A METHODOLOGY FOR CORRECTLY TEACHING FORM IN ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN

A METHODOLOGY FOR CORRECTLY TEACHING FORM IN ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN

A Treatise by Francis Joseph

INTRODUCTION:

The premise of the paper is that the present methodology of teaching form in architectural and design colleges may not be adequate or even correct enough to prepare the future architect or industrial designers for producing built forms that are the best possible solutions which the architect or designer may otherwise produce. While the author acknowledges that the author has not actually surveyed all the architectural and design colleges in the world and their teaching methodologies, as such this task might be impossible for any one person to achieve, nevertheless one may infer their teaching methodologies from the new architecture and industrial design that is produced around the world today. Some conclusions can also be drawn by examination of the syllabus of the college where it is publicly displayed. While this may sound presumptuous on the face of it, it is nevertheless a humble attempt by the author to point out certain anomalies and deficiencies as perceived by the author and ways to mitigate and overcome these defects and to foster positive debate amongst educators, students and professionals about the same. The author has deliberately not provided any illustrations or pictures to prevent any misinterpretations. To be specific, I am forcing you to fully read the paper and use your 'mind's eye' to understand the points raised.

ASSUMPTIONS:

There are certain assumptions that this paper is built upon and even if there may not be any proven scientific basis or sufficient body of research for proving the veracity of all of these assumptions, nevertheless we will have to assume them as universal truths if we are to make any headway in finding a correct method of teaching form. The reasonings and elaboration of these assumptions are discussed in detail in the main body of the paper.

1) FORM is a simple description of what the architect or designer conceives as a final result of the design process and is in fact the design solution. This form, and all FORMS found in the universe are always characterized by three attributes:

- three dimensionality ( It must have a clearly definable three-dimensional structure)

- color (It must possess a clearly definable color map)

- texture. (It must possess a clearly definable textural map)

2) All the three attributes of a FORM , viz. three dimensionality, color and texture are EQUALLY IMPORTANT to the definition and completion of the form.

3) Any changes in any of the three attributes (three dimensionality, color and texture) will result in a DIFFERENT FORM being created.

4) All three attributes of the form are to be equally well DESIGNED for the final form to be fully conceived to the best of the designers ability.

5) Form does not necessarily follow FUNCTION and is not dependent upon it for its final conception. In some cases, it might even be a requirement of the design to advertise a completely opposite function, as camouflage. Innovative and unusual conceptions of form can even suggest new, hitherto unknown functions and abilities and drive design and technological EVOLUTION.

6) Size or Scale is not important in defining FORM.

ELABORATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS:

As design is often a hotly debated and poorly understood subject due to the lack of universally authoritative TEXTBOOKS on the subject, the author is quite sure that many readers might have issue with some or all of the assumptions enumerated above. Accordingly, this section of the paper attempts to provide explanations and justification for all the assumptions stated. All the examples in the paper are exclusively going to be drawn from nature because at least with nature we may be reasonably sure that the controversy about the designer's motivations and results are not going to be debated with a 'but nature is a bad designer and this is a bad design' argument. If you were to substitute 'nature' for any famous/infamous designer or architect you know then you will understand the point being made here.

1) FORM IS DEFINED AS ANYTHING WHICH CONTAINS THREE DISTINCT ATTRIBUTES OF THREE DIMENSIONALITY, COLOR AND TEXTURE.

This particular definition is not the author's original idea, but has been defined by many others at earlier times, some of whom are acknowledged in the bibliography given at the end of the paper. It may be considered superfluous to discuss this at any length because of the already available literature on the matter. Some thought should be given to its opposite though as 'formless things' being defined as lacking one or more of the attributes which define a form. Gases and liquids are often such formless things because they often lack one or more attributes. The air we breathe is an excellent example of a formless substance because it lacks all three attributes, clearly defined three dimensionality, color and texture. This particular definition also assumes great importance when an architect or designer fails to fully conceptualize or DESIGN one or more aspects of their final form, usually either the color or texture or sometimes even both. This is the most glaring defect in the modern design education in that little, or not enough importance is given to the conceptualization of color and texture in the curriculum. One can easily evaluate any modern building or object from the design standpoint by examining if enough emphasis has been given to all three attributes equally and not just the three dimensional aspects of the design.

