ROSKILDE 2011 AAA_BACHELOR_2.ÅR_F2011

1. ROSKILDE 2011 AAA_BACHELOR_2.ÅR_F2011

2. En struktur der skal facilitere ”pausen”på Roskilde Festival

6. Faseindeling og kalender

7. TEORI PRAKSIS

8. Faseindeling og Gruppestruktur

9. PAUSE – REWIND - PLAY

10. FASE_01: PAUSE - REWIND - PLAY Der arbejdes i hele fasen individuelt eller i grupper på maks. 3 personer. PAUSE Gennem denne fase udfoldes begrebet "pause" som fænomen og rumlig situation. Fasen opererer på to niveauer: Rewind (uge 06): Undersøgelse og udfoldelse af begrebet "Pause", konkret og fænomenologisk. Denne delfase påbegyndes med en undersøgelse og kortlægning af en konkret pausesituation; Øvelse F_01/1 Play(uge 07): Med afsæt i Rhizome kurset og diagrammet forstået som generator (abstrakt maskine), udvikles, gennem abstrakte tegninger og modeller, rumlige forløb og relationer med udgangspunkt i erfaringer fra uge 06. En række kortere, teoretiske tekster inddrages som inspiration til først at dissekere pausen og siden udvikle begrebet "Pause" konceptuelt og rumligt.

11. REWIND Notation & kortlægning (07/02/2011 - 18/02/2011) ."Ourfieldsmerge, overlap and aredoublyarticulated. The sensesarefields." Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Gennem iagttagelse og notation af en konkret pausesituation kortlægges de rumlige og fænomenologiske forhold omkring pausen. Den iagttagende må ikke selv indgå aktivt i situationen, men skal indtage en distanceret, betragtende og gerne ubemærket position, der gør vedkommende i stand at se nuancer og sammenhænge, der ikke nødvendigvis indgår i aktørens bevidsthed. Notationerne udføres som skriftlige og grafiske notationer, der beskriver den konkrete situation, situationens relation til et før/efter og de fænomenologiske og rumlige forhold omkring den. Pausen analyseres og dissekeres til forståelse af de enkelte bestanddele, der udgør den samlede rumlige oplevelse og situation.

12. PLAY (07/02/2011 - 18/02/2011) Med Roskilde Festival som tematisk kontekst udvikles "pausen" som fænomen og rumlig situation. Metodisk tages der udgangspunkt i EWP´s kursus "Arkitektonisk Tænkning/Rhizome". Kursets idégenereringsprocesser bruges som katalysator/værktøj i udarbejdelsen af et rumligt og fænomenologisk koncept, der danner udgangspunkt for det videre projektarbejde i de kommende faser. Gennem analog/digital tegning og model udvikles og kobles abstrakte rumlige relationer, forløb og sanseindtryk i et åbent diagram. De bærende elementer fra REWIND implementeres direkte som udgangspunkt for diagrammet. Diagrammet kan bære mange informations- og betydningslag. Parametre som tid, lyd, lys, fysisk udstrækning, sanseindtryk, kendte rumlige relationer og oplevelser af generel karakter kan introduceres direkte i diagrammet. (anythinggoes!) Alle disse informationer/elementer kan hives ud af tegningen og videreudvikles separat for senere atter at reintroduceres til diagrammet i ny form. Det vigtige er, at I forholder jer til at udvikle jeres intention om pausen på Roskilde Festival. Arbejdet i denne fase skal udmunde i et koncept for "pausen" baseret på rumlig intention, men ikke nødvendigvis repræsenteret ved et endeligt konkretiseret rum.

13. PAUSEN

16. NOTATION OG KORTLÆGNING

26. ABSTRAKTION • …diagrams represent abstractions 'symbolically' .

27. ANALYTISK eller SYNTETISK TEGNING”Der er to typer af tegning: den ene analytisk, den anden syntetisk. (...). Tegning somanalyse af hænger af et motivs forudgående eksistens. (...). Tegning som analyse er enmere eller mindre efterlignende, imiterende eller mimetisk praksis: den er optaget af at gentage de karakteristiske træk (såsom proportionerne, fordelingen af lys og skygge) som et middel til beskrivelse af ting, der allerede eksisterer, (...).Den syntetiske form for tegning forudsætter på den anden side ikke noget forudeksisterende motiv. (...). (...) den måske mest prestigefyldte manifestation af syntetisktegning er design. (...). Syntesen er ikke nødvendigvis et mål for forestillingsevne (foranalytisk tegning kræver en enorm forestillingsevne – (...)), men syntetisk tegning lægger nødvendigvis noget nyt frem. (...) syntetisk tegning begynder altid med forsøget på at frembringe noget nyt”Nelson, Robert, “The End of Drawing”, danskoversættelse v. Otto Pedersen, cit. fra: Carstensen, Claus (red.), Tegningens Semiotik, Det Kongelige Danske Kunstakademi, 2000, pp. 11-25.

