The proposal for ‘Academic Interchange’
focuses on the art of getting lost.
Undetermined meetings, topics and participants are being encouraged and suggested thanks to the
un-oriented, undefined path of a defined group of visitors. Visitors from
different backgrounds, disciplines, randomly meet in random incubators,
enhancing the equal opportunity and differentiation of the engaged discussions.
The proposed architecture
offers full control of circulation, way findings, yet does not orient.
Architecture can and should offer multiple Varity of differentiated
choices where users can freely and democratically choose their
own path through. Getting lost is the natural reaction for the offered choices
of finite ‘if not’ infinite paths and spaces. Instead of forcing users to find
their way with the help of the conventional architectural elements of atriums
and corridors, Architecture forces users to “GET LOST”. The building proposed allows people to escape
tense and stress of getting lost. On the contrary, invites them to celebrate
such experience, by assuring a degree if not a full degree of control to their
targets. During such process of getting lost, the users will encounter variety
of spatial experiences.WHY
“ARCHITECTS” STILL CELEBRATE TERMINOLOGIES LIKE: ORIENT, CONTROL, AND DIRECT
PEOPLE WITHIN BUILDINGS?
It is required now to have a sweeping change in the
picture of Orientation; architecture should offer an experience beyond
the common sense, the so called “Orientation”.
For such, It is required that Architects abandon
comfort zones of dictatorship, start to embrace the reality of the human
nature.
Such concepts of disorientation, should not by any
means deny the urge for architecture to behave as a guiding apparatus. After
all, architecture is all about control, it is the art of creating inhabitable
spaces, and designing their approaches. This puts us in a political paradox.
Shall or shall not architecture orients and controls
people? The answer is pretty simple if we distinguish between the both.
The proposed architecture is not approached
through one entrance, not even multiple entrances, but rather a matrix
of field of paths. Users can hardly identify how he reached there, which rout
he took, and how he gets out. When he gets out, most probably the rout will be
changed, a new path with its new experiences will be waiting for the user. User
need to worry no more about constructing cognition maps.
View Original