Hey all, I am currently a masters student preparing a thesis on how the act and methodology of hotrodding my apply to more general systems, in my specific case; architecture. I was hoping that by bouncing my somewhat esoteric commentary (it is an architectural thesis, written for an architectural/theory based audience) off you all who are actually immersed in this culture, I might stand to strenghten my argument and ideas. At this point it is simply a set of bullet points that will inform an architectural project, and is thus not to be taken as a formal essay, although it may end up as such. Any commentary, criticism, etc, is encouraged and welcomed. Thanks, STEVEN 1. HOTROD [noun] : an automobile rebuilt or modified for high speed and fast acceleration. or; an analytical and engaged architectural intervention. 2. The ubiquitous term, hotrod, in its distilled form relates to the superlative expression of speed incarnate. While the hotrod may not look like speed in the seductive sense of a Ferrari 575 Maranello, but it responds to the direct realm of its environs: speed. By encompassing within itself the reason that gave rise to it, the hotrod keeps the balance of purposefulness of efficiency both visible and viable. As this becomes relatable to architecture, this definition specifically seeks to resolve the two apparently irreconcilable terms, efficiency and expression. In this sense, expression is seen as an underpinning of efficiency, as the idea is much more than strict functionalism. 3. As architectures proper goal is authenticity, these technical superlatives start to differentiate from functionalism and begin to show the depth of relations that have otherwise been marginalized by technology. The hotrod must be self aware and not aloof. It is a strong personalized statement that nods to its origin and presses others to a similar end. Native to it is an affirmational enthusiasm for its technical achievement as well as an inherent interest in making its own singular statement. A hotrod may still be a car and so it produces the same thing, yet it has been souped up and is thus categorically different; better and louder. 4, The historical context of this field roots itself in post-WWII Southern California, where a generational familiarity of raw/necessary machine interaction developed. Young, discharged men with a knack for tinkering, began to modify and race their fathers Model Ts. As American society became more stratified, the act of hotrodding became a way for these enthusiasts to show-up their wealthier cohorts; to prove to them that money wasnt the only way to gain automotive status. Despite the emphasis on power and performance, a hotrod has also always been a social statement, having to do with self-reliance, ingenuity and independence. It thus becomes a singular statement within a mass produced context where the individual challenges the vanilla. In this separation from the normative condition, it becomes relatable to everyone. And because the interest is in achieving rather than just looking, the physical act of modifying through this particular practice therefore literally addresses the essence of the vehicle, but also the promise/intention and latent potential. 5. The human condition of tinkering that eventually led to the modern hotrod, can be viewed as a methodology that is very different from the scientist/engineer/R&D that goes into, say, a high end exotic. As Levi-Strauss discusses, the engineer will always to make his way out of and go beyond the constraints imposed by a particular state of civilization. The bricoleur (whom Im equating to one who tinkers, a prerequisite to the hotrod.) by inclination or necessity always remains within them. The engineer works by means of concepts and the other by signs. Concepts aim to be wholly transparent with respect to reality, signs allow and can require the interposing and incorporation of a certain amount of human culture into reality. Signs, address somebody, as per Peirce. Bricoleur derives from the fact that he does not confine himself to accomplishment and execution: he speaks not only with things, but also through the medium of things: giving an account of his personality and life by the choices he makes between the limited options. May not complete the purpose but he always puts something of himself into it. Likewise, he builds up structures by fitting together events, or rather the remains of events: read second hand; while scientists in operation simply by virtue of coming into being, creates its means and results in the form of events, thanks to the structures which it is constantly elaborating and which are its hypotheses and theories. Both are valid. 6. Relating to the bricoleur world, it is important to note that the act of creating a hotrod, is itself a critical design practice. It begins not inside of a vacuum, but, like all architecture, with a point on the curve of a tradition, something very concretely identified within the discipline, rather than grasping to bring something into being. The result is an object, that through a projective process that builds itself towards the exemplary, answers the intended critique. As it is positively guided (projective process) by the latent formal direction of the initial condition, the end sum becomes demonstrative of the comparative logic applied to it. The technique therefore becomes its own system which can be applied beyond the historical automobile. 7. As the act of hotrodding (souping up) implies judgment, utilization of comparison is used for evaluation. Decisions need to relate good and bad, louder or quieter, and it is through standards of the prior guard that can discern the alternatives that are appropriate and applicable.
