Objects

http://www.archdaily.com/40060/sebastopol-residence-turnbull-griffin-haesloop/


The Sebastopol Residence looks like an object in the landscape. A good-looking object, I would say, in a beautiful naturally landscaped setting. Inside of this object in the landscape are more objects - art objects. From inside the house, the landscape becomes backdrop, like a painting...another object.

How should design relate to its context? Do we want objects, - beautifully designed objects - in which we may house more objects, whether art, or furnishings, or...people? When nature becomes object, what prevents people from becoming object? Or perhaps they have already become the commodities, or consumable objects, Heidegger describes as "standing reserve."

Does designing in the closed setting of the office, or studio, staring into the computer, promote the creation of objects? To bring this idea beyond the specific instance of the Sebastopol Residence, does digital fabrication remove the craft of making which connects the designer to the specificity of the material and the context from which it comes? Is it possible to design beyond the object using digital fabrication and computerized design techniques in general?

I say yes, it is entirely possible to introduce craft and specificity into the process of digital design and fabrication. However, it will require an attitude toward technology beyond that of creating beautiful objects, similar to the attitude of revealing which Heidegger called "poesis." This attitude, I hope, can create a specificity and meaning to design which goes beyond objectness.