an email conversation between Brian Berson and Sean Ahlquist on the issue of technique and meaning in A  R  C  H  I  T  E  C  T  U  R  E.
                                                               .
     Brian  B  e  r  s  o  n     associate designer at NBBJ, visiting profesor at NC State School of Architecture
     Sean  A  h  l  q  u  i  s  t     principal designer - proces2
                                                               .
 -----M  E  S  S  A  G  E-----
From:  Sean Ahlquist [SMTP:seana@dnai.com]
Sent:  Friday, October 02, 1998 8:59 AM
To:    Brian Berson
Subject: an interesting point.
     Brian
There was a speaker on NPR that had a very interesting point and it brings up an interesting way of approaching design. He started the point by explaining his uneasiness with the movie Saving Priavte Ryan. He did not like the movie because it lacked the essentials of a good movie, those essentials being a good story and good characters. He saw that the only reason people were moved by the movie was because it was structured and made by the rules of making good movies. He took this comparison to TV, Architecture, Politics, etc. and explained it as "technique replacing meaning". Saving Private Ryan feels like a good movie because they used all the techniques of what makes a good movie. That's pretty much the point you were making about your comparison of American movies with Italian film-making ... How American film-makers use 'tricks' of sentiment to create emotion. I think he makes a plausible case to say that architecture follows the same path. I would explain it by saying that typically architecture is defined by using stereotypical expecations of what poeple see as solid, void, transparent, etc. You constantly hear architecture explained by the designer with catch phrases such as "to make it appear light and transparent", "so that it feels very heavy and substantial," "so it feels like it is growing out of the earth" (Meier on the new Museum in LA), visual or physical tricks that define the appearance of the object. In the case of architecture, the technique has become to manupulate poeple's understanding of how a certain architecture evokes a certain emotion. It builds design that doesn't stand on its own singular description. Whereas I think architecture should be driven by a certain and UNIQUE passion, necessity, or emotion, unfortuantely it is the technique of reorganizing known interpretations of how the architecture "should feel" that typically drives its meaning. Something to think about.      Sean
                                                               .
 -----M  E  S  S  A  G  E-----
From:  Brian Berson [bberson@NBBJNC.com]
Sent:  Mon 10/5/98 6:19 AM

To:     Sean Ahlquist
Subject:  RE: an interesting point.
     Sean
But isn't the experience of architecture an emotional one? Do I assume that my unique vision/passion is appropriate? The easy answer is we should do both - express our passion and be sensitive to the emotion our work will illicit. I push my students to come up with a direction instead of a goal. Those of them who follow their direction (what ever it may be) rigorously always end up with intreguing work. If we follow our passion rigorously, will our buildings end up being sensitive to those who experience them?.      Brian
                                                               .
-----M  E  S  S  A  G  E-----
From:  Sean Ahlquist [SMTP:seana@dnai.com]
Sent: 
To:    Brian Berson
Subject:  RE: an interesting point.
     Brian
I may not have fully explained myself. The point is not to avoid or ignore the experience of the objective user of the space. Rather, the point is to avoid MANIPULATING the experience of the objective user. Its about not making decisions along the lines of what the objective particapant views or accepts as GOOD architecture or even understands as different affects of architecture. The peice of architecture should stand true to its own self and on its own definition. The first situation is one where the architecture elludes to a sensation or emotion. The second is where the design creates the sensation. One calls upon the known reaction of the end user and manipulates it to fit a certain goal or outcome. The second creates its own interpretation for the objective user and the ideal is to have an architecture that elicits varying interpretations among objective users. I think this is a degree of designing along a process and not toward an outcome. But you still have to be aware of what reasons are giving you the results for your design. If a wall is built to 20' high ... is it tall to make the user FEEL overwhelmed or the space FEEL tall? ... or is it part of a montage that CREATES a whole different sensation for the user? Its like creating a living organism - is your heart there to make you FEEL alive - NO! - its a peice of what keeps you alive - its a part of the function that makes us a human living organism - yet as a whole, the outcome relizes more than just being a living organism. Just as the architecture should be more than a standing artifact. The starting point, I find, is to break away from using an architecture to predict a reaction. I've turned more towards creating a framework in which the users form there own individual reaction to their specific experience at a specific time. This fame of mind forces me to analyze and AVOID how a user may typically react to a space, material, texture, etc.
                                                               .
I think it is a very diffucult line to judge architecture by. For the biggest challenge in my mind is to make an architecture which satisfies the goals of singularity and honesty within itself, yet also tells a more broad story of congruity and place within a context (urban context). I strongly oppose the ideas of continuity by stark contrast or on the other hand, continuity by complete replication. So I find it the highest challenge to walk the line of varying degrees of continuity and singularity, invention and comfort.      Sean
                                                               .
-----M  E  S  S  A  G  E-----
From:  Brian Berson [bberson@NBBJNC.com]
Sent:  Thu 10/8/98 6:34 AM
To:     Sean Ahlquist
Subject:  RE: an interesting point.
     Sean
I posted our recent emails in my studio yesterday and a lively discussion followed. My students are finally distinguishing between "technique" and "meaning". At NCState, (and many other schools I imagine) the two have been combined. It is important for students to learn technique, its just not what I'd like them to leave my studio with. They get enough of it in other studios. In my class, they'll learn that technique alone is shallow.
                                                               .
Technique is well within their comfort zone since it can be easily judged and comprehended given the formal rules we all learn as architectural students. To learn technique, students assign the "big picture" early in the process and spend their time trying to get to the big picture conclusion. Two problems with this: 1. The big picture is assigned within the first week of the project before any sensitive understanding can possibly occur; and 2. In manipulating the form in the pursuit of the end result, almost all decisions regarding design come out of the students head. They already know everything they are doing, so no learning happens.
                                                               .
Only in following a direction, not pursuing a goal, is the designer free to look outside their head for answeres. It is through this that revelation can occur and design can be experienced as a process of learning.
                                                               .
So thank you for solidifying these ideas in my students. My goal for the semester (distinction between technique and meaning) is getting closer - and the students are scared to death of it but willing to try.      Brian