Adam Gilbreath
It’s presently
About
Selected Works
2024
Tucson Section
Once There Was and Once There Wasn’t...
2023
4D
The Garden at the End of Time
White on White #6-8
Untitled #4
2022
Wash Monolith
Contact
4D
The thought process and rationale of the designer inherently affects the nature and impact of the design produced. The focus of this project is to generate and distill a philosophy of architecture that allows professionals within the field and those adjacent to rationalize function, aesthetic effects, and the environment within architecture in such a way that it frees up space for ethical, environmentally conscious design that encompasses all aspects of architectural design equally.
We will first address our definition of architecture, followed by a larger discussion of the application of Object Oriented Ontology (OOO) and other philosophies within architecture. We will argue that within OOO by adding a time axis to every object and conceptualizing them as existing within “four dimensions” (the fourth being time) we can utilize the effectiveness of OOO in describing function and aesthetic effects, without sacrificing the methodologies brought about by new materialism in architectural practice. Which have merit in their abilities to rationalize the environment and the architectural objects relation to it. Following this will be specific critiques and writings on existing works within the field through the proposed philosophy. Finishing with my proposal for future work with this project in spring of 2024.
A WORKING DEFINITION OF ARCHITECTURE
Throughout this work we will be referring to works of architecture as architectural objects or design objects. This is because our definition of architecture extends slightly beyond one that is limited to only buildings. I am also interested in the architectural qualities of sculptures, paintings, caves, termite mounds and all other sorts of architectural edge cases that do not cleanly fit into the category of “buildings”. For the sake of this project, Architectural Objects are anything that is constructed, serves a function and has an inherent relationship with both aesthetic effects and the environment. This definition is by no means exhaustive, and is by no means definitive, however it will lend us a necessary frame to unpack architecture through.
FUNCTION
Function is the use-case of the object: how everyone who isn’t the object can utilize it. Architecture at its base level is the construction of something for an intended function. This can and does shift with time, is never stagnant, and frequently departs from the intended function at the time of design. Function exists outside of the intent of the designer. If someone designs a teapot, there is no reason it cannot also serve the function of storing soup. While this function is not the intent of the teapots design, it is still a possible use of the object that is a part of its functionality and identity as a whole.
An edge case of these functional objects would be architectural objects that lean towards the world of art, like the work of Donald Judd. Judd’s work, I take to be architectural in the sense that the function of Judd’s construction is solely the creation of space and an aesthetic effect. The form the object takes has a distinct mass to void relationship. Within his “untitled works in concrete” the mass, is the landscape and the concrete. Which are viewed and held apart from the volumes internal voids and the space between the volumes. This inherent creation of space is what makes Judd’s work architectural, even if it only serves that one function. If something is constructed and serves the function of making space I would argue it satisfies this aspect of architecture.
An architectural object can certainly serve more functions than just creating space. The most obvious examples beyond this would be the program of the building, such as a home, office, or store. However, creating space is the only function that is inherent to all architectural objects. There is no object that is considered architectural and has no spatial qualities to it. Similarly, there is no architectural object that has no function.
AESTHETICS
Every architectural object has an inherent aesthetic effect. That can be in the form of beauty or can be in the form of other effects. Many civic institutions are built in a brutalist style in order to convey power and strength. Some people do find these beautiful but there is also another aesthetic effect conveying the power and strength inherent to that architecture. The architectural object however in all instances has some relation with both a function and aesthetics.
This is “civic functions”, and “the portrayal of power” in our last example. A given aesthetic effect is only generated by the objects that surround it. The viewer, or “experiencing” object interprets the aesthetic effect of the objects that are generating it. We can come to understand that certain objects lend themselves to these effects more readily but the experiencing object will be the one that dictates the exact nature of it. Some will find beauty in brutalism, some will find beauty in rococo style buildings.
Beauty is a particular aesthetic effect that architects find themselves frequently concerned with and warrants some discussion. Beauty isn’t had by an object but instead is interpreted from specific interplays of an object’s qualities. It is, however, something that is desired from an architectural object. While it is not necessary that an architectural object that is beautiful is considered to be better and sought after, humans do gravitate to beautiful things, even prefer them.Take a restroom for example, where beauty takes a back seat to the function of being a place to defecate. It is maybe not necessary that restrooms become beautiful, but maybe it would be preferred by those who interact with them regularly.
Every object has the potential to become beautiful or aesthetically pleasing, but these effects are experienced at varying levels and affected by many external factors. People experience beauty in different ways however there are maybe some things that exhibit a universal sense of beauty. Everyone seems to be enthralled by cathedrals, for instance.
All architecture has an inherent aesthetic effect that can be any number of things beyond beauty. A given architectural philosophy should then be able to rationalize where all of these aesthetic effects come from, so as to design in such a way as to provide the intended one.
ENVIRONMENT
There are two forms of relationships between architectural objects and the environment. There is the environment as it influences the object, and the object as it influences the environment.
