I do have to say this- If taking an old house and updating it with new styling is a Resto-mod and taking a house, stripping it and making it functional and high-performance for living is hot rodding, then is squatting in a clapped-out condemned house rat-rodding?
Ummm, drdave here on the HAMB didn't talk about it; he just did it, the blending of hot rods and architecture (and form following function and all that)! http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=577234&highlight=orthodontic
The architect in me understands the attempted correlation between the built environment and the built automobile. Both have greatly impacted each other. Both can be improved, modified, customized, restored, renovated or ratted. But better yet is that both can also create the results that caseyscustoms is hoping for.
Jeez Louise ! Doesn't the term "Hot Rod" simply come from "Hot Roadster" as used in the late 40's and 50's to describe the fenderless cut down cars the WWII GIs were building??? Could it actually be that simple ? I'm sure you are very proud of your work, but when writing , try and remember the Fog Factor. For those of us trained in technical writing , the " fog" is when you use too many words and the reader mises your point. Now what was I saying .......
Its funny that its not the abstract itself thats confusing, its your lack of proper grammar,punctuation and general word usage that sinks it completely. You should drop it by the local middle school english teacher for a proofread first. Im not even trying to "bust balls" but you need to know you took something from simple to fubar trying to look smart with as many large words per line as possible.
Keep in mind, he did achieve his masters with this thesis. I'm not going to critique the writing itself, but there is a difference between common writing and academic writing. It still has to make sense.
Here's another architect. Is there a HAMB Architects group? If not perhaps I should start one. I'm downloading your thesis right now. Your abstract opens up a few lines of enquiry right there, e.g. that the fact that the hot-rod approach to technology generates technology that is different from mainstream technology, which raises the question of whether the dominant understanding of how technology arises in culture is accurate or absolute. It raises questions around such concepts as "type", "original", "replica", "obsolete", "anachronism", etc. - Aristotle "On the Soul" springs to mind. And there is a whole socio-political layer to the whole thing. Strangely, the area where I can see a lot of tie-ins is in ecological/organic architecture in the old '60s mould, wind turbines with home-made wooden alternators, etc.
The smartest people I know can take the most confusing subjects and make them sound simple. It should never be the other way around
About the language thing: the point of academic language is precision and economy. It ought to be able to state something in a short space that normal language would take a huge volume merely to hint at. The problem is that people try to emulate the resultant distinctive sound without the accompanying density of content, and then very often they end up literally not knowing what they are talking about. I know a number of architects who really don't have a very clear idea of things, despite having all the necessary words. One thing I will say is that the hot-rod approach to the concept of icon differs radically from the mainstream design approach. In the latter the icon is phenomenal and self-contained, i.e. it "just is"; and hence the accent is on appearance and the functions of communication. In the former the icon is substantive and rooted in something outside itself; it came from somewhere, and it has to do with what it does and what one does with it. This is quite ironic given the importance of "the look" in hot rodding, but it really does correspond with a fundamentally different way of thinking and seeing, compared to that employed in the design professions. The difference is best seen in comparing a hot rod to a "retro" design statement.
Gotta read your thesis. Understand what you were grapling with. So.. the real question is... is a hotrod a Duck or a decorated shed? I would venture a DUCK. that's what I'm feeling from Uncle Bobbie V. BArch Pennsylvania State University
THE PURE JOY OF IT! You deserve a CONGRATULATIONS for getting that degree! Well done! Writing prose is hard work! Doing it well is even harder! First ya might decide who your readers are. If your'e writing for those academic boneheads that infest the college scene, thats one thing. But if you want to reach the "real world", consider another style. If that piece were mine, I'd edit out all the academic jargon forthwith. Too many words and too hard to follow! I get tired just slogging through it! Make it simple and the prose becomes stronger. Cut the BS and get to the point! A secret to good writing is rewriting - again and again if necessary. Get all those thoughts organized so you can make your point. Maybe do yourself an outline! And again, if it were mine, I'd add something about the "joy" of it. To my mind, the creative process is fired by the joy and satisfaction of just doing it. Kinda the same as building a car, building a house, painting a picture or even writing an article. And according to legend, Hemingway said a good writer must have a "good, built in, bullshit detector". So there ya go.....
It is neither. Where Venturi left the rails was with the status of the decorated shed, and where the architect came into it. He ended up aspiring to be a shed-decorator - the shed itself being left to engineers and accountants - instead of trying to be a deviser of decoratable sheds - the decoration perhaps being left to others. Pity that. Perhaps it's an amphibious flying cassowary ...
As a former engineer, most of whom can't write proper English, I glossed over the grammatical errors, but this stopped me cold: "....livid performance machines ..." I haven't seen too many in that color.
The Jalopy Journal
