports I have visited, the unstimulating environment of the airport terminal, corridors and jetways distract one from facing the reality that airplanes crash. The blahness of airport architecture keeps one in desire of the virtual mind frame of flight without fear. It is pessimistic to say : " [we] Deny the totality of air crashes, the dangers inherent in ageing air fleets, the possibility of incompetent or inadequate maintenance." When I fly, I choose to enjoy the flight, without worry of these traumatic things. To me, flying with ease is not the denial of the worst; its grasping an experience and an opportunity of going some where you could not go without a plane. It's as simple as that. Anyways, as far as grasping the totality of the experience of going somewhere you could not go without a plane, the airport should be designed sensitively around this concept. In this case, the airport should follow the guidelines of critical regionalism, where the architecture embodies the genus loci of the place. The airport in Vegas should be just as Vegas as the red blinking arch of the McDonalds. The airport in Winnipeg should be made out of..snow, or something like that. Furthermore, the mechanics of flight are really not virtual at all. The experience of going to the airport and remaining incased "inside" until arrival at ones destination is an unnecessary virtual reality. I believe flight is possible with a grounded mind-set. This should be achieved in airport design so the traveller is always conscious of their situation and connection with the exterior space around them.

Winnipeg to Vegas

Travelling from Winnipeg to Los Vegas was like a teleportation session. Backing up Rosler's theory of the design of an airport currently being like an engineer's commission, the Winnipeg airport isn't that amazing. It looks like a mall, and even in its small size, I could still get lost. After passing successfull through customs, I travelled from and interior, to an interior; and once in Vegas, again to another interior. Finally, after departing the airport, I found myself in the exterior Los Vegas environment. I missed out on everything the in-between-landscape had to offer. That, however, is air travel. Why should it be anything more? If I wanted to "experience" the in between of point A to point B, I would have driven to Vegas. I do agree with Rosler, however that airports could very well serve as more than just a terminal, " [that] cast you inward to the psychological space of desire".

Flight; connection or disconnection?

“as the plugged-in body moves through real space, the plugged-in mind, in the loop of information in transmission, has no respire”

In terms of this comment the author was referring to the specific notion of air travel and the entire experience associated or this case disassociated with such venture. With the technology in place in today’s day and age such as cell phones, laptops, plasma tvs, blackberrys and i-pods we as human beings feel a sense of abandonment when separated from such dependencies. So when you consider the process of flying essentially all these elements must be de-powered for the duration of the flight. Essentially our connection to civilization as we know it is lost. So in such tragedy what does our ‘plugged-in mind’ resort to? You see this is where the airline steps into the scenario; modern planes are now fully equipped with the majority of these foreign body parts that we are lacking. For instance individual televisions, on flight radios, telephones, wireless internet, and even electrical plug ins for our laptops. The disconnection is now reestablished. Now this is only one element of this 2-fold discussion; the technological and information lifeline.

Secondly I feel this comment not only refers to our disillusionment as we aimlessly travel through an airport. It is only expected that people in such a scenario would be ‘plugged-in’, with a place to be and a time to be there, forcing the notion of ‘moving through real space’. Where as this rapid time travel occurs I am not sure how much observation and appreciation is endured along the way. I think there is one goal in mind and therefore the disconnection with ones immediate surrounding is definitely an inevitable quality of airport circulation. Essentially this carries on to the sky as well because each passenger lacks the true conception to where they are in space and time; the world continues to circulate around, but from the interior cabin one lacks to connect with is. So in a sense one is trying to disconnect, but at the same time trying to reconnect in different technological means. Air travel is an interesting experience and it wasn’t until now that I perceived it in such discretion.

Architect or Engineer...is there an inbetween?

The Overexposed City. Paul Virilio

“however, it is systematic that when space technology is discussed it is not in terms of architecture but in terms of engineering, an engineering which propels us beyond the atmosphere”

Wow this is a very interesting, yet ironic question circulating in my mind right now. It just so happens that I am in the ‘cyborg studio’ which has incidentally facilitated my design for a waste water treatment facility that will be inhabitable by human and infrastructural occupants simultaneously. Essentially what’s involved in designing this entity is performing precise spatial calculations in order to facilitate the exact amount of space required for such a program. In addition to massing I must also understand the amount of water that will be treated throughout the building as well as the number of people (and their daily water consumption) that will procure from the systems capacity.

Today I received a very sketchy comment stating that due to these simple calculations that I “was an engineer”. Now this did not sit well with me and I couldn’t quite understand why. Are architects simply required to drawn interesting forms and have theoretical explanations as to why they did so? Are we restricted to non-practical and non-technical spatial organizations because in a sense that is my interpretation of the comment at hand?

Is my project unworthy or architectural reclamation because I used numbers and calculation in order to conceptualize the technical phase; not the design phase? I have been thinking. I have been working in a firm for the past year and every project I have worked on has had programming and spatial calculations that must be performed at the beginning of each project. In a sense is this not the same thing? I do agree that technically an engineer would be designing a conventional waste treat facility, but the truth is this isn’t conventional. Rather this is the schematic phase of any architectural design project from my perspective. In my opinion this adds an entirely new layer onto my project because I have now fact to reinforce a theory

The Overexposed City. Paul Virilio

“no longer does a physical boundary significantly define space”

In response to Lorna’s comment, the delineation between boundary and threshold brings fourth a very interesting analytic dissection of the two relatively similar objectives. What is a boundary, what is a threshold and how has historical relevance played a detrimental effect on these entities?

Lets briefly think back to some of the examples in which Virilio discusses such as the Berlin Wall or the ‘yellow band’ that marked the division between Catholic and Protestants in Belfast and Londonberry. Now these are clearly defined ‘boundaries’ in which represents a particular ideal; those who do don’t oblige to the categorization at hand shall not cross. It is evident that all affected would seemingly recognize and accept the conditions at hand because of the clearly identifiable marking that was projected.

Moving forward into the 21st century where we are faced with endless technology and infinite possibilities is when this definition of ‘boundary’ becomes blurred. In fact it not only becomes blurred but it a sense it becomes invisible. In terms of virtual space all that can ever be physically viewed is what appear on a computer screen. Where in fact computer software, programming, email accounts, databases and even blogs are all generated by a compilation of their own form of boundaries (passwords, user names, links, codes, etc.). So considering these modern ‘boundaries’ are essentially out of sight and out of mind are they still quantifiable? Must a boundary have physical properties? Essentially when the line between visible and invisible is crossed, consciously or not boundaries becomes ‘thresholds’. If this is true, does a threshold become unattainable according to principals of logic?

week seven_article twelve_blog twenty six

Arjun Appadurai_Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Culture and Economy

Well Thor, you see, it’s like this…I figure, if I throw enough shit against the wall, eventually, some of it is going to stick.
-Choptiany

It is at the conclusion of our series of twelve distinct theoretical essays that I again find myself returning to elemental questions surrounding the purpose of theory and methods of theoretical implementation; the value of theory in general. Appadurai’s argument certainly presents a provocative and thorough rendering of globalism via his described structure of global cultural flows. However, if we are to embrace such a model of globalism, what are we to do with it? Whose job is it to mobilize not only this theory, but theory in general? Whose responsibility is it to make theory operative? Is it the responsibility of each individual reader, of a given group (for example, a discipline), of the author, or some combination of these? In this instance, our author, while able to describe his concept clearly, coherently, and meticulously, offers no indication of how this understanding of the world we live in is to be used, or what it is to be used for. He simply indicates that the possibilities of this celebratory global theory could result in “the expansion of many individual horizons of hope and fantasy.”

