Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
In another time when kingdoms created their dynasty’s iconic buildings, the architect and artisans took their ques from the reigning monarch. In our modern pluralistic society the free reign of ideas and opinions as to contexts and their meanings are diverse. As the doctor takes the Hippocratic oath, the lawyer vows to defend all so there is one whose call is to capture the ethos (4.0 The Oxford English Dictionary, is defined as "the characteristic spirit, prevalent tone of sentiment, of a people or community” ) of his time into built metaphors, he is called architect. Not only is my childhood quest relevant but the essence of the responsibility of today’s architect who not only reasons the technical but individually reasons the conceptual. It is to the architect that society turns to be informed about the shape and form of the context in which life will be played. With this charge the need to know that we know and do by reasoning what science verifies by the scientific method to know that we know about the buildings, parks, and places we set into the environment. It is a public and private charge included in the contract for professional services but unspoken as professional life’s experience; to prove the relevant, meaningful and beneficial metaphors that edify encourage and equip society as well as provide for its’ health, safety and welfare. So it is critical to realize, control and accept as commonplace that the role of the architect is to do much more than build but build masterfully.
Early monographs were steeped in deductive reasoning since we could not find new information pertaining to metaphors. This included analyzing and explaining the syllogism: • Art[I] is the making of metaphors • Architecture (design) is an art [I] • Therefore architecture (design) is the making of metaphors. Till now we did nothing to reason why art [I] is the making of metaphors nor why architecture is an art. Since 1967 I proceeded to analyze the presumptions and find its many applications. This new information by Andrew Ortony first published in 1979, provides information to support inductive reasoning and to this end each axiom is its own warrant to the inferences of the above syllogism and the answer to why metaphor is the stasis to any of the syllogism’s claims and implications. The axioms are presented in labeled paragraph and subparagraphs format for easy reference and applications. Keywords: metaphor, architecture, thought, commonality, commonplace, dubbing, cognitive, knowing, stasis, art , [I] linguistic analogy, equilibrium, equipoise, topoi, top-down, frame conflict, appreciate, conduit, parte, design system, modified culture, mapping, structure, domain, signs, apparatus, spaces, volumes, shapes, forms, metaphorical mappings, invariance principle, alive, dead, onomatopeics, surrogates, appetite, desire, mind, indirect use, direct use, vision, gestalt, formulae, grand design, psychological, processes, metaphor comprehension, memory, mnemonics, encoding, mapping, categorizing, inference, assimilation, accommodation, attribution, inferential import, structured programming, stability, referential specificity, general acceptance of terms, vividness thesis, difference, identity, comparison sensible, communications.
Abstract: Eighty two issues and claims, where each claim has been derived from a corresponding issue, built the case for the resolution of the argument about the controversy that architecture is an art [I] resolved that architecture was the making of metaphors because it (architecture) made metaphors, personified by metaphor stasis’ two technical and conceptual dimensions. Both are valid separately and even more usual in combination. But how do these two work, and, how does this knowledge benefit design, use and evaluation of built works? The claims and issues were derived by examining Andrew Ortony’s Metaphor and Thought and works by Paul Weiss, William J. Gordon and the Yale lecture series on the same subject. While many arguments can be tailored to a specific audience others can be generic and shared. When they are shared the issues and claims supporting the resolution are usually broad in range, maximized and amplified. Amplified by number and range to hedge against the heterogeneity of the audience. However what was valid for Ortony will suffice for this effort, and a complete, comprehensive and coordinated approach will further understanding. Biographical note: (88 words) Columbia University coursework in behavioral psychology under Ralph Hefferline and others in voice Linguistics, Bachelor’s of Fine Arts from Pratt Institute and Master of Architecture from Yale University where I was mentored in metaphors and metaphysics by Dr. Paul Weiss. For research I founded the New York City not-for–profit corporation called Laboratories for Metaphoric Environments. In addition to authoring over fifteen published monographs by learned journals I have spent 20 years in Saudi Arabia and have written a book containing pen and ink drawings on perceptions of 72 European cities. Institutional affiliation: Global University ;American Institute of Architects; Florida Licensed Architect; Programming Chairperson for the Gulf Coast Writers Association; National Council of Architectural Registration Boards; Al-Umran association, American Society of Interior Designers; and founding president of Architects International Group/ Mid East.
