Architecture Depends Here
In his book “Architecture Depends” Jeremy Till brings up a notion about architecture that has always since disturbed me; “Waste in transit” –p.67. The notion that at the end of the day, architecture is dependent on time and that given that certain amount of time, a building will eventually fulfill its uses and become obsolete. Buildings are thus durable goods. There have been architects which would take this notion to the extreme, such as Cedric Price; an architect who would famously demand for the demolition of his buildings (as few of them as they were); convinced that they too have lost touch with time.
In his book “Architecture Depends” Jeremy Till brings up a notion about architecture that has always since disturbed me; “Waste in transit” –p.67. The notion that at the end of the day, architecture is dependent on time and that given that certain amount of time, a building will eventually fulfill its uses and become obsolete. Buildings are thus durable goods. There have been architects which would take this notion to the extreme, such as Cedric Price; an architect who would famously demand for the demolition of his buildings (as few of them as they were); convinced that they too have lost touch with time.
In games, where the entire lifespan of a game is nothing like the real world, the architecture revolves around “events,” and entire sequences and worlds are created for as little as a couple of seconds never to be seen again. Time is different in games, because of our computers need to load information for scenes separately, because a game must eventually end, and most importantly because we are easily bored and enjoy changes of scenery (to enhance the adventure or feeling of progress). This is one of the primary differences between real world architecture and game architecture that we often overlook. Time; the fourth dimension.
What does this imply? Architecture in games can become very specific; ignoring the cosmetics (facades/textures) the physical geometry is made to become very unique to the plot and the movements of the player. And just like authors of stories alter the level of imagination of their readers, game developers may alter the linearity of paths and destinations, but the overall form of the levels is usually found to be much more specific (especially in brief first person shooters). This is because the game works around brief encounters and events.
This also means that players develop an intuition of spaces they may enter. I for one know, that a large open space in the middle of a map for instance, may in seconds turn into a very difficult encounter or fight scene.
However, although I am busy highlighting the difference between real architecture and game architecture by introducing the element of time. Just to add a little bit of food for thought; to long have architects tried and failed to make adaptable buildings that last thousands of years, only to find that after even 50 years these buildings seem so outdated and dull. Perhaps architects should worry less about how to make their buildings last a thousand years in making them very general and more about how to make their buildings very specific if only for a couple of years, buildings that do exactly what they nead to do, for the present. We can never predict the future, and thus it is pointless to try and create buildings that depend on the undependable. If there is a lesson to be learned from gaming, perhaps buildings should also begin to revolve around “events.” This is much more easily said than done, and completely ignores the economic and global implications, but bear in mind the refurbishments and headaches involved around modernizing very old buildings (I’m not talking just about listed or very important historic buildings). If we today, have succeeded in reaching a stage that we are quickly replacing our cell phones, planes, fridges and automobiles, perhaps the next frontier is in buildings. Where the building revolves around a current time, not a prediction of what it could be in the future.
On the topic of weathering and the fact that buildings are susceptible to change and eventual decay - you may be interested in the great, short book 'On Weathering', by David Leatherbarrow and Mohsen Mostafavi.
ReplyDeleteThis relation between spaces and events is quite interesting. On one hand, there is a compelling sense in which successful spaces anticipate, while not actually prescribing the nature of events that take place within them. On the other, there is the fact that buildings are often called on to support radically different functions during their lifespan - and thus the realization that architecture is about something more than strict adherence to function. We can appreciate the quality and power of the Acropolis or the Hagia Sophia without a detailed understanding of the liturgy and ritual that gave initially rise to its form.
It's clear that a primary function of architecture in games is to provide a setting for particular types of events, and I like the fact that you've started to categorize the types of these events and their corresponding spaces.
There may very well be implications of gaming environments for 'real' architecture, and it will be good to keep making these connections as you continue with your research.