In a general sense, one wonders if on a certain level, some theory is not simply bull-shit; theory for its own sake. If a given theory seemingly has no connection to a useful enterprise, if it cannot inform or assist something (for example, cultural production) what is its use? However, immediately upon formation of this statement, I find it to be too reductive, too simplistic, and too juvenile. It is quite easy to dismiss something as intellectually complex as theory, which we may or may not immediately grasp as useless in a practical sense. But perhaps we cannot always know the immediate value, the immediate usefulness of theory. Perhaps it is simply enough to attempt to understand a given position, assimilating as much of it as we can for our own understanding and contemplation. Perhaps there is no telling when a certain theory will be of use; when it will crystallize for a given individual. Perhaps this is the value of theory; its future possibilities rather than its immediate usefulness.

week seven_article twelve_blog twenty five

Arjun Appadurai_Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Culture and Economy

Appadurai begins his examination of globalism with a very thorough explanation of what he terms the five dimensions of global cultural flow: ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, finanscapes, and ideoscapes; the relationships between these scapes being “deeply disjunctive and profoundly unpredictable;” the speed, scale and volume of each of these flows so great that the disjunctures between them have become “central to the politics of global culture.” It is these landscapes which Appadurai identifies as the building blocks of “imagined worlds”; worlds which are “constituted by the historically situated imagination of persons and groups spread around the globe.” The question that arises can be phrased thusly: is Appadurai’s globalism an existential reality, a virtually constructed reality, or some combination of both (and if so, what is the structure of this composition)? Are each of the scapes presented by Appadurai not increasingly virtual within themselves, as well as in terms of their relationship to one another? These constantly mutating disjunctive scapes seemingly have no implicit connection to anything physical or geographical; although they are influenced by real world activities, can they not be understood as active within their own virtual reality? Can this globalism, if it can indeed be considered a virtual reality, be re-grounded in a given instance, in a given singularity, at a given point in time and in a distinct physicality in order to reconstitute it as a reality? Is this the new purpose of cultural production; to take stock of the unique structure, composition, and interplay of active scapes in a given region or locality and attempt a response to, or seek a connection with these different, indigenous, heterogeneous ‘imagined worlds’?

week seven_article eleven_blog twenty four

Richard Rorty_Globalization, the Politics of Identity and Social Hope

In his brief discussion surrounding the topic of globalization, Rorty renders this construct as one dominated by a global overclass of the conscienceless super-rich, a plutocracy which “makes all major economic decisions” independently of any countervailing power (nation-states, legislatures, governments, political orders, democratic will, etc.), of any ‘global polity’. Furthermore, our author posits that because of the absence of a global polity, “we are in danger of winding up with only two genuinely international social groups: the super-rich and the intellectuals,” people devoted to “measuring the harm” being done by the super-rich. One wonders if this is not only an overly negative depiction of a significant portion of the phenomenon of globalization, but also an inaccurate rendering of it as well. How could it possibly be that globalization, in all its complexities and intricacies, could find itself with only two possible “genuinely international” social groups? Are there not other possibilities for numerous international social groups (tourists, refugees, immigrants, etc.)? What does it mean to be ‘genuinely international’? What does it take to be a part of global culture, of a global society? What are the requirements? And with regards to Rorty’s call for countervailing global agencies to oppose the power and control of the super-rich, what would the role of such agencies be, outside of the obvious and stated purpose of global policing?

Additionally, is it fair to render the entire social organization of the super-rich as conscienceless, self-centered, and self-serving? Is this not a discriminatory and simplistic depiction of a prominent and influential social group, and furthermore, an assault on an easy target? Surely there are some prominent members of the super-rich community who fit Rorty’s description, but I am also fairly certain that there are many whom hold tightly to their own firmly established ideals, morals, and ethics, and elect to utilize their status and assets to further global society and positive dreams for an egalitarian future for this society. Can these members of the super-rich community not also have some effect as another countervailing power which works parallel to and in conjunction with global polities opposing those of the super-rich global community who are more akin to Rorty’s rendering?

week seven_article eleven_blog twenty three

Richard Rorty_Globalization, the Politics of Identity and Social Hope

In a just global society not only would all children have roughly equal chances, but the girls would have the same sort of chances as the boys. In that society, nobody will care about which sex you fall in love with, any more that about the lightness or darkness of your skin. In that society, people who want to think of themselves as Basque first, or black first, or women first, and citizens of their countries or of a global co-operative commonwealth second, will have little trouble doing so.
-Rorty

Upon digestion of this article, I find myself contemplating the role of both narrative and utopianism in relation to the current state of both architectural theory and the discipline of architecture, and wondering in this regard, why it is that we have seemingly abandoned both. With respect to the intellectual backgrounds for political deliberation and social philosophy, Rorty positions historical narrative, rather than philosophical of quasi-philosophical theory, as its appropriate basis; the “kind of historical narrative that is prolonged into a utopian scenario about how we can get from the present to a better future.” One could surely include architectural discourse within this framework as well.

Emerging out of this discussion, one wonders, is there anything inherently wrong with utopianism; with holding utopian aspirations and desires? Has architectural discourse discarded historical narrative and utopian idealism as base points in favor of various other considerations (philosophy, language, psychoanalysis, etc.)? If such a shift has occurred, then why? Have we “lost hope in our ability to construct a plausible narrative of progress”, perhaps because of the failings of our recent architectural past (the utopianistic/universalist ideals of Modernism) and the evolution of a general cultural mindset which has lost much faith in the promise of technological advancement and economic development? Within this contemporary context, what is the most socially useful thing that architecture can do; what is its social agenda? What are the central questions for architecture today? Do we have any such central unifying questions/objectives any longer? As perpetual and permanent students of architecture, is it time to again ask questions about architecture’s meta-narrative, about its social importance, about its ability to strive towards a set of ideals in order to better our existence on this planet? Is the relentless pursuit of a ‘critical utopianism’ a way for contemporary cultural production to gravitate away from hopeless nihilistic viewpoints that our existence on this earth is largely senseless and useless towards positions of hope for a positive social future? How can we utilize the possibilities of utopian dreams; how do we mobilize utopianism? What is architecture for if not for the purpose of helping to establish a society similar to the one described by Rorty above?