no offense ,i think you are overthinking this. i do it because i enjoy it no need to analyze it any further
I read the book, Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance 4 times and never fully understood it. I read your post 4 times and have even less of a clue. I'm not sure I like being called a "bricoleur" either. Hot rod builders are artists, scientists, visionaries, and fabricators. Different builders have differing amounts of talent in these different categories. The motives for building a hot rod (as opposed to just buying or owning one) are many and varied, but certainly based on several common themes. Engineering and "tinkering" are more akin to one another than estranged. Do not elevate engineering in your thinking to too lofty a position. In 32 years in engineering positions in a Fortune 500 company I witnessed instances of "tinkering" our way to success and "engineering" our way to failure. Think of Ed Roth's creations which are regarded by many as "Hot Rods", then re-read your piece in the context of his cars and see how valid it is. My brain hurts & my fingers are sore. Thanks for the stimulation. You might want to see if you can get your tuition back (just kidding).
Hmm. Architecture and Hot Rods. Trying to link the two is just plain wanky and fruitless IMHO. Kinda like the majority of architectural theory. You might want to post an Intro. Reading the rules makes sense. Maiki P.S: I'd like to see a germ(TM) response to this one...
I think I'll write my thesis on the "bunnies"...or maybe the pancakes..or wait, maybe both! Oh why, oh why did I ever return to school? I can't wait to be done and get back to wrenching and yes... earning a living!
funny. . I actually know the terms of this discussion. . but I think the responses that seem inarticulate are better than anything I could say. Hot rods and customs sometimes seem like everything that architecture is not. . . architecture is driven by the media, reliance on other peoples money (developers, conservative clients), and slow moving academics that still want to sell modernism as avant garde nearly 100 years later. . . really different than a guy DIY'ing a hot rod in his garage . . honestly making whatever he thinks looks cool and will function better. If you are an architecture student, I would suggest that you are likely to learn more from these guys about design. . . than you can teach them about "theory". Some things are beyond theory . . and are just rad. So, are you building a hot rod/architecture/both. . or just talking about it? This makes me wish there was a HAMB for architecture where action talked and bullshit walked.
A couple points - The text describing the 'bricoleur' is really an analogy to describe difference in processes. The act of tinkering is a human condition that attributed to the hotrod, initially. Obviously I wouldn't say that is current condition of the culture, which obviously has benefited from technological innovations more in line with Levi-Strauss's scientist/engineer (terms which I'm using according to his definitions, which maybe confusing). If you understand that souping up/hotrodding is about taking a stock condition and making it more rad, I fail to see the difference whether it is done through HVAC, high-tensile steel, and double glazing, or through carbs and slicks. Maybe it is a matter of semantics, but what about this prosaic, functional object, hotrodded? It should be of note that what I'm talking about isn't something that's never been discussed before. I would never front that it is avante-garde, and in fact my approach puts me firmly in the old school. I'm all about boss architecture; cool, functional, purposeful, expressive, and efficent. Some people do, some people theorize, and some manage both.
You wrote......." The result is an object, that through a projective process that builds itself towards the exemplary, answers the intended critique. As it is positively guided (projective process) by the latent formal direction of the initial condition, the end sum becomes demonstrative of the comparative logic applied to it. The technique therefore becomes it’s own system which can be applied beyond the historical automobile." Mate, with prose like this youre in real danger of disappearing up your own arse - no offense - We're laymen here so do you think you can use plain English - what you offer here is - even by the standards of your own profession - is tortured and pretentious beyond belief - your pulling our leg arent you? Steve
I think you have too many big words too early in the process. I say this as someone who just finished a thesis (M.S., mathematics). From what you said in the introduction, I think you need to really streamline the whole deal to get to the gist of it. Start with a basic flow chart of both processes, so you can compare and contrast. To do it with a reasonable degree of comprehensiveness, you will probably have a few alternative flowcharts for both the hotrod and architectural processes. After you know how they both work, you should be able to get a picture about how they are the same or different. Philosophical comparison of the two is not warranted until you have clearly defined the processes (primary and alternate) involved. By the way, good luck. I really do appreciate how hard it is.....
