Description
The place of ornament in relation to other elements of architecture has been debated for a long time. Similarly, the ontology of architectural whole has undergone an evolution, from it being viewed as an assemblage of components, joined together to address specific problems and deliver specific meaning, to current paradigm, in which it is a cohesive and evolving system of relationships, manipulated yet not completely controlled by an architect. Once architectural whole is approached from the position of continuity, differentiation of performance is seen as qualitative variation. Ornamental articulation as one of the performances of architecture is consequently a materialization of immanent quality of the system. There is a significant difference between ornament as representational organization applied onto structure and ornament as material manifestation of system organization. That organization consists of identifying a network of dependencies and potentialities, processing this network through software, its actualization out of matter and hardware and its eventual existence in a specific context. The difference lies in emphasis on process and materiality. Materiality is an experienceable characteristic of matter, it is the very surface of it, which, in the process driven design model, is a bearer of traces of the processes affected on active matter. Ornamental surface variation is a negotiation between them and the course of translation of matter through various states of continuous formation of the cohesive whole is revealed as surface heterogeneity. Effectively, building’s envelope turns into a membrane, or an epigenetic landscape of interacting forces.| Aikajakso | 16 kesäk. 2017 |
|---|---|
| Pidetty | LOKMANYA TILAK INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN STUDIES, Intia |