Physical and Virtual Space

"The interface man/ machine replaces the facades of buildings anmd the surface of ground on which they stand."- Virilio

No longer does a physical boundary significantly define space. More important in the threshold of entering a new country is security rituals. Crossing the boarder signifies getting through customs without being searched for hours on end.

In our society, space is both virtual and physical where both types are of equal relevance. My two dimensional computer screen becomes a three dimensional realm which occupies space. While I was working on my technology project with my partner, my partner pointed beside the lap top screen- referring to a page of the project, located before the page of the project on the screen. The project "page" off the screen existed to us, and although invisible, occupied a virtual space. I thought to myself: the computer screen is an interface, a door, as Virilio calls it, which connects me to an actually virtual reality. I confuse, or rather consider, this virtual reality a physical reality. In this case, two things can occupy the same space at once. An object or idea can physically occupy space, and another, maybe numerous objects or ideas can virtually occupy the same space simultaneously. Although this is an abstract concept, it is in fact the way we already consider our environment.

Little Miss Sunshine

Little Miss Sunshine, directed by Valerie Faris and Jonathon Dayton, is a film based on an average, disfunctional American family. The daughter in the family, Olive enters a beauty pageant. Generally, beauty pagents are a competition to achieve the status of the ideal girl. What does this entail? A slim, muscular body, beautiful face and smile, pose, self-confidence, self-respect, intelligence, and talent. Olive is not like the other contestants; all dolled-up with their back-combed hair, stage makeup, and Sports Illustrated bikinis. She is rather plain in the eyes of the judges, especially with her full piece bathing suit! Did I mention these girls range from ages four to six? Where are these girls to seek for their image; for their ideals? Maybe they seek for their ideals from the media, but most importantly they are influenced by their parents; their mentors. Assuming that all these contestants, or the parents of all these contestants, decode the meaning of an ideal Sunshine Girl in the same way, the pageant will run smoothly. The representation of a beauty pageant, generally, is a natural code. However, when the literal and connotive meaning of a beauty pageant is "misinterpreted", that is to say, there is a failure in the communication of what being a "Sunshine Girl" entails, the pageant runs a little less smoothly.

At the pageant, each contestant must preform a talent. Each girl preforms pretty ballet dances, gymnastic routines, and sing-alongs to Mariah Carey. The last contestant, Olive, performs a dance choreographed by her late grandfather: a striper's routine, complete with tiger growls and a strip down to guarders and a spandex attire. Olive is kicked off stage. Why? Because her interpretation of a Sunshine Girl's description did not fit that of the judges, or the audience, or the rest of society. Olive and her grandfather did not decode the meaning of the "ideal" girl correctly.

Paradoxically, the judges and audience are shocked and appauled by Olives obscene behavior. Behaving like a stripper at the age of four is unheard of. However, exposing these young girls to the pressures of ideal beauty is acceptible. I am unsure which behavior is more degrading. What I do know, is that these girls should call it a night and go enjoy an icecream cone. (non fat-free).

Encoding, Decoding

According to Stuart Hall, "what naturalised codes demonstrate is the degree of habituation produced when there is a fundamental alignment and reciprocity - an achieved equivalence - between the encoding and decoding sides of an exchange of meanings. To put it simple, our brains are jammed packed with naturalised codes. I never really thought about this subject in as much depth, and with as much seriousness as how it is dealt with in this article. I can barely listen to the radio anymore without feeling disturbed. The themed jingles for radio commercials, the ones I know off by heart, trigger an image in my head of the company they represent. I am completely aware the radio is brain-washing, but my awareness does not stop the brain washing process. I still suddenly crave chilly and a bun when I hear the "stag chill ski watch" advertisment. When I hear Sean Paul's "Temperature" I feel like dancing up a storm at the bar. These encodings, which are decoded, are then again recoded, and decoded again, to the point where there is no substance which is pure anymore. Every idea is recycled back into the system in which we, like computers perceive them as realities because that is how we have been programmed in this post industrial world.

The Ecstasy of Communicaiton

"-advertising in its new dimension invades everything, as public space (the street, monument, market, scene) disappears." - Jean Baudrillard.

Advertising is so melted into our culture that we no longer notice it as a seperate entity. The "single dimension" of information encoded in our everyday lives comes as natural, as mentioned in the article "Encoding, Decoding", and is swept right over our heads. For instance, the Festival du Voyageurs, an extremely important winter festival for the winnipeg francophones, takes place every february. Snow sculptures are proudly displayed on the boullivard along Marion and on Portage Ave. However, instead of simply representing the artistic culture of the french- these snow sculptures now represent sponsors; eager companys looking to advertise. The beautiful snow scupture of a powerful bison on the corner of Portage and Main is taged, labeled, "encoded" with the words "MTS allstream". However, this is unstrange to us. This is "normal". No longer can the connative meaning of a cultural activity or gesture stand alone without a company to seamlessly dissolve in to it. When we see an image of a bison, it is not manitoba pride we think of. We think of MTS, of course; but only because it has been imprinted into our minds that bison=mts=cellphone=text messaging=communication=convienience, etc. And the cycle goes on....

The tabloids, People Magazine, US weekly....blah blah blah. The celebrities of today dominate all forms of communication. From Cnn to People Magazine, the stories of these celebrities lives are exposed everyday. I for one must admit, I am interested in these stories. Not all of the stories, but some. Am I interested because that is all there is to be interested in? If there was a news story or a documentry on architecture I would much rather watch that. Oddly enough our culture looks up to these cracked out, drunk celebrities for, I actually dont' know what it is we are looking for? Laura commented in her blog that all this communication may just be a distraction from our own lives. I think this is an excellent point. By reading about other drama, our own is dumbed down. Another odd point in our culture is the idolism that occurs. Young girls love and posterise these celebrities, wanting to be them. Should we maybe take another look at what it is our culture is communicating. Could it be that the problem isn't with how much is out there but the actual content of the communications? If all the advertisements were about political information, sustainable issues, heath coverage ect. would be really be so concerned with it?

The Ecstasy of Communication

" I pick up my telephone receiver and it's all there; the whole marginal network catches and harasses me with the insupportable good faith of evverything that wants and claims to communicate."
"That's the ecstacy of communication. All secretes, spaces and scenes abolished in a single dimension of information. That's obscenity."
This overload of everything is something that my generation has simply grown up in. I can't remember a time with out the constant phone calls from telemarketers, the advertisements hung on buses and public benches. This is our world, I couldn't imagine anything different. I live everyday with someone trying to sell me something, someone trying to push the lastest opinion into me. As young people today, we are raised by society to believe that it is only the elite that can have there lives splashed across newspapers and the television. I couldn't imagine this world that use to be, it would have been so....quite, that loss of constant stimulation would be so different. Maybe that is why so many of us are alway going, going, going. Why alot of people are so stressed out, having breakdowns. The simpler times, the simpler life, it seems so alien to me.

