Translation of an idea, a raw concept, in an architectural language is an initial concern of design. This process is usually done by drawings, a tool which let the imagination come to reality. The bright side, a tiny crack on the black box, is the chance of realizing the idea but most of the time, the design is done before even it really starts. That’s why almost every architect believes architecture is for tough skins. Frankly speaking, we all know that such a cliché is a way for people to survive in different professions, to keep the sense of belongingness; doctors believe they have the most stressful job in the world, Civil engineers think they do all the serious work while architects just paint a rainbow-ish piece of shit and the list goes on. But there is a truth in differentiating how people think in different professions and it’s about the way they look at their surroundings. Focusing on architectural design, understanding three-dimensional space is an inevitable requirement. The way objects are perceived in the space, their coordinate, their order, sequence of narratives and the power of picturing all in the head before starting a move, are what make architects stick out.
Read moreDecember 29, 2018 — No Comments
Is There Any Common Dominator Between Architecture, Economy, And Culture?
Despite the examples in history of architecture, which rarely were connected with business or hardly found by financial initiatives, it seems hard to think of the same relationship today and the main reason is the drastic change of economic systems. Yuval Noah Harari in his book Sapiens: a brief history of humankind simply explains how the notion of money came into the world. He comprehensively draws the picture of an economic framework by introducing the power of imagination in human’s mind and the matter of trust which can run the wheels of the economy. In part of the book about barter, he writes: “An economy of favors and obligations doesn’t work when large numbers of strangers try to cooperate.”, “… barter is effective only when exchanging a limited range of products. It cannot form the basis for a complex economy.”[1] Which points to one of the reasons why there are no more examples of architecture regardless of financial concerns. In fact, architecture as a complex product, was not exchangeable because it was not easy to find out its value and the relative prices of dozens of commodities and exchange rates.
Read more