The environment, as it influences design, pertains to how we react to the environment that a structure exists within. For example within Tucson, Arizona’s climate, adobe brick and other high thermal mass construction is a vernacular material. This style of construction came about because the thermal mass of these materials does an excellent job at keeping spaces cool, as well as being incredibly resilient within the dry climate of Arizona. These materials are utilized because of their efficiency within the environment. Beyond materials, the environment also can inform the way windows are built to capture specific views or allow prevailing winds to pass through a building. More generally the environment will influence architectural objects towards the forms that optimize human comfort. The environment also influences design via the context, natural or manmade, that surrounds an architectural object, as well as the cultural, and socio-economic influences upon it. In other words the environment in this definition will also include notions of place: geological, political, cultural or otherwise. Adobe and high thermal mass construction in this regard has also become a part of Tucson’s culture and so is seen as favorable among inhabitants of the city even beyond its environmental efficiency.
Our other category, design as it influences the environment, pertains to the effects the design object has on the environment. For example, when an architect elects to use a particular material, that material then must be ripped up from the location it exists at and moved to the site at which the object is to be constructed. Depending on the sourcing of the material this could have a varied impact on the environment. Specifying a type of wood only harvested on the other side of the planet would result in carbon emissions from transportation costs and many other environmental side effects. While specifying a type of wood grown locally and sustainably would have a much smaller carbon footprint. Simultaneously beyond the ecological environmental impact these decisions represent shifts in “supply/demand systems” around these products and the locale they are going to. Consistent local sourcing calcifies that supply chain increasing its efficiency, or consistent sourcing across the globe calcifies and intensifies the flow of objects from there and the emissions that come along with that process. These decisions don’t just affect ecological environments but socio-economic cultural environments. Similar environmental impacts happen on the other side of the object’s lifespan. After the design object’s construction it will decay. The use of plastics within a wall system of the project will remain in the environment as the project becomes ruined. Alternatively, if there are systems in place for repair that allow it to maintain its shape and prevent decay into the landscape, the project’s fallout could be much different. The nature of this decay can also affect the way in which our social environment interacts with it. We interact with ruins like chaco canyon and machu picchu much different than the abandoned warehouse downtown. All of these effects are brought to the environment by the design of the object and its relationship with time and decay.
THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN FUNCTION, AESTHETICS, AND ENVIRONEMNT
The environment that contains a given architectural object has interesting relationships with both aesthetics and function. These become important within the larger scope of the project, as a large portion of the effectiveness of both function and aesthetics are largely environmental in nature.
Function and environment’s relationship is the easiest to describe, as function for a constructed object is dictated by the person doing the constructing. A need is seen, a need is met through the act of creation and the function an object serves is dictated by the environments (cultural, social, and political) that generated it. The success of the function is dictated by the environment that encompasses it. It is the surrounding culture that dictates whether the given design object was successful in fulfilling its purpose. A given cultural environment could also change over time, simultaneously changing the perceived effectiveness of the architectural object. We can see this in the present shift towards more environmentally conscious architecture (in the ecological sense of the word). A coal power plant is seen as less effective at fulfilling its function than a solar farm, even if they produce the same amount of power, because of their different effects on both the cultural and ecological environment. This has led to a preference for solar farms as an architectural object fulfilling that function. Beyond this both still have a large impact on the environment, are directly tied to capitalist values and environments, and tied to the generation of electricity as a commodity.
Aesthetics and the environment’s relationship is a bit trickier to navigate. I will use Donald Judd’s Untitled Works in Concrete to illustrate how this relationship works. Judd’s works in concrete are located in Marfa, Texas. They are large boxes (2.5 m x 2.5 m x 5 m) arranged along a north-south axis within a grassy field within the premises of the chinati foundation (which owns and preserves a large collection of his work).
There is a timeless aesthetic effect that resides within the boxes. This timeless aesthetic effect is born out of the objects and their composition alone. It could be transported anywhere to similar effect. That is to say, there is an aesthetic quality that is inherent to this particular form. Within the proportions and arrangements of the volumes we find a particular sense of beauty. While the particulars of the aesthetic quality may change as its location does there is still some underlying aesthetic aspect that exists regardless of its environment. This notion of an aesthetic effect I believe is harder to achieve. Thus, I have grown interested in and become pursuant of it.
However the exact nature of this effect will be different depending on the sun angle, context, and environment but, the aesthetic effect that lies in the object itself and composition would remain the same. There is one form of aesthetic effect that lies within the object itself and another that exists in its relationship to the environment. When experiencing the boxes we can observe the composition of the boxes contrasts in the openings and closures of the boxes without referencing the environment. But, the way the sunlight interacts with the boxes to form shadow, or the way in which the boxes frame the landscape also generate their own sense of beauty. It would seem the landscape plays a large role in the aesthetic effect of the boxes. Without the specific landscape they are in one could not enjoy the way they interact with that specific horizon or frame that specific view. There are then two related but separate aesthetic effects attributed to an object: those inherent to the object itself, and those that exist in its relation to the environment.
On the other side of this environment-aesthetic effect relationship is the particular aesthetic effect that is only caused by the architectural object’s relationship to the environment. The interplay of this specific horizon line and the forms of the boxes only exists within this environment and moving them to another place would destroy any aesthetic effect particular to this interplay. It is not my intent to say either of these aesthetic effects is better than the other. I merely note that there seems to be a difference in these two forms and we will need to be able to rationalize both.
OBJECT-ORIENTED ONTOLOGY