Encoding , Decoding By Stuart Hall

The war in Iraq is particularily of interest to me because I am an American citizen. Most of my family resides the United States, therefore the war my country is fighting requires my attention. Unfortunatly, the problem of decoding and encoding is most seen, (for myself anyway) through this war and its representation. Because the war is fought so far away from home, most Americans, and other cultures for that matter, rely on the television for the updates and stories. This however, presents a major problem. My reality is therefore being told to be by someone else. Imagine this life for a moment. You live everyday in a blank room, with nothing but a message board. There is someone living your life for you, walking around, experiencing everything that you would be if you were living your life. All you get, is messages on the board relating what "you" did that day. What you ate, who your friends with, who you hate, ect. And you have no choice but to believe it all, and why? Because you have no way of knowing fact from fiction. This person living your life may have biases, discriminations, previous experiences that have effected the way they percieve and live your life. But you have to read the messages, because it your only way of "understanding" what is going on. We live like this, everyday. How many newspapers are sold daily? How many news broadcasts are televised? Who is living your life for you?

Encoding , Deconding By Stuart Hall

" But more often broadcasters are concerned gthat the audience has failed to take he meaning as they-the boadcasters-inteded. What they really mean to say is that viewers are operating within the dominant or preferred code. Their ideal is perfectly transparent communication. Instead, what they have to confront is systematically distored communication."
I found this part of the article quite interesting. The idea of "the messsage" and "the misunderstanding" seems like it has a very interesting problem to face. The message that is communicated by the broadcasters is meant to make publically awear a situation or event. The message is written and interpreted by the broadcaster, which already will have skewed the story. The message is then delivered through the television, which as the article points out, completely changes the third dimesion into the second dimension, removing reality. After this distortion, the message then has to be recieved by the audience, which is where the biggest distortion off all takes place. People from completely different background, experiences, cultures and ideologies now are meant to decode this message and understand it as the broadcasters have originally laid out the storyline. No wonder there is an abundance of misunderstandings. It is almost impossible for me and anyone else to completly understand the message in the same way. This idea of subjective capacity is much more prevelant then the article lets on.

the news

jack Johnson lyrics

A billion people died on the news tonight
But not so many cried at the terrible sight
Well mama said
It's just make believe
You can't believe everything you see
So baby close your eyes to the lullabies
On the news tonight

Who's the one to decide that it would be alright
To put the music behind the news tonight
Well mama said
You can't believe everything you hear
The diagetic world is so unclear
So baby close your ears
On the news tonight
On the news tonight

The unobtrusive tones on the news tonight
And mama said

Why don't the newscasters cry when they read about people who die?
At least they could be decent enough to put just a tear in their eyes
Mama said
It's just make believe
You cant believe everything you see
So baby close your eyes to the lullabies
On the news tonight

I think this song is the epitome of what the author was trying to illustrate in the following discussion:

“the entire universe comes to unfold arbitrarily on your domestic screen; all the useless information that comes to you from the entire world”

Television is an extremely predominant form of communication essentially connecting the entire world in a nutshell. The delineated line between public and private is most definitely crossed here, a point where all feelings and emotions are deleted because of the screen in front of you. Yes this is communicating one message to others, but at the same time the level of personal connection is lost in translation. Where is the attachment lost and is the news a means of exposing gossip or is it a distraction from the problems of your own life? Seeing other people’s losses; are they intended to one up your own in order to lessen your personal feelings of sorrow? Why is there no personal attachment to this sorrow? Is it indecent exposure?

fast cars and freedom

‘the ecstasy of communication’ by jean baudrillard

“people no longer project themselves into their objects, with their effects and representations…the psychological dimension has in a sense vanished… little by little the logic of driving has replaced a very subjective logic of procession and projection”

This notion of communication that prevails through the procession of material items such as the automobile is seen as a representational status quo rather than the functional entity, which it was designed for. I recently spent my reading break in LA and it was pretty much the most amazing experience of my life. The sense of lifestyle there is so incredibly different in comparison to here in Winnipeg. It became apparent that material processions are extremely valued to this society of sunny beaches, mountainous terrains and most importantly MONey!! Everywhere you look there’s endless amounts of beemers, caddy’s, porches’ and even the odd Lamborghini or Ferrari if you’re lucky. This makes me question…why exactly do people spend so much money on expensive cars (not that I’m against it)? Is it for the aesthetics, the style, does price = quality or more likely does brand represent power and wealth? From my observation I feel that people drive these expensive cars to make a statement about who they are/ want to be, how deep their pockets sink or where they stand in our status driven society? This simply makes a statement about values and desires, what they are and how far we are willing to go to achieve them.

911

encoding, decoding. Stuart Hall

“in the moment when a historical event passes under the sign of discourse, it is subject to all complex formal rules by which language signifies. to put it paradoxically, the event must become a story before it can become a communicative event”
This discussion of television’s communicative ‘structure of dominance’ has driven me to think back to significant historical events that I have endured during my 21-year life span. Surprisingly enough the only event that came to my mind was 911, yes this was indefinitely the most traumatic, but why is that that I can only recall one event. When I recall the day when this occurred and the extended period to follow, I’m having a slightly difficult time understanding where the encoding/ decoding comes in. Essentially when it occurred was it merely viewed as tragic event and it wasn’t until later on when the complexities behind the controversy were exposed when we began to view it as a story? Does story signify that you are ‘recalling anything from the past’ because in simplified terms that’s what a story essentially becomes? When an event such as 911 occurs is it considered non-communicative because society experienced it directly? This leads me to Hall’s comments on how the media/ television programming is edited and altered for viewing purposes, which leads me to believe that we as viewers are newer perceiving the entire story. So basically has communication become whatever the middleman says it will be and when we experience it almost first hand as in 911, then is it not communicative? Do we need the middleman in order to communicate because in order to make a story you need a teller and we all know that a story is never told the same twice? Though every communicator and every altered interpretation of the story, the path of communication changes does it not?

week six_article ten_blog twenty two

Martha Rosler_In the Place of the Public; Observations of a Traveler

Bigness is where architecture becomes most and least architectural…Bigness implies a web of umbilical cords to other disciplines whose performance is as critical as the architect’s…the makers of Bigness are a team. Beyond signature, Bigness means surrender to technologies; to engineers, contractors, manufacturers; to politics; to others. It promises a kind of post-heroic status-realignment with neutrality.
-Koolhaas

Rosler makes an interesting comment/observation within her text regarding the supposed difference between ‘architected’ and ‘engineered’ space. She writes, “except for a few high-profile terminals, the airport may not be usefully described in terms of ‘architecture.’ Airports reflect the thinking of engineers. The airport…is useful to elide the distinction between architected and engineered space.” What is this difference that Rosler speaks of? What are the definitive differences between architected and engineered space? Are such distinctions understood as present within our profession/discipline or are they distinctions which those people exterior to the profession/discipline (observers and the general public) construct for themselves? If such distinctions do exist are they useful any longer? Beyond the obvious answers, why did such distinctions arise in the first place and from where? Should not all ‘building,’ whatever typology, be considered to be within the realm of architecture? As we produce ever larger and more programmatically rich mega-structures (such as airports), is it not important/imperative for us to collapse, at least for ourselves, any and all supposed distinctions/separations between those parties involved, especially architects and engineers? Should we not embrace a mindset/strategy towards mega-architecture similar to that as outlined by Koolhaas in the above citation?

