 |
This studio will explore various strategies of architectural translation, interpretation, and transmutation and to determine if such strategies may be productive for architecture.
What is being gained, or lost, by making translations? Does architecture have it’s own voice? Are some strategies more effective than others? Students will study the nature of translation, various strategies of translation, and then determine criteria by which we may judge such translations. In other words, why is the book always better than the movie? Concurrent to the ARCH 302 Seminar, we will then engage a study of architectural translation: projects that have relied upon translation, those strategies employed by such architects, and, again, the criteria by which we can judge such translations. Can a bad translation still make a good building?
Through the course of the quarter, students will be asked to make a series of architectural translations to test the criteria by which other translations have been successful. There is the possibility that all translation will be considered an invalid method of architectural. In this case, students will be obliged to communicate that which cannot be translated.
The study will also include tactics of representation. As we know architects rarely, if ever, make buildings. We do, however, make drawings of buildings. Builders and contractors then translate such drawings, models, and text into built form. Ideally, though rarely ever, is this translation automatic, from one system (drawing) to another (building). Even if translation is automatic the meaning of such communication is still open to interpretation. The communication of meaning through built form (always ripe for misunderstanding) is always open for interpretation by inhabitants, neighbors, critics, historians, tourists, and others. As such, students will be asked to make architectural representations that are not intended to be further interpreted as built work, but is architectural in and of itself. |