From: Stephen Lauf
To: design-l@lists.psu.edu
Subject: Re: architecture in cyberspace?
Date: Date: 1999.09.11 14:18
Temko asks a series of questions relative to architecture in cyberspace, and I hereby address each individually.
Temko:
If the "architecture" of cyberspace is an altogether new experiential medium, what makes you so sure that architects are qualified to design in such an environment?
Lauf:
I never said that I was so sure that architects are qualified to design within cyberspace. The fact remains, however, that some architects are already designing websites, and it thus appears that the qualification simply (for now at least) comes with the doing. My point was that the successful "architectural" websites (i.e., websites that create and fulfill a function(s) in a way far superior to any physical building) are thus far not architect designed. If anything, my initial comment was meant to provoke architects into taking the implications of, for example, amazon and ebay, more seriously.
Temko:
Can we assume that because we are trained in the design and/or planning of physical spatial structures that this knowledge is somehow transferable?
Lauf:
One of cyberspace's more wonderful attributes is that it affords "architectural" experimentation without the usual physical consequences. If an architect (like yourself) is not sure whether his or her skills transfer
into cyberspace, there really isn't that much which prevents him or her from finding out. Personally, I prefer to make judgements based on knowledge and experience rather than from ignorance, meaning, I'll never say that something can't be done just because I don't know how to do it or haven't done it myself.
Temko:
CyberSPACE is a funny term.
Lauf:
I agree. I don't really like the term myself, however, it is now a term that has a generally accepted definition. At this point, I'd rather see the definition of cyberspace (architecturally) fine tuned instead of further confusing the issue by trying to "design" a new term or terms.
Temko:
In some ways attaching spatial metaphors to the net is a bit like comparing apples to icons.
Lauf:
Here I agree as well, yet many of the spatial metaphors apply well nonetheless. I posted the following quotations yesterday at electricity-l: "I find cyberspace sometimes analogous to physical space, but fundamentally as a "place" altogether different than physical space. The two can easily be compared, but they are distinct and separate." and "I like cyberspace because of its otherness. The more I participate in cyberspace, the more I realize that I now inhabit two realms, the real world and the world of cyberspace. Moreover, I plainly see that the cyberspace world will never be the same as or replace the real world, nor do I wish cyberspace to be "physical" in the real world sense." and "Cyberspace as a place completely other is its greatest attribute. Those that view or want to make cyberspace and the real world the same are really only defeating the "real" nature of cyberspace. [Could it be that we as humans just can't easily deal with a papallel(?), other reality in addition to the reality we already have?]"
Temko:
What special sensitivity or expertise can we expect architects to contribute to "cyberspace"?
Lauf:
I suspect architects are capable of contributing a nimiety of special sensitivities and experiences to cyberspace, and certainly not just one special sensitivity or just one expertise. At the very least, cyberspace is where any and all architects can contribute their own individuality and/or unique creativity. You would think that architects more than anyone would recognize the (utopian?) joy of a "place" where one can design whatever one wants in whichever way one wants. [Or have we successfully trained ourselves into believing that freedom of design is a bad thing?]
|