2) ALL THREE ATTRIBUTES ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT:

This assumption is going to be best understood by examining nature as designer and not famous buildings or designs. For illustrating the point let us examine three fruits, viz. The apple, orange and guava. One can easily see that they are basically spherical in design, yet are quite easily identifiable because of their very distinct designs of color and texture. Even if we were to put for example, a 'granny smith' apple next to a guava there would not be any confusion to the viewer because while they are apparently both spherical and green, their textures are distinct enough to tell them apart. And what would the fruit basket look like if a modern-day architect were to design the fruits in them? With little emphasis given to color and texture, buyers would have a hard and frustrating time trying to differentiate between the apples, guavas, oranges, sweet limes, etc. Why should buildings be any different? Is it indifference, laziness or merely a lack of adequate education? There are three different attributes which all forms have. If a designer were to truly achieve the best possible form for any given situation, all three attributes must be equally well designed to produce the best solution. To fail to fully conceptualize any one aspect is to reduce the overall success of the design by 33% for each attribute that is neglected.

3) ANY CHANGES IN ANY ONE ATTRIBUTE (THREE DIMENSIONS, COLOR OR TEXTURE) RESULTS IN A DIFFERENT FORM

This assumption is quite often neglected or failed to understand because it is not always appreciated when it comes to the less emphasized attributes like color and texture. So if i simply change the color of the paint on my building it becomes a different building? Some readers might laugh to think of such absurdity, but I ask the reader then, what happens when you change the color of your skin? Or your eyes, or your hair? Let us not forget also examples from nature where till quite recently both melanistic and albino varieties of animals would be considered different species, e.g. the 'black' panther is merely a melanistic version of the ordinary leopard.

4) ALL THREE ATTRIBUTES OF FORM MUST BE EQUALLY WELL DESIGNED FOR THE DESIGN SOLUTION TO BE COMPLETE

As explained earlier, each of the attributes of the form have EQUAL weightage, about 33% per attribute. One may evaluate the final design solution by establishing how much thought and design process has been invested in each of the three attributes. Neglecting any one aspect will result in a reduced design result or a poor design.

A Design Analysis of a typical contemporary designed building or product:

3-dimensional attribute = 100%

Color attribute = 25%

Texture attribute = 0%

_________________________

Total design success =41.5% (125/300)

As one can see in the above example, while the designer might believe that they have done a good job with the design, actually they are not even half way there. There are many, many examples in nature that illustrate how minor changes in any one attribute results in new species being created. To adequately and COMPLETELY design anything, one must first have the knowledge, the skills and the experience to conduct a proper design process with each attribute separately. This knowledge, skill and ability will only come if it is first properly taken care of at the education stage itself. It is unfair to the clients or the general public to expect the designer to 'learn on the job'.

5) FORM DOES NOT FOLLOW FUNCTION

This is perhaps the most difficult assumption to swallow for many modern designers largely due to the hoary old adage 'form follows function' as touted about as a law by the erstwhile Bauhaus designers. Today it appears to be set in stone and just about anybody who is vaguely aware about design or architecture will trot it out as an absolute given fact. Unfortunately this is no law at all but merely some kind of religious dogma or doggerel which has no relation to reality. Form will be whatever the form wants to be and it really has very little to do with the objects apparent functionality. Once again, we only need to look at nature to see abundant examples of form doing whatever it wants to do despite apparent functional requirements. The example of the peacock and the peahen is a very good one. Both are male and female of the same species so one can't survive without the other. The peahen is a perfect example of 'form following function' as it is a large bird and therefore it has drab coloring to hide in tall grass and brush, streamlined body allowing it to run fast and enough wing power ( ratio of wing area to body area) to fly away quickly enough from predators. The peacock on the other hand is a ridiculous assemblage of overlarge and overloud feathers with many textural variations and scintillations that are there only for show, so much so that it actively defeats the very purpose of survival rendering it almost impossible for the peacock to hide anywhere, be quiet or even run away. It can only lumber about in painfully short flying (thrashing about?) hops that barely allow it to escape the most geriatric predator, and yet the species has survived for at least a million years with plenty more to look forward to. Camouflage is another term we've learned from nature because of the many and wonderful forms that insects, birds, animals and plants take to hide in plain sight from predators. Predators also do the very same and also adopt coloration, textural adaptation and three dimensional design to be invisible to their prey. So how come it's not a universal rule for every living thing to use camouflage as standard design? I'm sure you all know the many and wonderful, bizarre, colorful and showy species in all flora and fauna which do pretty much the opposite and everything in between. So if nature provides us with an overabundance of breathtaking invention of form to appreciate, why should we limit ourselves to the drab and supposedly functional? We are artistic creatures with unlimited free will and the means to create whatever we want. To deny ourselves free rein in self-expression is to deny ourselves our very humanity. If we decide to be peahens then so be it, yet if we decide to be proud peacocks, then that also should be equally welcomed, and every shade in between.

