Posted by Jacques Pochoy on October 09, 2002 at 04:16:41:
In Reply to: Longer Critique posted by Paul Malo on October 08, 2002 at 07:34:19:
This original posting was a curiousity test on my behalf and I felt that Jesse Reiser's article (on his site) was quite clear (and in english) about the trend we see quite frequently on "reality/virtuality" in most architecture discussions, here on this forum as "outside" in schools and reviews. It seemed to me to be a fair description, among extreme positions, on what is taking form everywhere.
I didn't feel it was about "autonomy" (though the author's projects on the same site can be seen as such) this was not the subject but what is a "structure" viewed by Robert Le Ricolais and how we are, or not, influenced by that trend. Some recent post where about bamboos and others on "pioneering", gathering various replies…:-)
But while I agree it is an "educated" article, written in an university "code" language, we do see many posts here refering to "french" social science philosophers (Deleuze, Derida, Virilio, Lévy, and of course the basics, Heidegger, Hume and such).
Other posts relate to the modern/postmodern syndrome in architecture, oblivious that these two words have also a profound meaning out of this peculiar stylistic interpretation.
By using the word of "pragmatism" you deny (technically..:-)) the capacity of architecture to give "sens" (Brutus and d posts) and refer to a engineering view of space ( the "scientific" process, called also the "modern" view of the world), while the "sens" trend (mystical?) or called also the "re-enchanting" of the world is called "post-modern" (in philosophy)!
The "modern" process tend to be community prone while the "post-modern" one relates to the individual (in social sciences) and when you describe most of today's work as being de-connected from site or environment as a whole (environmental issues) it is quite true in effect but when I usually say that "we have the architecture we merit" (as a society) I am also investigating what is the "project" of the society I work in… (well I try, at least…:-))
Excerp of this in the article:
(…)and the geometry that define pathways for this proliferation is not uniform but variable and differential. This might be regarded as the moment organizationally where the conceptual threshold, or limit of modernism is crossed. In the case of both Le Ricolais and Buckminster Fuller, their conceptions of the extended structural field were both trenchantly modernist, equally isotropic and isomorphic. While Le Ricolais experimented with the deformation of a component, he could not extend these principles beyond that scale. Geometry and the conception of matter in space developed in an equal field based upon the repetition of equal units, idealizing both matter and space. But what are the means to move beyond this threshold?(…)
As geometry is the archetype of representation (and we deal everyday with that!) some will say that we are at the "death of representation" (what would we do without Nietzsche…:-):-)) and enter the notion of cyber-era as a pure post-modern notion.
I am in this case a "resolute modernist" (not the style) and believe that in this sense you are one too…:-)
Anyhow the debate I tried to initiate was more on structure as a way of defining space… And it seems it was … a flop! :-(
Well it was worth trying...:-) (I'll try again, don't worry...:-):-):-))
Free 3D Models