Examples of my UI design for the massive Orbitz Worldwide project Zeme are available with explanations for each page, I’ve added a page for my Orbitz white-label re-design, a selection of my work for CheapTickets.com is now up, a couple representations of my design for the Orbitz employee network portal are available, and I’ve added a catch-all page for various out-of-context web elements and assets I’ve designed for various projects.

Documentation still-to-come: Orbitz.com, ebookers.com, more CheapTickets.com, more corporate application interfaces, freelance projects, but I don’t think I’ll go back too many years.

And, of course, there’s photography, drawing, documentation of installations and performances, and recorded projects in sound. I don’t know when I’ll get to any of that.

Director Christopher Hines paints an intimate portrait of contemporary gay culture by asking pointed questions and studying the diverse lifestyles of its members, with the resulting film offering a fresh look at masculinity and homosexuality. Interviewing gay men ranging from rugby players to rodeo stars, Hines also talks to historians, psychologists and sociologists to help identify the similarities in the way gay men view themselves.

I didn’t perceive much balance between different sorts of gay men in this film. My hope was that it would be an exploration of what homomasculinity means personally for a variety of gay men, but comes off as more a defense of gay culture. “See, we’re not all limp-wristed, screaming queens! We play football, we’re cops, we ride bulls!” (Excuse the hyperbole.) The viewer is presented with personal statements from a coterie of very “butch,” athletic gay men that would fit into masculine stereotypes in both the straight and gay cultures, presented as to seem so masculine that their sexuality is surprising.

These profiles are contrasted with three “femmie” gay men. Their personal statements revolve around struggles they’ve had being perceived as un-masculine, but only perceived as such by straight men applying homosexual stereotypes. How have other gay men perceived them? With the same stereotypes? Do other gay men always assume them to be gay? And what does masculinity mean to them since they aren’t perceived as masculine? They don’t even seem to label themselves as masculine, and why not? What meaning does that have? Is the fascination with masculinity limited to only a few gay subcultures?

The closest the film seems to get in exploring homomasculinity is a brief look at bear culture, which, according to the film, centers around celebration and obsession of masculine stereotypes. I would have liked to see at least one profile of leather culture. (There are a few tantalizing images of leathermen celebrating at, what appears to be, the Folsom Street Fair, but none of them talk.) This is the subculture which seems to have the most focus on defining what homomasculinity is, including its extension to Dominant/submissive relationships. (The film claims to explore what it means to be “butch” or “masculine” in gay culture, but what it’s really trying to explore has more to do with homomasculinity, cf. Jack Fritscher.) Questions of what masculinity means in terms of top/bottom roles in gay culture can well be informed by investigating D/s roles, both of which are perceived as highly masculine.

Ch. 1 “The Education of the Architect”

The architect should be equipped with knowledge of many branches of study and varied kinds of learning, for it is by his judgment that all work done by the other arts is put to test.

A weighty sentence, especially being the opening one, but a bit difficult to interpret. I understand it as meaning the architect must be educated in many areas and arts because so many desperate areas of thought and activity are used for both the criticism of architecture and the direct use of architecture. Architecture needs to support all these areas both in theory and in use.

Two points in architecture

…the thing signified, and that which gives it its significance. That which is signified is the subject of which we may be speaking; and that which gives significance is a demonstration on scientific principles.

Architecture as both theory and practice, the practical design of buildings and the theory behind the design.

Let him be educated, skillful with the pencil, instructed in geometry, know much history, have followed the philosophers with attention, understand music, have some knowledge of medicine, know the opinions of the jurists, and be acquainted with astronomy and the theory of the heavens.

Specific areas in which Vitruvius believed an architect should be educated: drawing, mathematics, history, philosophy, music, medicine (or biology, I would say), law, and astronomy. Why music? It seems that Vitruvius was interested in the sonic interpretation and effects of architecture (which interests me greatly). Drawing and mathematics lend physicality to architectural theory taken from philosophy and science. “The theory of the heavens” was important for Vitruvius for religious reasons, but a modern architect can use this to various amounts to produce a desired effect in a work.

In theaters, likewise, there are the bronze vessels which are placed in niches under the seats in accordance with the musical intervals on mathematical principles. These vessels are arranged with a view to musical concords or harmony, and apportioned in the compass of the fourth, the fifth, and the octave, and so on up to the double octave, in such a way that when the voice of an actor falls in unison with any of them its power is increased, and it reaches the ears of the audience with greater clearness and sweetness.

