Posted by  Manuel Oliveros on March 01, 2002 at 09:56:27:

In Reply to:  the future of an illusion posted by d on February 28, 2002 at 15:15:34:

It is only natural, the architects have identified the future being in hi-tech flying machines and identified their goal with the power that can make it. Architecture is a expression of society and its wishes.

Respect architecture delivering stability, functional is doing, but in the intellective and design debate naturally follows what in society happens. In turmoil is natural in the distress some people asking for symbolic stability, but one needs not to fail to understand that for such stability be put in place, first social stability needs be gained. This affects everyone in civilization, and as well architects as humans.

Then, that some well meaning and even illustrated parties be dreaming on architecture helping to sustain some novated order, I think is to some extent wrong, for as as I use to say, from knowledge there's no return. Then, first the social issues be solved, then architecture naturally express the stability. The other way is just imposition that does not befits human nature, most should understand by now, yet some don't.

So to relieve architecture of any social dynamics, whereas is clear that even if static the buildings closely following the social interest is very paramount to it I see wrong. I can't sympathize with the intent shown in the joke told to me by a mechanical engineer:

What's the difference between a mechanical engineer and an architect?
That the architect makes targets, and the mechanical engineer weapons.

I very contraily think we must build together the most satisfactory to all society we are able to, and that if contrarily conflict develops many will become surprised on how well architects and civil engineers can develop weapons.

Responses:

Post a Response -