Our most recent AD brief for the third year design students asks them to abstract the idea of play in architecture to make a museum for games. The method they have been asked to follow is to extract principles behind games and use them as architectural rules.
I am going to try to theorize here, as per my thinking, the idea of 'play' in architecture.
---
PLAY-SPORT-GAME:
A simple, singular activity, that doesnot involve too many parameters, executed towards attaining some form of pleasure may be identified as play. Play is physical - it relates to a bodily experience. It can be experienced through the five senses of the body. Play becomes a sport when the idea of competition is attached to it. The idea of competition establishes a hierarchy over the skill one possesses over the play. Plays generally finetune themselves to become sports. Sports may also articulate themselves through the combination of multiple plays. A sport complexifies thus, its form through the involvement or layering of many plays. Plays become skill-based activities that people compete over where pleasure eventually becomes a byproduct of competition. Pleasure now doesnot remain physical, but goes beyond to a state of mind.
When plays happen within the realm of the mind, they become games. When sports are played within the frame of mind, they assume the status of games. This doesnot mean that games are non-physical. When physical actions are planned enough in the mind before being executed, plays become games. Games involve some kind of mental strategizing.
The understanding of sports v/s games thus start getting complicated. It is difficult to dissociate mind-body actions and hence, sports and games become inter-changable and do not fall into one bracket. They constantly share methodologies of each other. Games however, must have a larger quotient of mind than a sport. Sports are generally associated as being more physical. Hence, we see that much of the times, we associate 'games' as something indoor, something that happens 'within'; something that can not be 'seen' - that which goes on in the mind. On the other hand, sports are plays that happen in open spaces, they are performative and visible to everyone.
Something that is visible is always perceived as more transparent (fair-play). Hence, 'game' often assumes a negative shade in its use in everyday life (don't play games with me)...
Another dimension to games is also that they are tactical - the destiny of a game is controlled by externalities. In case of board games, the die controls the fate of the game. Thus it becomes unpredictable, and attributed to luck. On the other hand, a sport can be easily won over by appropriate practice and efficient application of physical skill.
PLAY IN SPACE:
Plays in space are often manifested through opposing ideas. For example, light and dark, up and down, in and out, high and low, here and there, etc. Such ideas essentially allow for multiple possibilities to exist simultaneously. (note the conjunction 'and' - which suggests the co-existence of dual qualities). Such simultaneous existence layers the reading of a space and makes it more meaningful. But this shall not be sufficient to make a space playful.
One of the key aspects of play is uncertainty. The way in which one choreographs the above contrasts in space to weave a story may enrich the concept of play in space. The idea of surprise is could become one of the central ideas for play. (Although, surprises can have many shades and need not necessarily become playful. Sometimes, surprises can result into shock, or completely undesirable revelations). Playful surprises are uncannily friendly - to some extent, they should be anticipatory.
Visual articulation of space can also make it playful.
PLAY IN MAKING:
The formation of rules is what shapes up a game ultimately. It is the rules that generate the 'play' for games. The tactical maneuvering of rules generates endless possibilities of making a game playful. What then, shall be such maneuvering for architecture? Perhaps the provision of multiple possibilities for the user to perform a single action in space, the possibility of the user to utilize the space in manifold ways, in essence, allowing the space to adopt for tactical use by its user may be looked upon as something that constructs play.
PLAY IN ARCHITECTURE:
Play in architecture can be more like playing with the vocabulary of architecture. One can challenge certain notions of ways of building through the ideas of play. Since play is also about 'rules' and 'parameters', architecture can become playful by constantly challenging these established rules for itself. One of the examples I would like to cite here is Robert Venturi's house for her mother. Although Venturi almost plays with the visual in the first instance, there is also a rupture of the established notions of making a layout. Thus, the act of architecture may also become playful by re looking its own self, by innovatively using its own tool box (the tools / elements through which architecture is realized)
I am going to try to theorize here, as per my thinking, the idea of 'play' in architecture.
---
PLAY-SPORT-GAME:
A simple, singular activity, that doesnot involve too many parameters, executed towards attaining some form of pleasure may be identified as play. Play is physical - it relates to a bodily experience. It can be experienced through the five senses of the body. Play becomes a sport when the idea of competition is attached to it. The idea of competition establishes a hierarchy over the skill one possesses over the play. Plays generally finetune themselves to become sports. Sports may also articulate themselves through the combination of multiple plays. A sport complexifies thus, its form through the involvement or layering of many plays. Plays become skill-based activities that people compete over where pleasure eventually becomes a byproduct of competition. Pleasure now doesnot remain physical, but goes beyond to a state of mind.
When plays happen within the realm of the mind, they become games. When sports are played within the frame of mind, they assume the status of games. This doesnot mean that games are non-physical. When physical actions are planned enough in the mind before being executed, plays become games. Games involve some kind of mental strategizing.
The understanding of sports v/s games thus start getting complicated. It is difficult to dissociate mind-body actions and hence, sports and games become inter-changable and do not fall into one bracket. They constantly share methodologies of each other. Games however, must have a larger quotient of mind than a sport. Sports are generally associated as being more physical. Hence, we see that much of the times, we associate 'games' as something indoor, something that happens 'within'; something that can not be 'seen' - that which goes on in the mind. On the other hand, sports are plays that happen in open spaces, they are performative and visible to everyone.
Something that is visible is always perceived as more transparent (fair-play). Hence, 'game' often assumes a negative shade in its use in everyday life (don't play games with me)...
Another dimension to games is also that they are tactical - the destiny of a game is controlled by externalities. In case of board games, the die controls the fate of the game. Thus it becomes unpredictable, and attributed to luck. On the other hand, a sport can be easily won over by appropriate practice and efficient application of physical skill.
PLAY IN SPACE:
Plays in space are often manifested through opposing ideas. For example, light and dark, up and down, in and out, high and low, here and there, etc. Such ideas essentially allow for multiple possibilities to exist simultaneously. (note the conjunction 'and' - which suggests the co-existence of dual qualities). Such simultaneous existence layers the reading of a space and makes it more meaningful. But this shall not be sufficient to make a space playful.
One of the key aspects of play is uncertainty. The way in which one choreographs the above contrasts in space to weave a story may enrich the concept of play in space. The idea of surprise is could become one of the central ideas for play. (Although, surprises can have many shades and need not necessarily become playful. Sometimes, surprises can result into shock, or completely undesirable revelations). Playful surprises are uncannily friendly - to some extent, they should be anticipatory.
Visual articulation of space can also make it playful.
PLAY IN MAKING:
The formation of rules is what shapes up a game ultimately. It is the rules that generate the 'play' for games. The tactical maneuvering of rules generates endless possibilities of making a game playful. What then, shall be such maneuvering for architecture? Perhaps the provision of multiple possibilities for the user to perform a single action in space, the possibility of the user to utilize the space in manifold ways, in essence, allowing the space to adopt for tactical use by its user may be looked upon as something that constructs play.
PLAY IN ARCHITECTURE:
Play in architecture can be more like playing with the vocabulary of architecture. One can challenge certain notions of ways of building through the ideas of play. Since play is also about 'rules' and 'parameters', architecture can become playful by constantly challenging these established rules for itself. One of the examples I would like to cite here is Robert Venturi's house for her mother. Although Venturi almost plays with the visual in the first instance, there is also a rupture of the established notions of making a layout. Thus, the act of architecture may also become playful by re looking its own self, by innovatively using its own tool box (the tools / elements through which architecture is realized)
No comments:
Post a Comment