29. DIAGRAMMET

30. An important problem facing any historical and theoretical project related to diagrams in architecture is the definition of 'diagram' itself. The word and the concept of the diagram have evolved in a variety of different disciplinary, professional and functional contexts, 17 complicating its understanding. The etymology of 'diagram' is not particularly helpful to a eamprehension of its present, multifaceted manifestations in architecture." The sources vary slightly, but the word is derived from the Latin diagrammaand Greek diagramma; these mean variously that which is marked, figured, traced, symbolised, written or drawn out. It comes from the Greek dia- meaning 'across. out or between-two' and grammameaning 'fiqure, mark or line that is made'. This abstract, general and ambiguous definition has been extended, by various writers, to the point where at present the diagram overlaps with such diverse entities as the sketch, chart, symbol, iean, table, silhouette, cartoon." template, outline. notation, parti, typology /type, scherna, format, archetype, logo, brand, emblem, motif allegory, index, impression, pictogram, ideogram, graph and doodle. Even in architecture and other spatial design disciplines, there is little consensus on any more precise way to define and distinguish, in all cases, the diagram from larger related things such as the drawing, sketch,20 illustration, visualisation, model, map, process and metaphor. These overlapping, liminal synonyms test and stretch the limits of the diagram as it is evolving in architecture and indicate the eamplexity and confusion of the conceptualisations, operations, uses, theorisations, experiences, values and meanings of the diagram in today's architecture and spatial design.

31. The problem with such a broad definition is that it dilutes the meaning of the term to the extent where it begins to decompose and collapse into even more general and unhelpfully vague concepts such as form, system, schema, space, structure, simulation, process, pattern, suggestion, analogy, influence and inspiration. The relatively recent theoretical articulation of the diagram in architecture is evident also in the chronological distribution of texts addressing the diagram in architecture. Though many of the precursors of the extant theorisations of the diagram in the spatial design disciplines emerged from related research in other fields such as the sciences, arts." philosophy, mathematics and engineering, and more recently computing, cybernetics and artificial intelligence (among others), it was only in the 20th century that the architectural diagram was explicitly theorised in a single publication devoted exclusively to the subject. Most of the definitions of the diagram in architectural and other spatial design theories draw on the works of Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), Michel Foucault (1926-84), and Gilles Deleuze (1925-95) with Felix Guattari (1930-92). Foucault's critical theorising of architectural diagrams (through the example of the Panopticon) is still the canonical articulation of the social, political, cultural, economic and psychological mechanisms and effects of the design of spatial diagrams. His concept of the architectural diagram was influential on Deleuze and Guattari's work in this field, which remains the most influential and enduring basis for almost all theorising on the diagram in architecture and spatial design.

32. Across a number of texts, lncludinqDeleuze'sFoucault (1998)22 and co-authored with Guattari, in particular, A Thousand Plateaus (1988)23 Deleuze articulates at least three different concepts and definitions of the diagram (influenced respectively by Francis Bacon, Marcel Proust and Michel Foucault). Ithas been his concept of the diagram as 'abstract machine ... a map of relations between forces that has been most influential in the spatial design disciplines. While other definitions and concepts of the Deleuzian diagram (related to Deleuze's study of the paintings of Francis Bacon)24 are also used. it is the concept associated with Deleuze's writings on Foucault that has been most influential. SilvioCassara'sPeter Eisenman: Feints (2006i5contains an essay by Anthony Vidlertitled 'What is a Diagram Anyway' in which Vidler26 offers a technical and academic analysis of this question. Beginning by stating a dictionary definition of 'diagram', Vidler ultimately finds it inadequate in its focus on the figurative, line-based qualities of marks and tracings used in diagrams. Instead he extends the definition by adding that 'it is the function of these traces that is important ... [the diagram] illustrates a definition, aids in the proof of a proposition, it represents the course of results of any action or process', Vidler's definitions are derived from Peirce's and Deleuze's notion of the diagram as an 'icon of relationships' which specifies. in a particular way, 'the relations between unformed/unorganised matter and unformalised/unfinalised functions'. Vidler seems to accept Deleuze's notion of the diagram as a spatiotemporal abstract map/machine and 'multiplicity' which 'refuses every formal distinction between a content and an expression'. Further, he distinguishes the ways in which diagrams differ from drawings, namely that diagrams represent abstractions 'symbolically' . ”The Diagrams af Architecture ” p.22-24, AD READER. Edited by Mark Garcia

33. Yannis Xenakis

35. Fænomenologi • "Ourfieldsmerge, overlap and aredoublyarticulated. The sensesarefields." Maurice Merleau-Ponty.

39. DAGBOG BOOKLETS MANIFOLD!