The Thoughts of a Whale - 鯨語

鯨魚之話語，俗稱鯨語

[whaleandsalmon]

Do not overemphasis your intellectual capacity to analyse but to design.

[whaleandsalmon]

Aesthetically motivated curiosity, or perhaps just play, seems to have been the most important stimulus to discovery." Cyril S. Smith

[whaleandsalmon]

Conversions put existing and new parts into a compositional relationship. The existing order is not abandoned but remains, with a renewed meaning. New additions change the structure, causing adaptation to the present. How does the old express itself in the new composition? How does the new change the old? Eli Mosayebi

[whaleandsalmon]

“Materials able to tolerate traces of usage, wear or weathering are in general the same materials that required little energy to produce. Conversely, those materials that cannot tolerate any trace of use without appearing damaged — such as shiny plastics or aluminium — typically have a high embodied energy.” - Rotor

[whaleandsalmon]

Been trying to chase my own ghost and its liking lately. Particularly between Banchini, Holtrop and Ishigami.

It seems like a common characteristic of all of them is that they both dislike being static. Not only in a physical sense but also in a conceptual sense. To be static conceptually is to define completely.

Holtrop said he enjoyed working in Jordon or Italy in a sense that he doesnt need to rationally justify everything he do. And at the same time, he also appreciates the variations of natural and humanly ordered matter in these places, where things have no sense of permanence.

Similarly, Ishigami like outside spaces, he likes to feel the wind and dislike static environment. He wants to feel the changes of things, no matter air, light or temperature. To that, I can relate - I also like to feel the wind from inside my room.

But for Banchini, he is less interested in the natural environment. To Ishigami's explanation of normalcy, I find his alignment between the three to be about the simplicity and empowerment that comes from simple construction technique. To put something together simply implies a certain degree of normalcy. Instead of some super delicate and complicate Japanese joint, the simple nail joint with 2x4 wood strips are often overlooked and unvalued, but Banchini values that. His "neo-vernacular" in its essence is also trying to dissolve in the normalcy of the world. To return architecture from its exclusive and superior intellectual properties into something that much more primitive, intuitive - democratic. And sometimes because of that the product is deemed fragile and reduced, but in its own beauty. To that, I find myself aligning with his ideology, although somethings his work is quite ugly and mundane to me.

[whaleandsalmon]

"A quality of nature - it is governed by certain rules that at the same time we are never really aware of. Most of us think in varying degrees of concern about the weather as we go about our lives. Few of us feel the need to know how weather actually works. ... We simply accept the happening that fits in with our understanding that it does hail sometimes...There are many such things all around that we don't question. Creating something that would merge into this normalcy that surrounds us interest me..

When something is undefined in terms of mechanism or concept, it can exist free of people's decision to accept or reject the mechanism or concept, free of any judgement based on an individual's experience or subjectivity. "

Junya Ishigami, small images

[whaleandsalmon]

At the Boundary between Technology and Nature

I am interested in the intersection between technology and nature. If classicism is about finding a dignified form that resembles natural form, I believe technology sparks new possibility in this search.

I found artificial made nature extremely beautiful. Not the wallpaper nor the plastic plants but at a certain extent, the artificial made becomes so accurate and meticulous that it becomes extremely close the recreating nature - but not quite there yet - this state of vorticism, as explained by Ezra Pound, is extremely beautiful to me. I am not quite sure why.

Sometimes this creation is material-driven, sometimes its structural, but it both relates to the construction of natural phenomenon or environment.

I want to find a way of constructing architecture that utilize technology in this way. Not to be numerically great but brings this type of surreal, ephemeral, artificial yet natural experience of material, surfaces, atmopshere and space.

[whaleandsalmon]

Empowerment from Making

The architect have to make by himself. The empowerment of the modern architect comes from a sense of self making. No matter connections, furniture, mock up, model, material investigation, it seems to be that the act of making itself empowers the modern architect by giving them some sense of truth in our increasingly polar world.

Making allows the modern architect to be detached from the the attention of the world through the internet, social media etc, as it requires your full focus. The act of making should be personal and does not requires referential informations. To make is to create in reality. What you make is what is truth to you. Remove yourself from all predicament and presumption, so you can find yourself in your own making.

The act of making in itself is a political action. To make something for yourself represent a kind of liberty from the social construct of the surrounding. There is no developer or client that tells you what to do. It is purely your own desire and motivation. You will be empowered as you make. Making will then be addictive.

[whaleandsalmon]

Normalcy

I am interested in normalcy. The understanding of the normal. The natural environment around us. The simple mechanism that we overlook.

[whaleandsalmon]

Poetic Economy

The architecture I am interested about relates to the social-economical reality of building construction. It is not about being referential, formal, or necessarily architectural. At its core, it is looking at the act of design, architecture, building as an ever-ongoing event that is social, economical, political. I am interested at all things on these aspect that is stimulated by the act of building practice.

Structural particularly strikes my interest because it is the most strip down version of architecture. Put a structure up that host a space and you have a piece of architecture. There is little stylistic or formal consideration for the structure of the building. It provides the rigidity and stability as Vitruvius stated as necessary for a piece of work to be considered architecture. It is built mainly to resist against the forces of nature - given it being gravity, wind, earthquakes etc. Therefore it is also often the most expensive part of the building.

I am interested in structural design not only because it represents the most concentrated, diluted way of spatial design, but because it directly relates to the cost and construction method of the building. When I look at work that is deemed as interesting structure, I am less interested in the high tech or the elusive, excessive mess of the deconstructivism. I am more interested in the one that seems to be constructed with an amateurish way, the one that is simple and easy to read. They are often read as work that is simple, airy and light. I like that. I believe that by making, architects are empowered. And this empowerment could be addictive. I also like the fragility that these seemingly amateurish work possessed, it is something about the resiliency of a fragile structure that makes it extremely beautiful, like bone, like a falling tree branch, like a needle falling on the ground, like glass, like fabric.