The architectural “signs”…. And signs in general…
What are signs?, this seemingly simple word that symbolizes
a symbols in which used for representing a particular object seems physically
easy to understand, yet, in the world of architectural theory, the notion of
signs actually raises a lot of questions and strangely relates to many ways, we
humans interact with the surroundings. Firstly, “signs are always referring to
something seemingly real”, hence, the signs for a dog would be different from
the actual dog and that “dog” would also be different when interpreted by different
people based on their personal experiences. Also, each signs have different effects on us that link to
our personal judgments and emotions, for instance, when the first caveman
discovered the first “shelter”, or as we know, the cave, he relates this
unknown space with shelter, safety and warmth, thus, this is passed on to
others, and the “cave” became a “sign” that relates to shelter and feeling of
comfort. Moreover, the signs that each of us perceived today is actually
interpretation of someone’s else understanding, and with that, we will also
create our own image and understanding. Signs can be categorizes into three
groups; icon – a sign that looks similar for what it stands for, eg. The Buddha
sculpture. Symbols – a sign that doesn’t necessary look like what it stands
for, but is understand from our society and experiences such as the Christian
Cross. Lastly, the Index sign – it communicates to us through being a part of a
process that we can imagine such as a bullet through a wall would communicates
gun fired. Interestingly, we can see some artists and architects applying the
theory of the sign into their building; in one of Mies building in Chicago, he
uses the steel truss to stick onto the façade of his tower, not as a structural
aid but as a kind of a “sign” that referring to the steel that is hidden
underneath the concrete due to Chicago’s fire law. Thus, I see this as a way
that Mies expresses himself and declared his signature to the world despite
these trusses not having any function at all.
From the class discussion, I feel that signs are so often
used that we are often forgotten the simple truth that the signs and the
objects are actually two different things, this is proved when we claimed that
the image of a pipe is a “pipe” while the truth is that “it is not a pipe, but
a painting f a pipe”. However, some signs are used to the extend of becoming
its own “object” rather than the object that it is representing, a sign of a
house is so widely used to the point that, most of us would recognize the
simple “pentagon” in representing a “house”, in one way, I feel that this is
the success of the sign, yet, because of this fact, designers are trying to
“de-signs” their works, to de-sign is to removing the sign, which are quite
common, making the outcome more unique and “new”. MURDV, is one of the well
known architectural company that actually play with the theory of the signs
quite well as they uses the process of “translation” to play with the new
composition and create “newness” without entirely loosing the essence of the
“sign”. Thus, the process used to arrive at this new form actually has logical
reasons, through using the translation of form, it create a new transformed
form that can be used which would deconstruct the common / generic semiotic and
hopefully create a new “sign” of its own.
Overall, I was quite impressed with this session and the
topic of “sign” as I think that it relates to most of us de-signers. Also, it
sparks a controversial idea that if what we’re learning is also an “interpretation”,
“the sign” of the ajarn, then is there anypoint in reading the texts
themselves? As seen in the Phaedrus text that, rather than reading the book,
Socrates suggests that he would rather “hear” it, this implies that the
“interpretation” is more interesting, and valuable than the book itself.
However, as I came into realization, because of this very fact that everything,
every “signs” today are interpretation from someone’s else, to get to the core,
we must de-sign those signs, and the only way to do this, is to try to go back
to the original and try to interpret it by our understanding. Once we have our
own interpretation, we can use the process of “translation” to transform, to
deconstruct the object, which hopefully, will lead to the arrival of the new,
unique de-sign.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น