Make the F***ing I-beam

I really don’t know the jargon of architecture that I wish I knew.  Maybe I say that not realizing that I’ve undergone a year of listening to critics talking about ’systemiticity’ (while I’m editing this theres a red underline under that word), spatial violations, transitory experiences and the idea of making an f-ing i-beam.  Heather Flood was my instructor last semester and one of the first things she told us as we embarked on building 1/2 scale models of case study houses out of bass wood was “If there’s an ibeam in your building, MAKE the f***ing I-beam”.  I’ll tell you the truth.  Starting at sciarc, I really had no idea about the conventions of architecture and built environments, and considered a steel beam a steel beam and nothing else.  What the heck was an I-beam?  It had to be more complicated than just an I-shaped beam right?  It had to have some sort of supernatural properties that would allow for it to only be used in case study houses right? I’m an idiot.  As I have been on many occasions assuming that something said must mean it comes in the most complicated form.  In fact, an I-beam was just an I-beam, as an L-beam is or a C-beam.  I youtubed I-beam that night and watched a three minute educational video from the early 90s about why I-beams were super strong because of their shape.  These were the booger ridden apprentices of Bill Nye that knew far more than I ever did.  Maybe the supernatural thing wasn’t so far off.  So that first week of school, the word I-beam was total jargon.

Our group never really got over the over dramatic delivery of such a statement and we often try to relive the moment that sort of started our imprisoned lives at sciarc.  So with the obvious (often unintended) humor in what our instructors present us on a daily basis, also comes the ridiculousness of discussing unheard of architects, concepts in seemingly nonexistent places, and basically trying to learn the language of the field.

I was thinking about something else before I started writing.  I was thinking about the idea of precision as it relates to caring about what others think, and the dominant group involved.  Do dominant groups decide the degree of precision?  So far that’s what it seems in school.  Or does precision stem from an individuals interests and the context to which they succeed in their lives?  If I write a paper, with proper MLA citations, getting my point across to an audience and writing about what I’ve always wanted to write about, is it considered precise and acceptable.  I guess I shouldn’t say the two fall under the same category.  But I was just thinking that if I write something more raw, totally unedited and getting everything I feel out in the open, is that considered more precise because it’s more truthful?  It’s really a simple idea that I haven’t thought too much about and am hoping to address fully in these writings.   Anyway, precision at school lies in making the f***ing ibeam and making sure it’s not mistaken for a cue tip.  or harpoon.  Or other pointy linear elements.

---