Image courtesy of: Astrophysics.pro
A friend of mine, Bryan
Cantley of the architectural laboratory Form:ula recently began a dialogue
regarding the state within which our physical and digital creations exist, and
whether there was a locality that those constructs inhabit.......
"There is an interesting zone of occupancy that we usually don't talk about... the zone of the imagined world, or at least the zone of the representation of architecture. What happens then when we recognize that all of our drawings, models, sketches, ideas, populate some type of ethereal space...And what happens when those ideas, this projects, those representations... actually happen to meet... to converse... to argue... to acknowledge?
The Mobile Gatherspace and the AMP no. 001 obviously do not attempt to occupy the same conceptual or functional space... but given the fact the Mobile-G is a transient architecture, always looking for a home, its next place download... what if?
Airship and airfield. Thumb drive and USB port. Column and footing. Can anything be gained from the dialogue of recognizing this taboo-space?
In this projective cast, we must be reminded that we consume geometry, not produce it.
Maybe it's indicated space. Occupying the interstitial space of vision. I think about the countless sheets of mylar and vellum... the stacks of sketchbooks... the studio crammed with models [garage sale anyone?]... and then I think about the hard drives of data... data space.... WHERE are those models? More to the point, WHERE are the worlds these constructs inhabit? Can they be located? What are their boundaries? In a series of projects that are 'theoretical'... in what universe do they reside?
I started thinking about whether they were in a series of completely different worlds, controlled by their file names... or whether they might be a single space, inasmuch as VR can be singular.
So... although it's not a breakthrough or new idea... it's a significant realization about the nature of representation, experimentation, and theory. I hopefully open a dialogue in architecture that might leads to other conversations about what I might label as 'conclusionary space'..."
Bryan Cantley, Form:ula,2014
For what is worth Bryan,
my two cents……
It seems to me that one
can argue that the physical reality within which we exist, is a static representation
of the more dynamic, complex and fluid reality…….of
our thoughts. The physicality of the universe is to some extent an extremely complex
recording of our comprehension of all things physical. Without consciousness,
does it even exist? Does Schrodinger’s cat, regardless of whether its’ dead or
alive, even exist without an observer? The difference between a physical model,
which exists outside the digital plane, and a virtual model that exists inside
the digital plane is only the format through which the construct was
represented and recorded. It’s all the same…….snapshots of the ever-changing,
dynamic universe (quantumality vs. reality?) that exists through our
collective consciousness. Reality, as we perceive it, is a collection of
constructs that we accept and agree to exist within. At one time, humanity
existed in a reality where the world was flat, and revolved around the sun.
That reality, that snapshot, that representation no longer exists, and is
continually changing, evolving and replacing (recording over, saving, saving
as?) the reality that preceded it. Reality is a nothing more than a construction
of perceptions and observations; I’ve been told that Mars exists, have seen
pictures of little robots traversing the surface of it, and agree with the construct
as it has been described and represented…….although I’ve never actually
observed the planet Mars.
At some point, a project,
work of art, a particular symphony, the planet Mars, did not exist. They did
not exist in reality…..until the conception of the idea, and its consequent observation.
At that point, they begin to exist in a singular quantumality (I know, weird right?),
that is to say it exists in many different states within the host creator. Upon
the instantaneous act of sharing with external observers, and regardless of the
medium through which the idea is shared, a fixed and static representation of
the idea achieves a certain quantum characteristic. It now exists in a countless
number of states within each observer’s memory, in a countless number of
realities and becomes a product of the collective consciousness. That singular
idea, and the collective information contained within that idea, has achieved
superposition in that it exists simultaneously in an infinite variety of states,
and in an infinite number of realities. My impressions, my perceptions, recollections
and interpretations are slightly different than those of other observers. The
instant that the idea is shared by a separate observer, a dependent
representation of the original idea is created (recorded, saved, or saved as)
and the process is recycled, reiterated and never ends.
Bryan Cantley
of Form:ula, suggests that”…we consume geometry, we do not produce it”. It is an intriguing suggestion. Our physical
reality, that is to say the observable universe is not produced or constructed,
but rather consumed or processed. As such, the finite and the static reality
within which we exist, is nothing more than a byproduct of that which we
consume: A residual physical memory of thought, creativity and intelligence.
What an absolutely intriguing concept. Something (some-thing) physical…..created
from nothing (no-thing). It’s not possible, but here we are, talking, sharing,
recording and representing (re-presenting) the constructs that occupy our
thoughts. Perhaps it is the observer that is within the physical confines of
Schrodinger’s Box, and it’s the cat, in all its possible states, that is
outside the box. Perhaps our role within the realm of physical existence is not
to produce and construct reality, but simply to witness and record its
possibilities………
RBP
2.24.2014
No comments:
Post a Comment