Fascinating, never read about this. I’m interested in designing spaces for specific sonic experiences (other than performance spaces), much of my art is about the aural experience of space. The design of these theaters is something to look into further.

For an architect ought not to be and cannot be such a philologian as was Aristarchus, although not illiterate; nor a musician like Aristoxenus, though not absolutely ignorant of music; nor a painter like Apelles, though not unskillful in drawing; nor a sculptor such as was Myron or Polyclitus, though not unacquainted with the plastic art; not again a physician like Hippocrates, though not ignorant of medicine; nor in the other sciences need he excel in each, though he should not be unskillful in them. For, in the midst of all this great variety of subjects, an individual cannot attain to perfection in each, because it is scarcely in his power to take in and comprehend the general theories of them.

In other words, an architect knows something about a lot of things, as opposed to an engineer that knows a lot about a single thing.

Ch. 2 “The Fundamental Principles of Architecture”

Architecture depends on Order, Arrangement, Eurythmy, Symmetry, Propriety, and Economy.

Order: measure to the members of a work considered separately, symmetrical agreement to the proportions of the whole

Arrangement: putting of things in their proper places, elegance of effect which is due to adjustments appropriate to the character of the work; Reflexion: careful and laborious thought, watchful attention directed to the agreeable effect of one’s plan; Invention: solving of intricate problems and the discovery of new principles by means of brilliancy and versatility

Eurythmy: beauty and fitness in the adjustments of the members (proportion)

Symmetry: proper agreement between the members of the work itself, and relation between the different parts and the whole general scheme, in accordance with a certain part selected as standard

Propriety: perfection of style which comes when a work is authoritatively constructed on approved principles, from prescription, usage, or nature

Have some disagreements here, following Le Corbusier’s arguments against the “styles.”

Economy: proper management of materials and of site, thrifty balancing of cost and common sense in the construction of works

Ch. 3 “The Departments of Architecture”

There are three departments or architecture: the art of building, the making of time-pieces, and the construction of machinery. Building is, in its turn, divided into two parts, of which the first is the construction of fortified towns and of works for general use in public places, and the second is the putting up of structures for private individuals.

Public spaces vs. private spaces, design of the urban center vs. design of the suburban

All these must be built with due reference to durability, convenience, and beauty. Durability will be assured when foundations are carried down to the solid ground and materials wisely and liberally selected; convenience, when the arrangement of the apartments is faultless and presents no hindrance to use, and when each class of building is assigned to its suitable and appropriate exposure; and beauty, when the appearance of the work is pleasing and in good taste, and when its members are in due proportion according to correct principles of symmetry.

I love reading Matthew Frederick’s wonderful book 101 Things I Learned in Architecture School, a book that everyone interested in architecture should buy, read leisurely and often, and keep alongside their collection of books on the subject. I aim to present one of these things each day, along with my own thoughts on the point and some examples.

#8 “Architecture is the thoughtful making of space.” – Louis I. Kahn

A perfectly succinct definition of architecture from one of the greats. Le Corbusier’s definition is a bit longer. He considered architecture the noblest art, an exalted calling combining plastic invention, intellectual speculation, and higher mathematics in a transcendence of utilitarian needs or “style,” achieving a spiritual creation of “emotional relationships by means of raw materials.” I think of architecture as a means to design an interface to space.

A dictionary definition is “the profession of designing buildings, open areas, communities, and other artificial constructions and environments, usually with some regard to aesthetic effect.” Well, that could apply to making buildings as much as it might apply to making architecture. This definition does not imply thoughtfulness.

Various other definitions of architecture include, “Architecture is the process of taking a concept or function and giving life to it spiritually,” and “Architecture is the design of buildings and landscapes with the intentions of being both aesthetically pleasing and functional.”

Kahn’s definition covers all of these succinctly and poetically. It applies to function as much as aesthetics, to the interplay of positive and negative spaces and solids versus voids, but all in the making of space, not facades or practicing styles.

I love reading Matthew Frederick’s wonderful book 101 Things I Learned in Architecture School, a book that everyone interested in architecture should buy, read leisurely and often, and keep alongside their collection of books on the subject. I aim to present one of these things each day, along with my own thoughts on the point and some examples.

#7 Suburban buildings are freestanding objects in space. Urban buildings are often shapers of space.