week six_article ten_blog twenty one

Martha Rosler_In the Place of the Public; Observations of a Traveler

Via a series of ‘airport as’ metaphors, in which increasingly more facilities not connected to travel are included as being part of the airport, Rosler renders an interesting depiction of the composition of this contemporary architectural typology. The airport is depicted as ‘modern corporate space’ which utilizes information to organize and control individual people, as a ‘shopping mall’ (which Rosler find as the only apparent model to which an air terminal is able to aspire), as a ‘museum (both art and natural history), as a colonizer of land, and as well as a multi-functional information/transportation system with primarily operational concerns (for example, the efficient routing of passengers). Are these metaphors simply the beginning of what will become an ‘airport as’ phenomenon? Have we seen other ‘airport as’ metaphors emerge since this article was published over a decade ago (for example, airport as hotel/residence)? Can a theory of ‘mega-architecture’ which utilizes ‘programmatic alchemy’ as a structural and organizational mechanism (such as Koolhaas’s Bigness) be viewed as a positive phenomenon? If we extend the logic of the ‘airport as’ metaphor, we arrive at ‘airport as city’. If the airport begins, as Koolhaas would say, to compete with, represent, preempt, even become a city, what would be the relationship between such a mega-structure and it’s surrounding urban tissue/physical context? Should we be concerned about the move towards ‘mega-structures’ as cities, or embrace it as a cultural/societal/architectural evolution? Furthermore, will mega-structures such as airports, if capable of becoming autonomous ‘city-containers’ in our post-industrial landscape, denote the end of truly democratic public space (where anything goes and almost anything is allowable)? Will Rosler’s ‘non-private space’ be the hygienic simulation of public space which supplants (and I hesitate to use the word) ‘authentic’ public space?

week six_article ten_blog twenty

Martha Rosler_In the Place of the Public; Observations of a Traveler

It would appear that the act of flying, at least with regards to commercial flight, is a destabilized experience; one disconnected from the euphoric possibility of actually “being in flight.” It is a simulation/illusion which supplants that of a possible reality. As Rosler states, with flying “there is no journey, only trajectory.” Furthermore, the author notes the importance of de-realization to the vocation of air traffic control; it is only through the de-realization of very real situations (which are recast as information flow) that these professionals are able to cope with their jobs effectively. The question that arises then is this: is derealization/simulation one of the only effective coping mechanisms, both as individuals, and entire societies, that we possess which enable us to function at all in our contemporary world? Why does a distancing from reality, a derealization, appear to be our only method of contemporary existence? Are we not able to handle the world we have created for ourselves unless it is filtered by media, business, politics, or another agency of derealization?

week six_article nine_blog nineteen

Paul Virillio_The Overexposed City

...architecture is an instrument of measure, a sum of knowledge capable of organizing society’s space and time by pitting us against the natural environment. This “geodesic” capacity of defining a unity of time and place for activities now enters into open conflict with the structural capacities of mass communication.
-Virillio

To adapt the infamous lyrics of Madonna, we are increasingly living in an immaterial world. The continuing advancement and evolution of technology (information, communication, transportation) serves to sever individual and cultural experience from previously held notions of space, place, geography, and time; redefining some, while rendering others obsolete. Seemingly, architecture and urbanism is presented with a paradoxical problem: how is architecture/urbanism, which is a material entity (made up of physical elements) to reconcile itself with that which is immaterial (information and communication technologies). Can architecture exist without a geophysical reality? Can there be such a thing as insubstantial architecture; architecture without substance? If so, what can it be used for, what is its ‘value’?

As a parallel question, what is the contemporary relationship between state of the art technology and architecture/urbanism? At the end of his discussion, Virillio writes “the metropolis is no longer anything but a ghostly landscape, the fossil of past societies for which technology was still closely associated with the visible transformations of substance; a visibility from which science has gradually turned us away.” If we understand there to be a disconnection, a growing divide between new technologies and their composition and the structure and organization of the physical world, are we to assume that architecture/urbanism will be surpassed and discarded as no longer useful in the face of these new technologies? Is architecture merely a respondent to technological advancements, reacting to, appropriating and adapting these as they emerge? If so, what happens if architecture no longer has a means by which to relate to new technologies? Or is this itself impossibility? Will architecture always be able to find a way to locate itself within the structural capacities and systems of the technological state of the art? Can we understand architecture itself to be a continuously evolving technology?

week six_article nine_blog eighteen

Paul Virillio_The Overexposed City

Every surface is an interface between two milieus in which constant activity prevails, taking the form of an exchange between two substances placed in contact with one another…contamination is at work in the concept of surface: the surface-boundary becomes an osmotic membrane.
-Virillio

Virillio's discussion surrounding boundary, surface, interface and time is most interesting. One could certainly logically believe Virillio’s argument that the interface (a contemporary high-tech type of surface-boundary) is capable not only of creating distance and “depth of field”, but of collapsing physical space (near and far, here and there) and eliminating “time distances” forming a new technological space-time that is ubiquitous and instantaneous; a permanent present which has no relation to history/memory/future. Could there be positive possibilities and/or value in a metaphor such as architecture as interface, or architecture as surface-boundary? How would such a concept manifest itself physically? Is this a way to negotiate the relationship between architecture/urbanism and technological space-time? With regards to the concept of space-time itself, how does space-time relate to historical/chronological time? Can these two opposing ‘times’ co-exist, or has space-time ruptured historical/chronological time? Can something as seemingly enduring as historical/chronological time ever be fully destroyed?

week five_article eight_blog seventeen

Jean Baudrillard_The Ecstasy of Communication

Baudrillard’s closing paragraphs presents the reader with the metaphor of contemporary existence as schizophrenic, characterized by “too great a proximity of everything…the total instantaneity of things…the end of interiority and intimacy, the overexposure and transparence of the world.” Is this schizophrenic “new state of things” in which Baudrillard sees our universe as having shifted from hot (passionate, expressive, competitive) to cold (ecstatic, obscene, communicative), a fair and accurate depiction of our ‘quotidian’ existence? Is Baudrillard’s notion of schizophrenia cultural, personal, or both? On many levels it would seem one could agree with Baudrillard in so far as one can identify a general state of cultural schizophrenia, a cultural mindset where interiority becomes extroverted and exteriority is injected, where a state of confusion and terror exist, in contemporary times. But I am uncertain of whether or not such notions translate to the level of the individual. If Baudrillard’s notion of schizophrenia relates to the individual as well as the culture in which the individual resides, are we to understand ourselves as atoms within a system we have no control and influence over; a contemporary existence in which we are, essentially, pawns? Is the condition of the postmodern individual that of a schizophrenic existing within a world of obscenity and ecstasy? That of a “pure screen, a switching center for all the networks of influence? Is it fair to say, on the level of the individual, that interiority and intimacy are dead concepts? Are we to view ourselves as devoid of any control over our own trajectories within a system of ecstatic communication? If so, is ‘individualness’ no longer a relevant construct/concept? Is the contemporary individual dissolved into the systems of information and communication, forever lost vis a vis traditional notions of individualism?