Dividing the discipline’s metaphors between technical and conceptual is a reality not fully explored, nor I believe never noticed. In addition to the multidisciplinary relevance and general use of metaphors, metaphoric axioms, arguments in favor of the stasis of why interior design is an art the two realities of the metaphor work separately and together in six creative ways. Many of my monographs included analyzing and explaining the syllogism: • Art[I] is the making of metaphors • Interior design is an art[I] • Therefore interior design is the making of metaphors. Art [I] is only when skill is applied with intent and advanced development of some skill. Till now we did nothing to reason why art [I] is the making of metaphors, nor why interior is an art [I]. Since 1967 I proceeded to analyze the presumptions and find its many applications. This new information in Metaphor and Thought by Andrew Ortony first published in 1979, provides information to support inductive reasoning and to this end each axiom is its own warrant to the inferences of the above syllogism and the answer to questions of why metaphor is the stasis to any of the syllogism’s claims and implications. The six priciples explain the stasis in terms of metaphor’s two technical and conceptual dimensions. Both are valid separately and even more acceptable in combination. But how do they two operate and how does knowing this benefit design, use and evaluation of built works? The technical is that all art [I], including interior design, expresses one thing in terms of another by its inherent and distinct craft. On the one hand there is the designer who acts as the owsnere’s surrogate and on the other the fountain of conceptual metaphors which expresses ideas as built conceptual metaphors other wise known as interior desings. Techne is actually a system of practical knowledge as a craft or art informed by knowledge of forms. For example, the craft of managing a firm ofinterior designers where even virtue is a kind of technê of management and design practice, one that is based on an understanding of the profession, business and market. In this case the technai are such activities as drafting, specifying, managing, negotiating, programming, planning, supervising, and inspection. By association with these technai, we can include decorationg, funiture selection, color coordianation, writing, and painting. So much so that the study and practice of design is devoid from the humanities and downplays theories of design; developing rather the crafts, skill and understandings needed to plan, sketch, draw, delineate, specify, write, and design. Contemporary interior design is replete with axioms, principles and theorems guiding the geometry, applications of science, use of engineering, and formal logic to produce technical metaphors and justly excluding a whole conversation about the conceptual part of the built metaphor.
Nineteen dominant, sub-dominant and tertiary axioms are described in Andrew Ortony’s compendium entitled, Metaphor and Thought (Ortony, A (1993) which references the results of scientific method applied to metaphor in cognitive sciences, education, linguistics, psychology, learning sciences and philosophy. The key categories which underpin this work are as follows: · Metaphor and meaning · Metaphor and representation · Metaphor and understanding · Metaphor and science · Metaphor and education These axioms are the conclusion of their respective experiments as they may apply to architecture and the stasis to architecture being an art, the stasis being the metaphor. Since we are borrowing a term that is normally associated with linguistics, I have referred to the work of linguists in order understand how such axioms can be applied to architecture and become tools of cognition. It is a pragmatic exercise in reasoning where the axioms are the evidence and/or warrants to the inference that they support the stasis/resolution.
