Re: thoughts on domes and markets
I'll drink my coffee next time before I read messages. As a friendly warning,
I picked up two Philosophy courses this semester so I've recently engaged that
mode of thinking and it requires annoying questions to be asked and answered.
Michael Rowland wrote:
> I wrote:
> > And, I admit, I find the idea attractive (even if
> > semantically redundant) to refer to a dome as a "3D house."
> ...and Ron Stevens replied:
> > And why wouldn't a boxy house be as 3D ?
> Well, obviously both kinds of houses are three dimensional objects (or
> what we conventionally refer to as three dimensions; in thinking about
> structures as systems, Bucky spoke of them as being 4D). I was riffing on
> John's suggestion that the kind of space that domes enclose might be more
> conducive to visualizing in 3D, instead of using the x,y,z 90-degree
> coordinate system as a sort of crutch. (I realize that what John was
> saying was that, as our cultural meme evolves to include more 3D
> conceptualization, domes would tend to look less strange to people.)
> I was hoping that my oxymoron would carry additional meaning just by
> virtue of the fact that it's an obvious oxymoron. By calling a dome a "3D
> house," I was drawing attention to those aspects of boxy houses that make
> them seem like merely collections of flat objects instead of a
> visualization of space. John's post made me realize that, in most box
> houses (including the one I'm living in now), I don't get much of a
> feeling of the space it encloses. (Frank Lloyd Wright's houses would be
> exceptions to this, at least for me.) Most box houses seem to enclose or
> divide space without ever really defining it or communicating a sense of
> it ... without awakening a spatial response in the viewer.
> Bo mentioned a sculptural aspect of house design. I think this is what
> sculpture does: provoke a spatial response. I think that's what Bucky's
> structures and Frank Lloyd Wright's designs have most in common. (Maybe
> the only thing they have in common.)
> This discussion also reminds me of peoples' remarks in the recent
> (ongoing) CAD software and modeling thread on the DomeHome List. For some
> reason, people seem to really WANT a 3-dimensional visualization of their
> dome houses, as if they really want to think of them as vectors instead of
> planes divided up by lines as in flat floor plans and elevations.
> I also realize that this is getting pretty abstract, for the DomeSteading
> list... but it all goes back to the discussion of "Why aren't domes more
> popular?" and "What do we do to remove mental barriers...?"
email: stevens at gnt dot net
Dept of Environmental Studies
University of West Florida
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and