Reusable Processes and Architecture - 1
2025. 07. 23.
When I was young, the "architecture" I loved was things like LEGO and Kapla blocks. Given a blueprint and materials, anyone could create the same result. If you wanted to add some variation, you could change the materials slightly or partially modify the assembly method, but even so, it was better to follow the rules of using LEGO blocks or components with the same specifications as Kapla blocks, and deviating from these rules might prevent you from achieving the desired outcome.
When I first took the claases in architecture department, I thought the architecture I would learn would be like this. I vaguely believed that there would first exist a sophisticated methodology that everyone must follow to keep massive structures from collapsing and standing for decades, and that all architects in this world would be people working on top of this foundation. When I actually came and learned architecture, this was somewhat true... but it was only somewhat true, which made it difficult for me to adapt to the studies.
I remember making models in a second-year class where we designed small houses. In the situation of cutting foam core to make models, I would first envision the result I wanted to create, calculate the dimensions of the pieces needed to make it, process the materials according to these dimensions, and create the form. It was natural for me to strictly follow this procedure, and looking back, I think it was because in the actual process of constructing buildings, determining the dimensions of components, processing them, and assembling them are separate processes that must be carried out precisely, so I believed that this spirit should be embedded in the model-making process as well. However, watching how my friends made models, I could see that they would first think of the form they wanted to create, then cut the foam core to roughly fit the dimensions, and if the desired form didn't emerge, they would make a few more cuts by eye to match the intended form. If it had been me, the moment the desired form didn't appear, I would have gone back to the first step and carefully reviewed the procedures I had gone through to find errors, and that would have definitely taken a really long time to make the model.
There is a tremendous difference between having a system for creating results exist first and exploring what results can be made through this system, versus having something you want to create first and utilizing the system somehow to make it. The architecture I had imagined and wanted to learn was the former, but almost all the architecture taught at university was closer to the latter. Thinking about why this was the case, it was probably because the actual process of architecture, not all architecture but still a considerable number of cases, was closer to the latter.
Sadly, and at the same time interestingly, the various topics I have been interested in within architecture so far have been about systems that precede the space and form that follow them. Parametric design was about putting variables into the design process to create multiple forms following the same system, and digital fabrication was about systematizing even the manufacturing of forms generated in the same way as parametric design. Automated architectural design can be seen as something rooted in the methodology of parametric design that has refined the process of creating results much more sophisticatedly. And the electronic architecture I dealt with in this graduation exhibition is a topic that is neutral about whether form or system comes first, but the way I approached this topic can be seen as a thorough exploration of the system underlying the forms that can be created, as it dealt with the foundation and possibilities of how spaces using memory as a site can be implemented.