On the dissolution of the modular imagination is a work by Dan Willis, a professor at Penn State teaching undergraduate architecture students. Through his research on the relationship between architectural and technological change and the materiality and process of making, he has developed this thesis on modularity. Willis references Gilbreth, Bachelard, and Hertzberger throughout his writing to create visualizations of human imagination and error.
Dan Willis’ thesis is modular imagination is an asset to architectural design. However, specialization of materials has caused the dissolution of this imagination. Willis wrote this piece to contemplate the role of the module in a time where technology and efficiency take precedence over creativity and time as effort.
Willis draws a parallel between CMU blocks and the popular children’s toy, Legos. Both of these materials began as a simple object that, when using building techniques, could create almost anything within the mind of a child or builder. With time, both began to become more specialized, creating units for certain tasks. These units crush creativity. Willis states that this is not to say one cannot be creative with tasked units, but it is much more efficient, which is what the industry wants. We find this evidence to be convincing because we can see similarities between our own childhood and the Lego examples he creates. We played with blocks and legos as children and have watched, as these toys have become more specialized with sets with themes and specific instructions. Improvisation is discouraged in this way. A quote that really stuck with me was “Dreaming hands can be inefficient, and they have a tendency to deviate from ‘the rules…’”
Willis acknowledges that sometimes the specialization of the module is helpful: Lego sets generate more interest and revenue, specialized CMU blocks have structural benefits. Willis also acknowledges that designing with modules can have disadvantages such as the lack of physical experience.
Willis assumes that creativity should be more prevalent in our work, but he also understands the differences between design and an economic and efficient building. He does not come out and clearly state that he believes that the CMU block’s specialization has hindered architecture, but he gives evidence that he believes that there is a way to leave room for creativity through a module. Herman Hertzberger is evidence of this, along with a couple more examples he gave.
Modularity is an important element to the process of design in architecture. How many of our own designs are based upon a module? Probably a majority. Modules are prevalent in countless famous works of architecture, the question is whether it is done well or not. Modules make for easy construction, making a lot of individual’s jobs a bit easier. It is important that we, as architecture students realize that module can be a help rather than a hinderance on design, as long as it is done well. One can dream in modules and build in modules.
Questions:
Does the module restrict or enhance creativity?
Does a module have to be simple?
Photo: photocase.de