Artificail Intelligence Design Metaphor [Managing the benefits and risks of architectural artificial intelligence] (resolution) by Barie Fez-Barringten: “A real architect”: Florida license #:AR 0012705 www.bariefez-barringten.com email:bariefezbarringten@gmail.com Forward: This is not the script for the movie called “Artificial Intelligence” about AI Brian Addis (Brian Wilson Aldiss, a British writer, anthologist, and critic,) says; I found we both agreed that AI, as they call it, is not going to be achieved by present-day machines. 'Artificial Intelligence' -- that makes it sound simple, but what you're really talking about is artificial consciousness, AC. And I don't think there's any way we can achieve artificial consciousness, at least until we've understood the sources of our own consciousness. I believe consciousness is a mind/body creation, literally interwoven with the body and the body's support systems. Well, you don't get that sort of thing with a robot." It is reported that on working with Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg on Artificial Intelligence: AI (2001):] "Kubrick was obsessed by Pinocchio. He wanted David to become a real boy. In a future world of runaway global warming and awe-inspiring scientific advances, humans share every aspect of their lives with sophisticated companion robots called Mechas. But when an advanced prototype robot child named David (Haley Joel Osment) is programmed to show unconditional love, his human family isn't prepared for the consequences. Suddenly, David is a sovereign entity in a strange and dangerous world. Befriended by a streetwise Mecha (Jude Law), David embarks on a spectacular quest to discover the startling secret of his own identity. As a variation of idolatry, AI suffers from a tendency to ascribe life to the inanimate ascribing “good” or “bad” characterizations. Preface: As I argue the benefits’ and risks’ of architectural axioms I condition one with the other even though the risk to building design application is minimal and any consequences benign. I present this intertwined argument because such dangers are currently on the minds of many in the AI community. To talk about one without consideration of the other might seem presumptuous and naïve. However, in my opinion as a licensed design professional, the benefits to an AI user-context would far outweigh the risks. Whatever malfunctions and dangers would only affect a specific well contained user and be easily controlled. Worst case would be a cost of time and expense to repair and redo as is the profession’s current practice. Relevance: The resolution to my claims is that architectural metaphoric axioms themselves sufficiently manage the marginal risk [ff] of AI being a potential adversary limiting the intelligence of machines and explaining the essential difference between human intelligence and artificial intelligence. In my view architectural AI is best viewed as a surrogate and not an adversary! While architectural metaphoric axioms contribute managing the risk [ff] of AI being a potential adversary, it is left to society to debate whether machines have a mind and consciousness. Within this context the challenge for AI managers is AI’s capacity to discern metaphors (humans have the capacity and capability to make use and discern metaphors). AI challenge is to abridge these architectural metaphoric axioms into their platform’s programs and systems, when they do this AI’s and architecture’s mutual interactions will both be improved by metaphoric axioms and mange risk [ff]. To achieve this goal I believe the AI community can regulate, legislate, monitor and license AI and its architectural devices and thus engraft AI with sympathetic human characteristics and concerns. Abstract: As AI and architecture mediate and control their mutual interactions metaphoric axioms will have cognitive impact on both the future of architecture and AI because there is common metaphor between natural (NI) and artificial intelligence (AI). The inference warrants that for both architectures’ (AI and building) , master builder is an interdisciplinary, multi-crafted and multi-venue team, They are also both arts since they wed intentional ideas to craft and they both make metaphors, the commonality to all the arts. While “architect” actually means master builder and “architecture” the product of the master builder, this is historically identified with habitable buildings. The warrant to the inference of the resolution is that the computer industries (and virtual designers) have made a metaphor referring to the word “architecture” with its conceptual design and fundamental operational structures of computer systems. Already, IT and AI industry metaphorically compare their sciences and art of selecting and interconnecting hardware components to create computers that meet functional, performance and cost goals with the ways and means traditional architects design buildings. There is an interconectivity between the metaphor of computer’s instruction set architecture, or ISA, machine language (or assembly language), Microarchitecture and system design. Theoretically, I warrant that the as the body and mind of AI has identified itself with “architecture” there is an opportunity to use those links to apply and manage risks of AI to building architecture. However, benign, risks include operating system downtime, programming errors, inaccuracy in labeling and dimensions, misreading building codes, local ordinances, misinterpreting FEMA regulations and potential tampering with building security systems. . Further risks include erroneous selection of material and building systems that may expose architects to errors and omissions suits, so many of the general and specific axioms guidelines can be uploaded into the AI architectural system. So with AI potential risk [ff] what can be the impact of artificial intelligence on the future of building architecture?
As AI and architecture mediate and control their mutual interactions metaphoric axioms will have cognitive impact on both the future of architecture and AI because there is common metaphor between natural (NI) and artificial intelligence (AI). The inference warrants that for both architectures’ (AI and building) , master builder is an interdisciplinary, multi-crafted and multi-venue team, They are also both arts since they wed intentional ideas to craft and they both make metaphors, the commonality to all the arts. While “architect” actually means master builder and “architecture” the product of the master builder, this is historically identified with habitable buildings. The warrant to the inference of the resolution is that the computer industries (and virtual designers) have made a metaphor referring to the word “architecture” with its conceptual design and fundamental operational structures of computer systems. Already, IT and AI industry metaphorically compare their sciences and art of selecting and interconnecting hardware components to create computers that meet functional, performance and cost goals with the ways and means traditional architects design buildings. There is an interconectivity between the metaphor of computer’s instruction set architecture, or ISA, machine language (or assembly language), Microarchitecture and system design. Theoretically, I warrant that the as the body and mind of AI has identified itself with “architecture” there is an opportunity to use those links to apply and manage risks of AI to building architecture. However, benign, risks include operating system downtime, programming errors, inaccuracy in labeling and dimensions, misreading building codes, local ordinances, misinterpreting FEMA regulations and potential tampering with building security systems. . Further risks include erroneous selection of material and building systems that may expose architects to errors and omissions suits, so many of the general and specific axioms guidelines can be uploaded into the AI architectural system. So with AI potential risk [ff] what can be the impact of artificial intelligence on the future of building architecture?