When we create buildings today, we frequently focus our efforts on their shapes, with the shape of outdoor space a rather accidental leftover. These outdoor spaces, such as those typically found in suburbs, are negative spaces because the buildings aren’t arranged to lend shape to the spaces in between.

Urban buildings, however, are often designed under the opposite assumptions: building shapes can be secondary to the shape of public space, to the extent that some urban buildings are almost literally “deformed” so that the plazas, courtyards, and squares that abut them may be given positive shape.

This can be easily demonstrated by comparing two examples.

The image on the left is from the suburban Brookfield Wisconsin, near where I grew up. You can see how these houses seem to be gathered haphazardly around the col de sac. It looks to me as if they’re floating on the surface of a pond and wind has made them gather together in a random pattern. The buildings do not define any positive space.

The image on the right is from the lower west side of Manhattan. You can see how the buildings have been shaped and placed in very specific and careful ways to define the space around them. This looks to me as if running water has eroded paths through rock.

Suburban Buildings in Brookfield, WI

Urban Buildings in Manhattan (Lower West Side)

A page of letters

]]> http://www.jcloewe.com/archives/365/feed 0 http://www.jcloewe.com/archives/354 http://www.jcloewe.com/archives/354#comments Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:12:42 +0000 jcloewe http://www.jcloewe.com/?p=354

I love reading Matthew Frederick’s wonderful book 101 Things I Learned in Architecture School, a book that everyone interested in architecture should buy, read leisurely and often, and keep alongside their collection of books on the subject. I aim to present one of these things each day, along with my own thoughts on the point and some examples.

# 6 We move through negative spaces and dwell in positive spaces.

The shapes and qualities of architectural spaces greatly influence human experience and behavior, for we inhabit the spaces of our built environment and not the solid walls, roofs, and columns that shape it. Positive spaces are almost always preferred by people for lingering and social interaction. Negative spaces tend to promote movement rather than dwelling in place.

Using this theory, negative and positive spaces can be arranged to guide movement through architectural space. The arrangement of spaces becomes a sort of instruction, a guide for how to navigate a building, sort of like a user interface for space. For me, this is what makes or breaks a building. In UI design, the arrangement of positive and negative spaces informs the user and guides their interaction with a system. Without careful attention to this arrangement an interface becomes unintuitive, even unusable.

My experiences within the Kimball Art Museum in Fort Worth Texas, designed by Louis I. Kahn, and the Art Institute of Chicago Modern Wing, designed by Renzo Piano, contrast each other directly. The spatial arrangement of the Kimball Museum informed me where to go, guiding me through the galleries, showing me where to slow down and linger to view work on display and where to proceed when ready. Despite being crowded during my visit, the galleries were calm and viewers casually moved around, viewing the exhibits. The Modern Wing does nothing of the sort. Upon entering I felt no impulse to move in any particular direction. Entering a gallery made me want to do nothing more than find a way through it to exit. Some galleries use the same portal for both entrance and exit rather than guiding a viewer to subsequent galleries . I’ve also found it crowded during my visits to this museum, despite being off-peak hours. I watched other visitors moving quickly through the spaces, not lingering amongst any exhibits. And the galleries were certainly not calm. It’s as if the entire architecture is made up of negative spaces, or at least lacks any balance between negative and positive.

Balancing this arrangement encodes the architecture with information about how to use the space.

I love reading Matthew Frederick’s wonderful book 101 Things I Learned in Architecture School, a book that everyone interested in architecture should buy, read leisurely and often, and keep alongside their collection of books on the subject. I aim to present one of these things each day, along with my own thoughts on the point and some examples.

#5 Solid-void theory is the three-dimensional counterpart to figure-ground theory. It holds that the volumetric spaces shaped or implied by the displacement of solid objects are as important as, or more important than, the objects themselves.

A three-dimensional space is considered a positive space if it has a defined shape and a sense of boundary or threshold between in and out. Positive spaces can be defined in an infinite number of ways by points, lines, planes, solid volumes, trees, building edges, columns, walls, sloped earth, and innumerable other elements.

According to figure ground theory, the positive and negative spaces that results from the placement of elements is just as important as the elements themselves, perhaps even more important than those elements. Extending this into three dimensions makes the theory applicable to architecture, interior design, installation art, and sculpture. Architecture is about creating space. Consider a building’s exterior versus it’s interior. As Le Corbusier points out, the exterior follows from the interior. The exterior defines a building for a viewer, but it’s the interior spaces, and how those spaces relate to one another, that is most important.