...because play provides the most immersive, engaging, and creative experiences in our culture. And play and games are human practices in and of space (Walz, 2010).
A TedTalk titled "Play is more than Fun" (Brown, 2008), describes social, psychological, and evolutionary benefits of play in our society.
Which means that... Architecture should be a giant playground.
But, what is playful architecture?
Google Images:
"playful architecture" appears to be super colourful, arbitrary forms that look like they are toys for giants. They are visually playful, but you can't play with them. Except that one with the kids playing with the colourful shutters and in doing so, changing the spatial quality of the kindergarten...
So "play" and "playful" in my context for Architecture can be defined as architecture, building, building element, or space which encourages or facilitates physical engagement to provide creative outcomes and fun - also changing the spatial experience
And then Vince says that "playing" with a digital or cardboard model is also considered play, so what's the problem?! The problem is that this act of play stops when a final form is achieved. It should extend beyond the architect's models and expressed in the Architecture itself to facilitate playfulness in and of space.
Maybe... Cedric Price's Fun Palace?
I really like this idea of playing!
ReplyDeleteThe term "play" still remains ambiguous as you have stated that it simply encourages "physical engagement to provide (sic) creative outcomes and fun" - so here's the question: That description fits the ARC building at 325 Church Street yet few (if any) would state that "play" comes close to what its users/occupants would say. Also keep in mind that parkour is an activity that is "play" after a building is officially opened. I would recommend that you separately write out what are the 3-4 critical notions of "play" that would be of interest for you to pursue.
ReplyDeleteI would not necessarily throw away all of your computer gaming research, but it is a bit of a challenge to bring it into the same taxonomy. I was thinking that perhaps you could look at ways that architecture could effectively remain an engaging (rather than playful) work. Given our discussions during the review of the evolution of man (i.e. homo ludens), as a "player", perhaps an argument could be made that architecture fails in addressing these rapid (but inevitable) changes to human behaviour. As a result, issues pertaining to architectural permanence come into play and this may be a possible direction for you to follow: how do architects design not for flexibility (that's pretty much covered by your classmates dealing with shifts in adaptive reuse) but for this human need for "play". That all said, it is incumbent on the student, and NOT the faculty member, at this stage of the game (pun intended) to decide where to go with this.