After researching the many conceptual and technical qualities of metaphor, it still remained to reason the process by which metaphors impact actual buildings, professional practice, design, perception, and actual use. Was there a cause and effect relationship between the making and the reading of metaphors, and, architectural metaphors? Because it was no accident that architecture is a metaphor, it was reasonable to seek its cause. Otherwise it would only be a correlation, [a] where architecture was a metaphor without any consequent cause and would then would be unreliable and inconsistent. Actually, architecture is the result of both technical and conceptual metaphors. The challenge was to articulate metaphors into the design process so they achieve the goal of the product for the end user. Since cause is an inference that one factor somehow exerts influence on another; the inference not only asserts a predictable relationship between the factors but also accounts for it. After introducing the general cause and effect of ideas and metaphors, I present specific cause and effect relationships between the technical architectural tools, such as programs, drawings, models, and contacts, as well as the conceptual metaphoric tools of analogies, ideas, and culture.
Dividing the discipline’s metaphors between technical and conceptual is a reality not fully explored, nor I believe never noticed. In addition to the multidisciplinary relevance and general use of metaphors, metaphoric axioms, arguments in favor of the stasis of why architecture is an art the two realities of the metaphor work separately and together in six creative ways. My early monographs justifying architecture as the making of metaphors were steeped in deductive reasoning since we could not find new information pertaining to metaphors. Many of my monographs included analyzing and explaining the syllogism: • Art[I] is the making of metaphors • Architecture is an art[I] • Therefore architecture is the making of metaphors. Art [I] is only when skill is applied with intent and advanced development of some skill. Till now we did nothing to reason why art [I] is the making of metaphors, why architecture is an art [I] nor why architecture is an art [I]. Since 1967 I proceeded to analyze the presumptions and find its many applications. This new information in Metaphor and Thought by Andrew Ortony first published in 1979, provides information to support inductive reasoning and to this end each axiom is its own warrant to the inferences of the above syllogism and the answer to questions of why metaphor is the stasis to any of the syllogism’s claims and implications. For over forty years I have researched and written monographs presenting the evidence, inferences, warrants, claims and resolution for architecture as the making of metaphors and always another principle of the resolution emerges. This time I would like to explain the stasis in terms of metaphor’s two technical and conceptual dimensions. Both are valid separately and even more acceptable in combination. But how do they two operate and how does knowing this benefit design, use and evaluation of built works? The technical is that all art [I], including architecture, expresses one thing in terms of another by its inherent and distinct craft. On the one hand there is the architect who acts as the master builder (head carpenter); and on the other the fountain of conceptual metaphors which expresses ideas as built conceptual metaphors other wise known as works of architecture. Techne is actually a system of practical knowledge as a craft or art informed by knowledge of forms. For example, the craft of managing a firm of architects where even virtue is a kind of technê of management and design practice, one that is based on an understanding of the profession, business and market. In this case the technai are such activities as drafting, specifying, managing, negotiating, programming, planning, supervising, and inspection. By association with these technai, we can include house-building, mathematics, plumbing, making money, writing, and painting. So much so that the study and practice of design is devoid from the humanities and downplays theories of architecture; developing rather the crafts, skill and understandings needed to engineer, plan, sketch, draw, delineate, specify, write, and design. Contemporary architecture is replete with axioms, principles and theorems guiding the geometry, applications of science, use of engineering, and formal logic to produce technical metaphors and justly excluding a whole conversation about the conceptual part of the built metaphor.
Brunel University (West London); BST: Vol. 9 no. 1: Body, Space & Technology Journal: Perspectives Section
Framing the art vs. architecture argument2012 •