week five_article eight_blog sixteen

Jean Baudrillard_The Ecstasy of Communication

All functions abolished in a single dimension, that of communication. That’s the ecstasy of communication. All secrets, spaces, and scenes abolished in a single dimension of information. That’s obscenity.
-Baudrillard

In describing the creation of this condition of obscenity, Baudrillard argues that it is through the transistorizing and miniaturization of our circuits, energy, and environments that the traditional ‘scenes’ that defined our collective lives have been relegated to uselessness and consequently, gradual disappearance. The body (human scale), the physical landscape, time, public space (no longer a spectacle of the social and the political), and the private realm (no longer a secret but a virtual feeding ground for the media) have been collapsed and compressed by omnipresent, excessive information and communication networks and flows. With the loss of these scenes within the “more visible than visible” ecstasy of communication what new scenes (or rather scapes), if any, arise to take their place? What is the composition of these new scapes, their makeup, and how do they relate to one another within the established networks of communication and information; upon the “smooth operational surface of communication.” What new criteria are we to utilize in order to understand the newly unfolding “networks of influence” our world is composed of; their boundaries (if any), organization, structure, and interrelations? Or perhaps we are to discard the concept of scenes as no longer relevant within the ecstatic and obscene dimensions of information and communication flows? Baudrillard writes, “wanting to apply our old criteria and the reflexes of a scenic sensibility, we no doubt misapprehend what may be the occurrence, in this sensory sphere, of something new, ecstatic and obscene.” Do we discard our scenic sensibility for a new sensibility within the seemingly singular dimension of information/communication? And what would the framework for this new sensibility be, if no longer scenic?

week five_article seven_blog fifteen

Stuart Hall_Encoding and Decoding

On what (intellectual?) level do the processes of communicative exchange, the activities of encoding and decoding, take place; conscious or sub-conscious? Perhaps analytically the processes of coding and decoding can be understood as conscious activities, but in actual discourse, say, architectural discourse, are such processes still conscious activities? Does production/encoding create a coded entity as a conscious operation or a sub-conscious/unconscious act in actuality? Similarly, how does reception/decoding decipher a coded entity? Or, are these coding processes occurring in both mental/operational states simultaneously, conscious and unconscious, rational and intuitive?

week five_article seven_blog fourteen

Stuart Hall_Encoding and Decoding

Almost all of the examples which Hall utilizes within the structure of his argument to articulate his position regarding encoding and decoding (the communicative process) refer to the televisual’. Hall writes,

The televisual sign is…itself constituted by the combination of two types of discourse, visual and aural. Moreover, it is an iconic sign because it possesses some of the properties of the thing represented… Since the visual discourse translates a three-dimensional world into two dimensional planes, it cannot, of course, be the referent or concept it signifies.

If we are to appropriate this concept, and reapply it with reference to architectural or architectonic signification, what types of discourse are operating, in combination, to construct this type of signification? Can architecture be thought of as an Iconic sign, as the televisual sign is? Should architecture be concerned with ‘signification’ and the role of ‘architecture as sign’ at all? Seemingly, architectural discourse does not “translate a three-dimensional world into two dimensional planes” as visual discourse does so, is architecture then to be understood as the concept it signifies; a more direct form of reference to the discourse it exists within and in part represents? Is architectural representation less ‘arbitrary’ than, say, verbal or certain visual forms of signification?

The mind is its own Place

"A mind not be chang'd by place or time.
The mind is it's own place, and in itself
can make a heaven of hell,
a hell of heaven."

-John Milton. Paradise Lost, Book i, Line 253.

When we travel and record our memories with apparatuses operated independant of our brain power (ei. a quick snapshot of a digital camera) we record nothing but our x,y position in space and the potential view we may optically vision at a moment in time. We do not record the place composed within our minds; the place in which we have gone on vacation to experience.

Homebodies on Vacation

"The tourist's accountability of the experience resides in the souvenir, the snapshot or the video-tape-irreducible pieces of portable evidence of the sight have been seen. The camera is the ultimate authenticating agent."
I have this habit, and I only noticed it on this last trip to California. The first thing I do when I would come to a beautiful landscape or a breathtaking building is reach for my camera, bring it to my face and snap photo after photo, to catch the most beautiful shot. I keep taking photos so that I.....wait....why am I taking all these photos. As I leave the sights I begin to realize that I never actually stood and looked at the buildings. I never took the time to actually look. The only memories I have of the building is the photos that I took. After reviewing my photos of the first day of my trip I realized I never really knew what the building actually looked like. We as a culture value the idea of the photograph; it is a lasting impression of a moment. In this case, it is proof that says "I have been here, I have experienced this place, I know what it is like!". But do I? As a tourist, spending the whole time behind the camera is putting complete trust in your camera to interpret the meaning of the site. Would you still really have been somewhere if there is no record of it? No photo to interpret your story of the space?

Homebodies on Vacation

"Things are never expected to be real; rather, things are read as signs of themselves, idealized and often frustrated....the correspondence between histories and geographies is not essential. Both can be bought, sold and moved."
After reading this article I was immediately reminded of my recent visit to Las Vegas. I was in awe of the Paris hotel in Las Vegas. The large Eiffel tower was so amazing to see lit up in the middle of a desert in North America. The idea or symbol of the Eiffel tower is correctly represented, so the tourist is satisfied by the reproduction. Not only was the Eiffel tower scaled down and built in Las Vegas, but the city of Paris was represented in a thirty second walk through the hotel's entrance. I found it so mind boggling to walk through Paris, and then emerge in Ancient Greek and Roman times at the Monte Carlo and Caesar’s Palace. Why do we fall for such a false representation of different cultures? The most amazing place I saw was the Venetian Hotel. With such a large reproduction of a European city, I was impressed, however left feeling empty after I walked passed it. I felt I learned nothing, gained nothing. For me it was the same as seeing a photo of the real thing. So why is Las Vegas so popular? Is it the idea of visiting the most famous places in the world in one night? Or is it for the Photo of you beside the Eiffel tower? But how mind-boggling is it that we are so enthralled by a photo of a reproduction?

Time Square Dead or Alive?

