The image that dmp wishes to create as a design organisation is to stereoscopically weave different types of challenges: the first is for architects at dmp to individually complete and reveal their own architectural languages, and the second is to make a parallel platform on which architects can actively work. This is why dmp cannot be described in a manner by which it is explained in an architectural language that is put together based on a single architect’s philosophical view, and at the same time, this is why we don’t find the need to adopt and insert a select architectural vocabulary for each work into the dmp’s language. However, this is a resulting tendency of an individual’s diverse languages constantly colliding on a single platform: it cannot become an architectural language based on a unified philosophy.
Dmp’s definition as a platform is an environment which consists of the size of the organisation and system. It exists to assist the architectural attempts of an individual architect and to produce a fine design that can be explained by a general view through relative values contained by diverse languages. It is never a simple challenge for numerous architects to get together on a single platform, nevertheless, there is a source of consensus between members about an architectural duty, which drives an organisation constituted by the many to design together. The subjects that we can manage well and which must be challenged as an architectural practice, are mostly places on a large urban scale. Practically, the decision-making process of such buildings is often intervened by the capital and a public hierarchy. As such, conceptually or as an architectural outcome, it is hard for the architects to maintain their initial position. Yet architecture within this category is usually a building that brings about great urban influence, and we carry a clear awareness of this goal.
This manner is not to describe dmp’s identity compared to other design firms. Rather this architectural method is closer to the objective of a general organisation, suitable when many conscientious architects get together to design, and so no emphasis is given on locating the differences compared to other organizational design firms. Obviously, in this type of organisation, the system’s negative aspects are worrisome, foremost of which is that management – with regards to a clear architectural philosophy, distinct architectural language and structural completeness – could be insufficient. On a parallel platform, an architect cannot balance the value that one wishes to pursue without the architect’s own philosophical view or language. This again highlights the issue of whether any individual inside dmp can reveal oneself in one’s own language through their work. If this is returned to the architect’s individual agenda, it becomes an ongoing task. An accumulated personal language needs to deviate from dmp to manifest itself. What can be claimed of this process is that, at dmp, members as architects are positioned at the same level when communicating the architectural language to be laid out. This approach held by dmp has eventually built a young and vibrant culture. When projected images of a healthy organisation return as an expectation of dmp and its fine architecture, it becomes an opportunity for one to look back upon one’s own architectural achievement and to ask oneself about their governing manner as an architect.
Ewha Womans University New Dormitory
Heyground
Incheon Arts Center Concert Hall
Hanwha R&D Center
