The best thing about blogs, they just keep going

Out for the year, will be back! :)

After taking this class, I was really interested in architecture. Of course, this class did not simply "change my life" by it really did give me an insight on a career of my choice. I may not become an architect, or simply a good one- but I think it is really amazing that I learned from one. Architects are amazing. They know about ratios, logic, advanced mathematics, etc. Yet, their career looks superficially simple. When we think of architects, we picture people sitting in offices- burrowing their heads into piles of papers. But not all architects are created equal. Architects like Rafael, are those who don't just agree, they show you what you can do better. And that it what makes an architect classified as a good architect. In January, this class was hazy for me- I had not a clue what I would be doing, I was simply always confused, and I really didn't see much interest. Yet, teachers/architects- like Rafael, don't do the "substitute teacher" strategy- sitting at the front desk as the clueless students lollygag and sleep around. Rafael is an amazing teacher. He knows what to do, and how to do it. I look forward to classes like these.

This is a tree house crafted mainly of wood. To me, it represents balance and harmony. It is well balanced on the semi-thick tree trunk. It looks so balance that it looks unrealistic. I mean, how does a heavy structure balance on that scrawny trunk. It is a design flaw since the structure may fall over at any time. I would not like to live in this house since it just looks ugly: the displeasing colors, the concept itself! And the idea of ants and termites living under my feet: burrowing into the wood. For this reason: 1-10, I would say 1. Others may or may not enjoy it, but I would not even consider walking into this house. And for that, do you have to climb up and down a tree everyday. If there is a thunderstorm: wouldn't it just collapse?

This is a structure in Massachusetts- The Massachusetts State House. The golden dome, the tall columns, the arches, allow the historical aspect of this building to come to life. The golden dome looks like it is real gold: the texture, color, shading, and almost everything about it looks real. The Romanesque columns are still visible in these arches in the facade. And the various columns  look Corinthian- very exquisite!!!. The windows are small, but not too small- and not too large: just the right size.This building, in my opinion, looks displeasing: just the colors and facade do not look too friendly since it looks like a fancy DMV. From a 1-10 scale, I would say 5 is my opinion.

Today we conducted an election that decided which group's pavilion would be sent to Figment, in New York. Forest was out first, unfortunately. Then Honeycomb flew away out of the election due to a shortage of votes. Then it was a nail biter between "Bird" and "Future". Future won by one vote, and then a discussion followed: what the problems with Future was, and what the right solutions were. After a 20-30 minute discussion, we resolved most if not all issues. In my opinion, every group tried their hardest and had amazing ideas, I especially enjoyed the Forest concept because it was synthetic, and it looked natural. There was an unplanned theme of nature in our projects:
Bird: the name itself and the concept is very natural
HoneyComb: resembles an actual bee honeycomb
Forest: it's a Forest!!!! How is that NOT natural??
Future: made partly of bamboo, and partly of PVC- the natural part was the bamboo.

Today we learned about Early Christian Architecture. The Christians primarily put their architectural emphasis on religion. They created a building specifically for baptism. This signifies the serious transition to Christianity. Buildings like the one above: a church,  is a place of solemn, yet holy worship. The symmetry is visible in two main areas: the aisle, and the arch.

Aisle: There are absolutely no curves in the aisle, it is straight , like a passage to a holy place- the altar.

Arch: If arches weren't symmetrical they would abruptly collapse, they would never be able to hold up- since they are symmetrical, the weight is balanced evenly.

Today, we also had a presentation of arches: Martin and Jarod talked about arches: their purpose, their style, use, and time period. Both presentations were amazing- although some might argue that Jarod's was better because it was more infortmative or longer. 

In my opinion- I enjoyed both presentations since they shared at least something in common.