I think that Time Square is more alive then ever before. If you look at a city like Winnipeg, our downtown looks nothing like that of other larger cities and spaces like Time Square. Winnipeg has been trying to "revitalize the downtown" for a while now and some of the plans for this revitalization are being influenced from Time Square. Raymond Wan, a Winnipeg Architect came to speak to us last year and showed us some plans for the redevelopment of the Global Television building on Main and Portage. As soon as I saw them, it reminded me of Time Square. The flashy lights, large advertisements and pedestrian oriented plan all reflected the same ideas represented in this Manhattan hot spot. If you look at the Richardson Building downtown, they have recently added lights surrounding the base of the building that change colour every few seconds, trying to add colour and life to a somewhat, dull (sorry to offend anyone) downtown area. Laura's blog mentions other buildings in Asian countries, and this is a perfect example of what I am explaining. A lot of places around the world are turning to this advertisement based, spectacle style architecture to define the cities. Time Square is more influential and alive then ever, in my opinion.

Times Square Dead or Alive?

Boyer's discussion about the loss of old Time Square didn't seem to convince me of any sort of "loss". I think this is mainly because I only know Time Square as what it is today, the commercialized, disnefied center of New York. The "old Time Square" seems to be described as a place with lots of character and history. "...Prostitutes, pimps, or hucksters rubbed shoulders with out-of-town conventioneers, theater audiences, and corporate secretaries." The new Time Square is free of any prostitutes and pimps for the most part. It is a fairly safe, well-lit area that wouldn't scare to many people away. It seems to me that this is a positive change for the city of New York. The removal of this "old character" may be seen as a positive thing. More people then ever are coming to this landmark spot in North America, more than would have before.
When I went to Time Square I was impressed with the grand spectacle. Without knowing what it was originally, I would say that I was impressed with what Time Square is today. I am constantly bombarded with thousands of advertisements telling me to purchase the newest sweater and watch the coolest television show. To me, Time Square spoke directly to me and was sort of a narrative as to what we go through, growing up in the 21st century.

week four_article six_blog thirteen

Christine Boyer_Times Square: Dead or Alive?

One wonders if the question posed within the title of this article could not restated as Authenticity: Dead or Alive? Boyer’s discussion deals largely with questions surrounding the notion of authenticity, specifically as understood through Times Square, the tourist epicenter of Manhattan. Many contemporary cultural critics, she states, “blame consumers and tourists for corrupting the real experience of Times Square and trivializing the place for they have emptied it of meaning and settled too easily for stereotypical replacements and illusionary simulations.” But what is the ‘real’ experience of Times Square; what is its authentic nature, its unique reality, its inherent meaning? I tend to align myself with Boyer’s position regarding such statements and beliefs as those outlined above; it is extremely difficult to pin down authenticity in contemporary culture. Perhaps it is meaningless to judge anything against some traditional notion of authenticity, some nostalgic entity from a previous time because concepts such as authenticity, reality, and meaning, have come to be recognized as subjective constructs in postmodern culture. Simply because a select group of individuals feels that something has lost its authenticity, its meaning, or its value does not mean that it has; it has simply lost it for that group of individuals.

Besides, with specific regard to the example of Times Square, what could be a more bona fide representation than its digital/electronic-mass-media-pop-culture driven self? What “more authentic experience would correct (Times Square’s) false illusion and what deeper historical meaning (could) its signs and symbols reference” as Boyer poignantly states? Perhaps Times Square, as it exists today, is a physical manifestation of an authentic postmodern environment and experience? Not inherently authentic in so far as it conforms to its own original (its referent) but authentic in terms of people’s experience of it and relation to it. Times Square may be an alternate reality and a simulated environment, but so is the vast majority of our entire hyper-technological culture. Perhaps we should accept it on this basis rather than pessimistically lamenting its demise and seeking to return it to a state of authenticity, seeking to destroy its current authenticity even. Times Square has its own new-age stroboscopic liveliness and energy, different but not dissimilar from that which it had in the 1930’s. New York is and has always been very much a culture of spectacle and of delirium. Times Square, currently and most likely well into the future, will remain a definitive place that is an up-to-date rendering of the culture we exist within, and I believe in this way, will always remain authentic.

week four_article five_blog twelve

Diller and Scofidio_Home Bodies on Vacation

Is ‘home’ an internal individual construct, an external physical entity, or a combination of both? If tourism can offer the traveler the ability to “leave without going,” if it has the ability to atomize the home for the purpose of comfortable travel, if we can take home with us in a sense, does the possibility for a truly nomadic yet modern lifestyle become realizable? Could architecture create the physical framework for cities and regions which accept the individual’s desire/need for mobility? Could we become a world of perpetual travelers, stopping in places to learn, work and play all at once; simultaneously? What if travel to new places was not accomplished on a weekly or monthly timeline as tourists, but say yearly or longer as temporary inhabitants, staying in places for longer periods of time than a vacation would permit yet able to leave swiftly when deemed time. Can the architecture of the home be a completely transportable self-contained unit, much as Diller and Scofidio’s traveling exhibition is? Would this be a return to a (albeit modern) Renaissance mode of travel/living?

week four_article five_blog eleven

Diller and Scofidio_Home Bodies on Vacation

Early in their text, Diller and Scofidio quote the writings of Jonathan Culler: “one of the characteristics of modernity is the belief that authenticity has somehow been lost and that it can be recuperated in other cultures and in the past.” The authors expand on this idea, pointing out that while tourism (via its production of sights) constructs authenticity, what is “at stake in the issue of authenticity, is the question, whose authenticity?” But is authenticity truly ‘constructed’ or is it only the possibility for authenticity which is created within the tourist mechanism? Is authenticity something which the individual must identify for him of herself through the activation of various possible tourist experiences, or is a given tourist experience inherently authentic? Does tourism serve as a mechanism for the individual tourist, the voyeur, to personally create authenticity, value, and meaning? Furthermore, does tourism serve different purposes cross-culturally? And if so, what are these differences and why do they exist? The authors traveling installation suitCase Studies focuses upon America’s national tourist landscape in which travel to the past is the means by which one is to find authenticity. It only very briefly touches upon such a search within different cultures. Is the purpose of travel different for North American’s than it is for, say, Eastern Europeans, Asians, East-Indians, etc.? Is tourism more of a North American phenomenon than it is a global phenomenon? When we travel inter-culturally as North American’s, does our search for authenticity also include a search for history; perhaps for long-established traditions our culture does not possess? Is inter-cultural travel a way for us to acquire a personal history because our shared cultural history is so ‘shallow’. Is it a way for us to come to understand ourselves, to construct ourselves, our own authentic existence via what we experience in new cultures? A way to come to some understanding of the world that surrounds; a search for a real emotional connection to it? Can something such as an individual persons’ search for their family roots via travel not become a way to deepen ones’ personal history? Is there a difference between ‘travel’ and ‘tourism’?

Homebodies on Vacation

I found this statement particularily interesting, and it reminded me of the idealisation of landscape during the 18th century:

"The frame of a picture window typically objectifies "nature" into a possessable artifact. In effect, the picture window turns any exterior into a representation, collapsing depth into the surface of the glass."

