Difference between revisions of "Landscape Architecture"
|Line 230:||Line 230:|
'''white''' . . . . . '''I''' . . . . '''black'''
'''white''' . . . . . '''I''' . . . . '''black'''
this with everything, either you zoom in or
this with everything, either you zoom in or , the two methods, Immanuel Kant already defined:
'''micro -> macro'''
'''micro -> macro'''
Revision as of 17:52, 6 January 2016
:Definition of space, as set
The terminology and the definition of landscape architecture have changed. Still in a move, one can place it under planning disciplines. Transforming and adapting to different fields and necessities, both human and environmental. It is also a learning discipline: operators have to deal with every possible issue involved in the planning process – including the unforeseeable – determined by the space one works with. Another field it can be list under is the construction department. It is a discipline where ideas become alive and physical, set up by an operator. Usually one means the outside space, referring to natural processes, when one talks about landscape architecture. An open space. Open towards the sky and open towards the land. In an vertical and horizontal way. One can therefore also speak of two main directions. It depends on the type of space one is in, one deals with and one is talking about.
- 2D space.
A flat space. Constructed by 2 vectors. Visible from above. It describes the space one uses, when one is drawing a ground plan.
The tools are lines, geometric forms, areas, textures, structures, colors, text, numbers, measures, special characters and much more.
- 3D space.
The space which opens up a room with 3 vectors. It is easy to define this architectural space in relation to a building, as the area which surrounds it.
This conception of landscape architecture, as a planning discipline of its own, emerged during the early 19th century. Whereas previously such tasks were solved by architects. For this reason, landscape architecture was always bound with architecture itself and its own understanding of space in correlation to buildings, as the space in-between.
The perception of landscape architectural space. This space can be perceived as a space constructed around a perceiving subject. One could describe it as a stage. A horizontal space with it's special character. When one moves, a whole wall morphs into a concave area, with which one engages.
Space is always around us, regardless of being inside or outside a building. Inside or outside the landscape architectural space. To reflect, what architecture and landscape architecture brings together, one needs to understand, what environment means. For a landscape architect in practice it always points towards an ecological field, where one has to deal with issues of protection, for example. For an architect, environment can mean this as well, but, the thought can also bring us to a combination, where space is placed. The environment is the space, where everything happens and both situations of space, the landscape architectonic and the architectonic space, are part of. Here and to make it easier for the understanding and for the usage of the terminologies in everyday life, landscape architectural space can somehow stand as a synonym for the 'outside' and architectural space as a synonym for the 'inside'. To give a simple technical explanation of this: It means, because buildings are often wrapped in walls and a skeleton, it feels, that we are talking about an inside space. Landscape architecture refers to an outside space, underneath the open sky. Of course there are combinations possible. What for example is a covered courtyard or a green area with a glass roof? So there must be added another parameter which helps to define the terms.
- The content of green.
The landscape architectonic space is recognisable by its content of green in every possible way and how this content is placed and spreads out within its placement, which does it mostly in a horizontal direction. For nowadays architecture understanding this may look like a very limited definition, because buildings can also contain 'green'. In this way, landscape architectonic space is difficult to locate. And for practical reasons one can rely on the kind of professions, which have to deal with it and therefore chose another category for telling what is what. But within this case it is also possible to talk about both. If the project itself includes more architectonic problems, it can be called architectural space. If it contains more landscape architectonic facts, one can tell about landscape architecture. The boundaries are shifting.
- The quality of surface.
The dimension of soil in a negative vertical direction, towards the inner earth, is important for defining the kind of space. In both cases, one also needs to consider the type of surface, where the made and placed objects are. The material of the surface, the attributes of the soil. Landscape architecture is, as much as architecture, determined by the surface, where it should be. Both need a ground to be placed and to just be. This, without consideration of space architecture flying around in the universe. Landscape architecture can be often found and felt by it's direct contact to an organic underground and the direct contact the perceiver has, when he is engaging with the space, by touching. A possible way is analyzing the kind of materials which were used and bring them into order, additional telling it's sources and decide, either architecture or landscape architecture based.
- Height and depth.
Another main factor is the altitude. Landscape architectural space is often arranged in the horizontal dimension. Architecture can be noticed out of huge distances, because of its mostly dominant vertical dimensions.