GAWD, I HATE the word "methodology". Hotrodders wouldn't even think such a drivilous term Also for better handling, more responsive to the driver's input and needs. How about some footnotes as to where you "borrowed" this shtuff? Being loud has nothing to do with being a hotrod or a car being hotrodded. It's just a common by product of a well flowing exhaust system. Source? this sounds like Wikipedia shtuff. Now you're getting somewhere but if you excrete that "methodology" crap word again I'm gonna scream. I know, you're supposed to repeat it on every page at USC. What? No quotes from "Lord" Clement Greenberg? NEW CONSTRUCTION Architecture can in no way relate to hotrodding. New car design, maybe, but not hotrodding. Only REMODELING existing structures, by the property owner, to fit the needs or new needs of the owner can relate to hotrodding. I came to this concusion as I was under my house, sweat-soldering copper pipe and copping a buzz of of PVC sewer pipe glue, while re-moddling my kitchen a decade ago. I thought to myself, the biggest difference between what I was doing to the kitchen and the '28 Ford Roadster I was building as my thesis project for my Master of Fine Arts degree in Sculpture, (awarded '93) was the kitchen didn't have any wheels! (I dont live in a mobile home, unless there's an earthquake) Now, some of Frank Gehry's "remodels" or additions to existing structures can definitely be related to hotrodding and I suggest you direct your thesis in that kind of direction.
I hold two masters degrees, one in Paramedical Science and the other in Psychology, neither of these are Arts degrees. Your largest failing here is to overly complicate and intellectualise what is in essence a simple theory. A somewhat holed theory at that too. Clearly you are not a hot rodder and I presume you latched onto this concept from someone you admire. Your lack of research is highly apparent when you begin to talk of the origins of hot rods, post WWII was a ‘boon’ time for our lifestyle not a beginning. The origins of hot rodding can be found back in pre WWI times, indeed the first organised speed event for hotrodders was held at Bonneville in 1914. You comment “Young discharged men with a knack for tinkering” is quite frankly insulting. This generation of Hot Rod builders had a core of engineers from may different disciplines, mechanics and on the fringes the supposed ‘tinkerers’ Once you understand just what our lifestyle is all about (This is NOT a hobby) then you will understand how floored your thesis is. Should you present this, pray that you do not do so to anyone with some knowledge of hot rodding! Designing and building from ‘scratch’, as is the loose definition of your trade holds no equivalent to hot rodding. As mentioned before, to take an existing building and improve upon it holds closer to that which we do. For you to find the parallel you are seeking you should be looking into the worlds of the ‘high end’ automotive world. Design, build not re-design and build. You need to take a serious look at what you have written, research much more and find out just what you intend to accomplish. You have been lucky to find some people that have been where you are if none of us were here you would be shut down in no uncertain terms. Doc.
buy that hot-rod music cd set from Rhino (music label), it's got four-cd's and comes with a little booklet that does a pretty good job on describing hot-rodding... that should help...
If you'd like to get into relating automotive design, in particular, post-world-war-II design, which, i would consider to begin in the fifties after the United States had, for the most part, recovered from World War II. I would begin looking at the automobiles of that era. I would say that much of the design in that era, at least, the higher-end design was much like the automobiles. Take a look at some of the modern designs of the 1930s and compare them to the lines of a cars from the 1930s, especially look at the cars of the mid-to-late 30s (fat-fendered cars in essence) and take a look at buildings of the similar time. You'll find many similarities in the design. Swooping curves, chrome, etc. I wouldn't even attempt to get into design around the 1940s due to it being so war oriented. That's when it became bare-bones function. The military needed vehicles that would serve their purpose out on the battlefield. The planes of this time, often are relished by us because they're smooth. However, go beyond that and much of it becomes boxy. This was when buildings, tanks, jeeps, etc. became very ruler-design and not hand-designed. Some of the "standard" buildings that i have seen from the 1940s are very contrasting to the cars of the 1940s. Take for an example, many of the apartments built at this time. These could be related to a farmers pick-up truck in their function. They're utilitarian, built to work/ serve a purpose. However, if you look at the design of the vehicles (sedans, coupes, etc.) of the 1940s, they still remained very flowing. The contrast is that at this time (post-WWII) the advent of further use of chrome (particuraly side-trim) can be seen. This could be the very roots of the cars seen in the mid-to-late fifties that used extensive chrome. But back to the apartments, they were very boxy and dull, they were meant to house and nothing else. The cars however were swoopy, edgy, and new. However, I myself do not know much of the "modern" design of buildings and similar architecture of the 1940s. The largest mistake that i see is that it is being noted that hot-rodding had started post-world-war-two. This is completely wrong. Hot-rodding started when the first man got ahold of a car and started modifying it (particuraly the engine and drivetrain) to make the car perform better. It could be noted that the "explosion" of hot-rodding came post-world-war-two, however, roots of hot-rodding can still be found in pre-wwII. Also, another failing point that i see is that you're just saying "archictecture". What do you mean by this? Are you speaking of the architecture in housing and apartments? Are you talking of standard buildings or the revolutionary buildings of the '30s and '40s. Are you speaking of the diners of this time. The range of which "architecture" covers for this time period is too broad to just say "architecture". You need to thin your search and narrow it to a pin-point style if you desire to be able to relate it to anything dealing with a car or truck. There is a single "methodology" (sorry DrJ ) to true hot-rodding. That is to build a car to have fun with that is improved upon from the stock version of the vehicle. We here at the H.A.M.B. are what are called "traditional" rodders (unfortunately, we will be called "rat-rodders" from time-to-time). At the H.A.M.B. our goal is to build the cars in the traditional way using, largely, traditional parts. There are other forms of hot-rodding that would include names like Chip Foose. This form is to build cars that are largely for cruising pleasure, or to be held in a show-room. They largely use newer parts, however, they are rarely used. There can be found other offshoots, seventies style street-rods, eighties, and so on. The term hot-rod, again, is too broad to be used here, just as architecture is too broad. Narrow your search, find exactly what you yourself are thinking of, do as much research as necessary. Scary to think that came from a 15-year-olds mind (i know, i'm a nerd... ) my 0.02. troy.