Either with a photograph or a painted picture of a natural landscape, we typical seek for the picturesque. We expect vacation spots to appear as they do in the magazine. We expect built architectural designs to live up to their glamourous "the money shot" architectural renderings. As we are primarily exposed to landscapes through images; false or misleading images for that matter, we instantly anticipate for the reality of these landscapes to meet the standards set by their representation in images. Therefore, when I go to L.A., I expect to see palm trees, Hollywood stars with their miniature dogs, a crazy night life, and spotless sidewalks. For the most part, L.A.'s representation is reality. It is pretty spotless. It may be only a reality because the city must live up to these expectations to keep tourists coming back. Is L.A's representation, then, a more-than-visual reality? Is L.A's dream-like atmosphere simply a facade set up to keep the money rolling in? Was the freeway with concrete walls blocking Compton optically engineered to deviate one's eye away from those neighboorhoods?

On another note, it is a problem that we rely on images to truly represent a place. We must not be dissapointed when visiting a new place, if it is not what we imagined it as. In regards to engineers working to counteract the natural effects or erosion on Niagara Falls, I find it sad that our society cannot fathom the reality that our world is changing. We cannot accept imperfection, and for the most part, we much rather visit locations which are "as they appear on TV". If Niagara Falls aint what it used to be, isn't it's temporal aspect beautiful in itself? We are trying so hard to fight Mother Nature, when it is a battle we will never ever win.

Homebodies on Vacation

"The tourist's accountability of the experience resides in the souvenir, the snapshot or video-tape-irreducible pieces of portable evidence of the sight having been seen. The camera is the ultimate authenticating agent." (p.35)

As a society we rely more and more on our digicams to "record" memories of experiences we do not want to forget. We believe taking mass amounts of photographs is the only method of remembering exacly what was felt to be at a cetain place. However, pictures are a recording device. The photograph triggers the memories we compose within us, from the busy crowds, the freshly baked bread smell, the sounds of the crackiling fireworks, the warm breeze...The more time we spend snapping pictures and veiwing the world through the LCD screen, the less time we will actually captulate the genus loci of a place.

On my trip to L.A. for instance, I found that the most relaxing and memoral moments were the ones in which my digital camera was full and could hold no more pictures. All my senses were engaged during these moments, and I could truly situate myself within the space. At these times I would pull out my sketchbook and draw some guerilla sketches of the things that caught my eye. I found drawing was a much more methodical and gratifying way of recording a moment in time, as opposed to photography, because the images I captured on paper represented my own interpretation of the place. I later reflected on what I represented as most significant to me in that particular situation, and this allowed me to understand the space on a different level.

commercial architecture!?

“all of which make the pedestrian aware that media art is the required adornment for all commercial architecture in Times Square”

If we look to some of the larger cities in Asia such as Hong-Kong and Tokyo, where the technological development is at the utmost highest it becomes apparent that this ‘commercial architecture’ could be transforming the built realm, as we know it. Advertisements and branding are significantly valued in our modern day civilization, so therefore why not begin to incorporate it into our architectural edifices? This poses an interesting conflict; are we distracting from the architecture itself or rather developing a new method of it?

An interesting example would be Peter Marino’s Chanel store in Tokyo. The entire façade is made up of screens which projects Chanel advertisements/ product imagery, which I feel is a very interesting form of architecture that is begin embraced (and is more than simply an advertisement scheme).

Times Square Dead or Alive? By M. Christine Boyer

I feel as if my perspective is mildly biased regarding new vs. old Times Square because my ‘generation’ has never truly experienced the original New York junction, but is merely subjective to what we view today. I visited NYC a year ago and I was completely astonished by the charismatic of bright lights and moving advertisements that now represents modern Time Square as I know. I felt the space was just so vibrant, energetic and powerful; I just couldn’t get enough. NYC is such a fast pace, large and incredible city where technology is at its greatest and architecture is continuously booming. It is a collective place where people from all over the city and essentially the world walk side by side. Although the original feeling has been supposedly ‘taken over’ I think in a way something else has been created in its shadow. Yes this may be completely different, but in its own way it’s prevailing in itself! This brings me to the previous article, “Homebodies of Vacation”. I don’t fully agree that everything should be kept or even replicated in order to preserve what was in the past, but rather I think some things need to stand out and speak for what’s in the future.

"Ego Trip"

Has civilization actually begun resorting to the virtual vacation, have we seemingly reached the point where the memorable experience of travel can be replicated by alternative travel solutions? In my opinion this as a completely obscure idea, how can one think they could reproduced all elements of a foreign destination by simply allowing everyone to experience the exact same virtual TRIP. My experience with traveling is not only relative to the visual and audio receptors, but it is so much more. Its a cultural experience where the interaction with locals, the climate, the tan, the endless possibility of movement and the ability to physically touché and appreciate al that surrounds you. The idea of vacation is to experience something unlike anything that you could from the comfort of your home. I understand that this ideal is for those who are unable to physically travel, but I don’t see it possible to authentically replace a vacation. Considering there is no experiential memory, would it be comparable to the perception of watching the travel channel; its beautiful to see, but in the end it just intrigues you to get the real thing?
-Homebodies on Vacation. By Diller and Scofidio

Homebodies on Vacation. By Diller and Scofidio

“Despite contradiction in terms (‘vacation’), the vacation home operates as a mechanism of escape from the everyday and from one’s customary identity. Like travel, it provides the promise of adventure, albeit in the guaranteed comfort and control of the home away from home. The second home.”

This is a very interesting discussion in my perspective, the perspective of someone who has spent the majority of their life living in “vacation”. I grew up at my idealized, lakeside cabin lifestyle at my family’s resort in rural Manitoba. I know I’m unlike the majority of our population, but growing up with that experience and history, then suddenly transforming into a new urban dweller (moving to Winnipeg), I can begin to understand the notion of vacation from both ends. This entire discussion may be due to our context, but I feel that this obsession with a cabin lifestyle is something truly valued in Manitoba.

I always pitied the people who had to leave a hot Sunday evening, a calm lake and perfect sunset in order to get back to the reality in which the city established. Plus watching the mad rush of cars pouring in on a Friday evening I began to realize that what I adored so much about the rural life, most people increasingly thrive for. It’s starting to lead into an extended version of the American dream because aside from having the perfect house in the city with a large yard, picket fence and ideal family, people are starting to thrive for more: they now need double!? Maybe this reverts back to human’s weakness of always wanting more and never being satisfied with what we have. Don’t get me wrong with my semi-biased opinion; I think that the lake life is extremely important and beneficial to all who may experience it, but I think it requires rethinking the idealized American dream, as we know.

We are currently faced with urban sprawl dilemmas where everyone is interested in the largest house and biggest yard, but in retrospect how often are these yards used, especially if people head to the lake every weekend? Is it all just a public war of commodities and space? Are these backyards an attempt to provide everyone their own piece of nature and if so what is the need for a cabin anyways?