Posted by Paul Malo on October 03, 2002 at 15:33:45:
In Reply to: Re: ADDENDUM posted by Cuneyt Budak on October 03, 2002 at 13:30:36:
The notion of "progress" underlies the modern ideology, which remains fundamental to modern "theory"--subject of another thread here. Unfortunately, if architecture is obsessed with the advance of technology, if serves mostly those who can afford advanced technology. What does "high-tech" architecture have to give, or what does is express that is meaningful, to most people in the world?
It conveys the futurist vision of a better world, perhaps, so may be regarded as optimistic and idealistic--but is it mere fantasy to students of architecture in some parts of the world, where the need is for basic houseing, perhaps--not Calatrava's kenetic wings hovering over an art museum?
The modern notion of "progress" has always been inimicable to conservation of traditional culture and preservation of landmarks. It has rationalized the consumer culture of throw-away buildings. Some of my own best work already has been demolished. That's "progress," I suppose. Well, looking at the brighter side, it's given work to younger architects of the replacement buildings, and to builders and craftsmen. Maybe we architects should adust to the consumer culture's notion of "planned obsolescence."
What is obvious, however, is that this culture is ravenously consuming world resources, going mostly to "progressive" parts of the world, while the "backward" parts of the world don't share equally in this depletion of our common resources.
Free 3D Models