6) SIZE OR SCALE DOES NOT MATTER IN DEFINING A FORM:

Size or apparent size is a function of distance from the observer. If we are very far away from a structure, like up in an airplane, then it will visually appear to be very tiny. If we come closer, the size and scale keep increasing until if we come very close to the object it appears enormous. Even an ant will appear enormous if we can reduce the visual distance like observing it under a microscope. Accordingly, a scale model of any design is formally the same thing. Unfortunately, many architects and designers often use the excuse 'its only a model' to justify poor skills in model making. This is what often creates confusion about this aspect of design.

A BRIEF OUTLINE OF A CORRECT METHODOLOGY FOR TEACHING FORM IN ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN

If the reader has successfully made it this far without any serious disagreements with the premises put forth previously then we may get down to the more interesting job of figuring out a way to design a curriculum that will adequately prepare the aspiring architect to be able to do adequate justice to any design problem and create form that is fully conceptualized in all its three attributes, viz. three dimensionality, color and texture.

The scope of this paper does not allow any lengthy debate about design methodology and in any case there are innumerable texts which go into great detail of methods to conceptualize a three-dimensional formal solution of any design problem. An examination of these texts in the light of what has been discussed earlier will reveal that they largely or entirely detail out methods of arriving at THREE-DIMENSIONAL only solutions with little or no emphasis on the problem of color or texture. Accordingly we may assume for the sake of brevity that the methodologies followed for training an architect or designer to create three-dimensional form are adequate at least. We can then focus our efforts on working out a curriculum to teaching design conceptualization in COLOR and TEXTURE only.

COLOR CURRICULUM

At the outset, the teaching of color in architecture and design institutions is complicated by the fact that there is a lot of misinformation and mythology associated with color, some of which might even be deliberately disseminated, which can cause quite unnecessary and serious problems to devising a correct methodology. Again, the scope of this paper prevents the author from going into further detail about these complications, but we can subvert these issues mostly by sticking to the plain truth where we can find it.

The curriculum suggested is also divided into several modules that aim to teach the student one of the particular considerations of color while devising the color map of the form. All together these modules will provide the student of design sufficient mastery to develop any design solution.

MODULE I - BASIC DEFINITIONS OF COLOR AND COLOR WHEELS

MODULE II - COLOR INTERACTION AND HOW IT WORKS

MODULE III - COLOR PSYCHOLOGY

MODULE IV - COLOR SCHEMES AND A FEW STRATEGIES TO DEVISE THEM

MODULE V - DESIGN PROJECTS WITH FIXED THREE-DIMENSIONALITY & TEXTURE BUT VARIABLE COLOR

MODULE VI - MATERIALS IN COLOR AND HOW TO IMPLEMENT COLOR IN DESIGN PROJECTS

TEXTURE CURRICULUM

Texture is the most difficult aspect of design education because unlike the earlier two attributes, texture is a topic that is almost completely ignored in most design education curricula and practically no literature or research exists for this subject. Nevertheless, this is an attribute that is of equal importance in the definition of a form and therefore must be given equal emphasis in design education. Since very little examples exist of design solutions with a well-designed texture map, nature would need to be used to find examples of well-designed texture maps.

MODULE I - BASIC DEFINITIONS OF TEXTURE AND HOW TEXTURE IS VISUALLY PERCEIVED

MODULE II - TEXTURAL INTERACTION AND HOW IT WORKS

MODULE III - TEXTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

MODULE IV - TEXTURAL SCHEMES AND HOW TO CREATE THEM

MODULE V - DESIGN PROJECTS WITH FIXED THREE-DIMENSIONALITY & COLOR BUT VARIABLE TEXTURE

MODULE VI - MATERIALS IN TEXTURE AND HOW TO IMPLEMENT TEXTURE IN DESIGN PROJECTS

CONCLUSION

The scope of this paper prevents the author from going into greater detail on practically all the points enumerated, suggesting that more papers need to be written about all of them. Undoubtedly, more research projects also need to be undertaken, particularly from a scientific methodology of approach to reduce the contentiousness of the points raised. While the author is a firm believer in the approach that there is no 'universal design method', nevertheless reality is well-defined in terms of the underlying physical laws of nature and so while aesthetics might not be universal, there are underpinning realities of existence that cannot be changed at will or ignored.