one viewpoint more compete than another?
Only if you are comfortable
with your head in the sand!
it possible to completely understand a system from only one viewpoint,
or two, or three?
Not really but if you
are interested in more than basic survival then the more [viewpoints] you
encourage, the better your chances at understanding and success are.
something IS does it always objectively look the same?
The same thing can look
entirely different from a different point of view, and to make it potentially
even more difficult consider this:
A viewpoint is not just
a point of reference it is also a WAY of considering something [a viewpoint
within a viewpoint!]
compete knowledge possible?
compete knowledge desirable?
Well, it is more a question
of whether it is even attainable, but to address the question; the pursuit
of it can be a cop out on managing the process... focusing on finding out
everything about something [or everything!] begs the question of what the
purpose of knowledge really is. Lots of knowledge does not presuppose
good judgment. Certainly the more knowledge you have the better your
potential understanding of a subject is ...but it is also very easy to
loose sight of the forest for all the trees [to get lost in facts without
complete knowledge doesn't provide all the answers then why bother trying
to attain it?
Actually knowledge is
really good stuff, but it is more important to look for the ESSENTIAL characteristics
of a system and to have a sense of, or an understanding of, where a system
is and where it is likely to go... to find a balance between knowledge
The really important
thing is to develop a sense of direction about where a system is likely
to "want" to go and to find ways to encourage convergence between where
you think a system should be and where the system is likely to be.... and
to do it with limited resources.
Razor offers a comfortable alternative.
The obvious solution
to a problem has about the same chance of being the best solution as a
GUESS [maybe 50%]. So if you are satisfied with a 50% success rate
then you can save yourself a whole lot of effort trying to understand the
nature of things. What's more, broadening your viewpoint and increasing
your vision does not proportionally improve your chances of understanding,
you have to work harder and harder for increasingly smaller returns.
like a lot of work?
Well it usually is, but
the results are ALWAYS more satisfying than the alternative [the 50% solution].
True some of the "magic" of a spontaneously and accidentally conceived
solution may be missing but in its place there is the sort of peace that
comes from harvesting the fruits of an intellectually honest effort.
for tomorrow's use. Tough to do especially since tomorrow as a moving
target. It is equally "tough" to put practical constraints on the
visioning process. As the distance from a goal increases the probability
of the end point being what you expect it to be decreases.
Clearly the "future" is
subject to all kinds of influences. Two of the most common attitudes
towards it cause much of the "dissonance" found in the built or created
environment: thinking that it can be completely controlled and that it
is a fixed point, and thinking that it is impossible to plan for.
The reality is neither.
A crucial or decisive point or situation, a turning point, a crossroad.
A crisis is precipitated
by a decisive action or a decided lack of action. In some contexts
crisis is "bad" and others it is "good". It can be argued that a
crisis is only a degree of change; and further that life without crisis
is something less than life...or to put it another way; a definition of
death is "the absence of change". Since crisis is defined as "a crucial
or decisive point or situation, a turning point, a crossroad" and since
change is implicit in the definition, it does not take a rocket scientist
to realize that a life without crisis could be construed to be death.
Managing crisis then can
be done in two very different ways: Trying to keep things the same, and
learning to live with and/or create change.
The word “Art”
is actually two words depending on its use, and this is where the confusion
begins. One is a Noun and the other a verb, the noun is a “thing”,
an object, and the verb is when the practice of a discipline is described
as an “art”. For clarity; when referring to something created simply
for expression I use “fine art [noun]”, and when referring to the performance
of a discipline I use “art [verb]". For example: the “Art” of cooking
in contrast to a work of “Fine Art”, Brahms Second Piano Concerto. One
is a “process” and the other a “thing”.
Fine Art is created to be:
1. A Dramatic [degree is
optional] and/or Sensory Experience without specific representation or
2. Something that alludes
to profound [degree is optional] meaning or philosophical content and is
intended to be understood.
3. Or Somewhere in-between.
Even if the primary purpose
of a built environment is for the celebration of an aesthetic experience
the environment must still perform effectively in most of the same ways
that the environment of a manufacturing facility, or an office, or a residence
does: keeping the wind and rain out, modifying the interior climate,
accommodating the necessary utilities and infrastructure, etc., etc.
For a built environment to be successful it must be successful on all levels
not just a select [or arbitrary] few.
Architecture begins and
ends with the client and his needs, not the personal feelings of the Architect.
This is a fundamental and essential imperative for the practice of “good”
Architecture so that can most effectively serve the program of the client.
The only exception might be when the Architect is his own “client” and
then he alone will suffer or celebrate the consequences.
So where does this leave
the aesthetic, the feelings, the non strategic parts of life?
Right where they should be; just a part of the big picture! While
it might be an important part, it is really just one part of a built environment.
The whole "ball
of wax"... Strategic design is a methodology that begins with the reasons
and lets the form be dictated by the purpose. The point here is that
design is more or less strategic by its very nature, because when it is
all over the successful operations depend on an appropriate and supportive
physical organization. In other words, successful design is also