All design processes have a starting point, and that starting point will of course be different for different designers. For me, the starting point also differs between music and architecture. Where in architecture I tend to start with volumes, in music, volume is considered late in the process.
In this endeavour, the mapping forced me to start at another point in my architectural design process. Since it was pressing to solve the issue of continuous movement over more than one side of the building, movement became my starting point. And as volume was not particularly relevant in the mapping, the physical volume more or less just happened.
I think that the result of the mapping will prove to have great impact on the structure of the design process in future explorations, setting the preconditions for where I need to start in a given design project and thereby pushing me out of my comfort zone.
This exploratory course has allowed me to test the possibility of mapping architecture throught the chosen shared vocabulary. Even though I have from time to time felt a little bit lost and questioned both myself and the process, in the end I find myself having done what I did set out to do.
What I have discovered is that the mapping will be much more central than I maybe expected it to be. Initially, I saw the mapping as a tool to use in the translation between architecture and music, but now I see it more AS the actual translation. The same map was used in both design processes, and the processes could take place either simultaneously, overlapping or following each other. In this iteration, they were overlapping and influenced each other in a positive way.
The mapping methodology developed in this course will be essential in my thesis work next semester. The Gothenburg Opera House is of course much more complex, and the map will be much more extensive with clearly defined sequences and a richer input. The iterative work process in both mapping and design will need to be structured and continuously re-evaluated.