I had "bricoleur" once. It burned every time I took a piss. I'll never go to Tijuana again. Thanks Good luck with your thesaurus work.
I had a friend one time who liked hotrods, and his wife liked to bake. He used to joke about opening a speed shop "Kevins Speed Equipment and Muffins" The two subjects, while not diametrically opposed, sure as hell don't go together, nor bear comparison. Neither does hotrodding and architecture.
I hope your professor knows nothing about architecture or hot rods, and only speaks with 3 syllable words. Take DrJ's advice...
At first I thought this must be a kinder, gentler Germ, but then I remembered the first law of bullshit.............................. "If superior intellect fails to inculcate awe, obfuscate with male bovine defacatory products."
I'm a bit surprised by some of the responces, I thought it was pretty clear who the intended audience was; thank you tho. I should have stated (though if read carefully, it should be obvious) I am not doing a project that is from the ground up. This whole idea IS baseless, if done that way. I would contend rather, that much of the process relies on WHAT you start with, be it a Model-T, a martial arts dojo, or a Webster grill. You start with a stock condition, which I'm arguing, should inform the end result. It is my belief that architecture's PROPER goal is authenticity. Much of what passes for design/architecture/automobiles, does not exactly live up to what we want, does it? Thanks for clarifying the Pre-WW2 stuff. Maybe that is why everyone came down hard. I actually knew that, but the text needs to be reworded. That paragraph on history was stitched from multiple sources, and is much less accurate that what's posted on these boards, I apologize. As far as an architects role to build and design 'from scratch', I don't think any of my peers would agree to that definition, and given today's market realities, that just simply doesn't happen all that often. As far as source's? Beyond the stiched together history (inaccurate) and the Levi-Strauss ideas, everything else I've written. Is that surprising? Like I said before, this idea/issue is something that has been discussed before. No one made any comment about the grill, so that tells me that this isn't really all that shocking or unnatural. I am not actually equating architecture to the hotrod, I wouldn't infringe on either like that. I am simply making an analytical arguement for how the process of one (the hotrod) can apply and improve the other (existing architecture). My project as it stands right now is going to be a rehabilitation of an office building on the Los Angeles Orthopaedic Hospital campus. Thanks for all input thus far!
That's Weber, by the way. "Webster" is more know for dictionaries. Maybe that name is more on your mind from trying to come up with GIANT words to describe simple things. Don't over-analyze things. It's not good for you. http://www.americasbestbbq.com/weber-main.aspx
I hope you pull your head out of your ass long enough to actually produce something worthwhile architecturally. But somehow I doubt it. Maiki
I'm old enough to remember a certain time in corporate America. In that time, inter-office memos composed of 3 syllable words permeated the work place. Thanks to the invention of E-mail, those memos were eliminated along with the strata of management that issued them.
Sorry about the Webster/Weber mix up, rushing on my lunch break will do that. As far as the criticism of lexicon; meh, if that's the big complaint, I'll take it. Writing is a way to get the stuff outta my head and onto paper. I started this topic in the hopes that the IDEA (more so than how I word said idea) of say, a hotrodded house, would generate some insightful discussion. I figured it would be of interest to this group, (as it is of interest to other architects/designers) which is why I registered and posted. Since we all like visuals, here are some images of architecture heading towards the hotrod ideal. Not all are perfect examples, but each one shows an existing house, studio, loft, warehouse, etc., that has been highly modified, but retains some of the existing language and intent of the original system.
The Jalopy Journal
