Response_02

In his paper, Jorge Silvetti gives us a clear and very straight forward of the 4 main different types of approaches in today’s making of an architectural project. I think that he has a great way of describing them and as I was reading it made a lot of sense and I could definitely think of buildings relating to each of these categories.

However what really caught my attention in this essay was when he writes that “perhaps it is time to accept that metaphor in architecture is useful as a sparkle, as a starter, as a guide, or as a shadow, […], but always treading on dangerous borderlines between the sublime and the ridiculous. “ It reminded me of Pablo’s presentation of last week and him saying that bullshit was the most common word he got as a response to the question “what is a thesis?”

Throughout my years in architecture shool, I have found that there are a lot of projects that I have seen a lot of project that rely on a “logical bullshit” in order to explain why the building is a certain way. I have myself also used bullshit concepts to start a project, however I think that the hardest part of it was to step away from that metaphor (or BS, however you want to call it) and really think about the building, or architecture, as a free standing thing that people need to use in every day life, and is making the form more organic or literal really going to change the way people need to use a building, does it make it easier to use? In my opinion, I think that a concept is a great way to start a project, however it has to quickly either “disappear”, or more specifically get translated into tectonic issues and architectural forms.