Texas A&M University. Department of Architecture Fall 2017.
Totemism. a Gallery fo Louise Nevelson, Houston, TX.
Student: William Palmer
I’d
like to start by saying that my project is a little different from the other
presentations. As my project developed I
was allowed a little leeway to explore a different set of ideas than the rest
of the class.
The
project started like others as an analysis of a house plan, in this case my
house was Hill House by Mackintosh. The
plan was scaled up along a set of regulating lines that follow an imagined field
of circular irregularities from this small wash basin through this large
staircase and farther. As I scaled the
drawing up I didn’t scale uniformly though, the figural poche was scaled larger
to bring it to the forefront of the project.
And as I reached the end of the original plan I continued to take the
existing geometry further out into this area.
The
process next turned the diagram into a 3D model. This is where my project deviated from
others. I decided to represent the figure
I was highlighting in three distinct ways:
The one-dimensional
etched line work from the diagram remained on the model’s top layers.
The
two-dimensional planes became the bulk of the model. By selectively cutting
them, the project reveals many interesting moments of void and texture. Additionally, the weakening introduces
another aspect of figure that is intrinsically linked to the original diagram. From
a post-digital perspective the project was restricted to one process (laser cut
MDF) and extrapolating within that constraint, the flatness is not a downplayed
aspect, it’s celebrated. This became the
core of the project, with the flatness able to define ground, mass, and void;
and suggest section and volume.
The 2
½ dimensional field of figure present here was figure taken to its logical
conclusion of volume while also showcasing pieces of figure from the model but
removed from most of their context. This
erector set of 2D pieces arranged in 2 ½ D represents the original figure in a
kind of tectonically discrete elements.
The
next step was turning the model, from a fictional object, into a building. I started by taking the 2D layering that was
creating mass and extrapolating it down while taking cues from sectional
drawings of classic architecture.
I
consciously tried to avoid the postmodern pitfall of merely representing a historical
object in a modern context. Throughout the process I tried to take cues from,
but not copy outright, any particular element.
The goal was to suggest, almost inadvertently, a link to a history of
representation.
A
large portion of the project became an exploration of architectural detail writ
enormous, once again in a post-digital sense.
Some of the shared elements are: the round and rectilinear column shapes
(with a slight entasis) holding up an entablature with a sort triglyph-esk
pieces all sitting on a plinth that can also be interpreted as a type of talus
slope. Basically this new speculative
object disengages from its actual context and becomes once again an object of
speculation. The project is about a
detail as building produced by operations of stacking and arguments of flatness
that is writ large and asks the following ontological questions:
Is it
an enlarged model of an architectural detail ?
What
reality does it belong to?
Is it
in a sort of process of ruination in a post- Piranesian sense like the
Capriccio etchings?
The
question of ruination is also asked by the discrete elements sculpture garden
falling over the edge of the object.
These elements clearly have an origin at the top of the building but
spill over the edge and even sink into the ground around the base, questioning
their temporality.
Finally
the project deals with the problem of un-grounding.
The
layering operation of the base also brings into question where the ground
is. Many layers can be seen as several
ground layers and almost invite people to climb on and use the outside of the
building as public space, reaching to the top of the
object as a new ground.
The
program of the building is largely divided into four areas:
The
basement/plinth is dedicated to local Houston infrastructure. I would propose a
water collection and filtration station.
The
next several layers are all massive gallery spaces dedicated largely to
sculptural works by Louise Nevelson.
Above
that are several administrative, storage, and smaller gallery floors.
And
lastly the sculpture garden sits on top.
Given
its qualities, this object resists epistemological exploration (getting to know
the object in a subject – object relationship) and prefers to find itself in an
ontological dilemma of trying to figure out what it is.