:Definition of tools, as known
Tools are essential. What can be a tool is a question of interpretation. In this case and referring to the pre-listed points tools are described through its orientation and using in space itself. A tool is a method to express ones imagination and ones aim, ones solutions and ones visions. Determined by that it is all a question of measures.
All that space we can see, all the physical build space around us has its own measures. It is a question of perspective and the point of view. Measurements are given through the typical measuring unit of the country, where the creating process takes place, regarding to practice. But the eye always brings a scale, which the observer sets by itself. Inside and outside.
Zero space in your AUTOCAD file, non space in layout, scale space when printed.
To set one's own rules and restrictions for the creation of space can be a tool as well. By asking questions: 'What is allowed? What do I not want?' (exclusion principle) the planner can go as far as he pleases. There are always basic circumstances which have to be taking into account. But while trying to find the optional solution on another layer, it can help to step forward quickly within this process. It is to sharpen the actors and operators own view and turn it into the form more precisely. And it helps to come to a conclusion and show the steps clearly: by always looking forward, but allowing to look backwards, within the same stage of work. How limited can it be?
It is the strongest and the most unpredictable tool the operator can use to create. This material is alive and changes while put into the created scenario.
How much control can one have over nature?
- The presence of materials.
How the place unfolds and winds itself around to become a prisoner in it's own being or turning around to become the observer of what it would never become.
Materials equals tools. The planner chooses what will shape the idea of the space he has in mind.
Through which materials should the place be experienced? Through which face should the place become a stage?
The amount of change and how important it is are questions of the perception of the participants in the process itself.
There are always factors which effects change on the physical building itself, after the construction is finished.
- The attempt of concurrence.
Ecological strategy types of plants are: C-, S- and R- strategics. Being separated or growing in a pack, compact.
Using the knowledge to analyze the behavior of human.
- Taste equals sound.
To show up and dance and to see how the living takes place and marks the space. Dancing heart. Beating lighting.
:Usage of tools to describe a landscape, as experienced
To tell a story the language can be word-based or image-orientated. The language can have a sound which doesn't need any voice, it can be told through movements, gesture or a moment through another production.
How many different sound sources are present?
How many different sound sources are present in/at/on the space you are present?
Are your ears good enough to hear them?
The bells of St. Pauls, London, January 2015 by FMBB
The sound of EPFL, Lausanne, October 2014 by FMBB
I . . . . . . . . .
. I . . . . . . . .
. . I . . . . . . .
. . . I . . . . . .
. . . . I . . . . .
. . . . . I . . . .
. . . . . . I . . .
. . . . . . . I . .
. . . . . . . . I .
. . . . . . . . . I
On a scale from 1-10 : 1=quietest & 10=loudest. Check yourself.
Different cities, different speeds.
The mind frame makes the picture. A picture made of pixels. Single pictures form a whole video, which can be the video of your life, your world, the world of the landscape architect, the world of the architect, the world of the canal worker, the world of tomorrow, the world of world, the world is in your head and outside.
A photograph shows a moment. A part of the whole and can be used to underline details or show an impression.
Through a movement from one point the observer can catch the space around in a single picture strip (perception of space). This tool allows catching a whole scenery, not only a squared format excerpt of the/your/our world/space/place/time/mind frame.
Loud, quiet and silent. Voiceless. Noiseless. In a move.
video as a medium
FMBB about him 01/06/2016
Das Bild ist die Bewegung.
dreh dich um
und um dich selbst
und um dich selbst
- People's Behavior.
- Light & Darkness.
white I black white black black I white
all just white I black, but in different shades of black and white
It's a question of perspective and scale/shade/percentage.
What do you see and how do you see the world?
Either you see the parts like it's white I black or black I white as the in-between/change room or pure white & black
You see the whole, the full, which makes always 2 things, which appear in different shades and make the one thing, the moment you currently look at like a scale for:
white . . . . . . . . . . black
with already a degree/an estimation/impression, it's set:
white . . . . . I . . . . black
this with everything, either you zoom in or out, the two methods, Immanuel Kant already defined:
micro -> macro
small parts -> one common thing
macro -> micro
common things/one thing -> some special parts
- Living Factors.
- Environmental Justice.