Posted by Paul Malo on October 21, 2002 at 13:14:24:
In Reply to: Re: "Modern" vs. "Traditional" posted by steve on October 21, 2002 at 10:01:01:
Yes, there was a characteristic Modern notion of space. That's the problem, as I see it., with the waning postmodern Modernist tradition. Where's the space?
You observe rightly that "Modern space is often more of a continuum; it has more potential for spatial 'effect' (transparency, slippage, rotation etc.) but also a great potential for sloppiness in its conception and execution." Yes, but transparency isn't space, nor is slippage, nor is rotation. Those are merely phenomena that occur IN space--and everything occurs in space.
When I read Giedion's "Space, Time, and Architecture"--or even Zevi's "Architecture of Space," I have difficulty in finding the space. These critics were interested in spatial EFFECTS--that's not the same thing as SHAPING space, the making of powerful spatial figures. What they were interested in was ambiguity of space ("space-time" in the trendy jargon of the mid-twentieth-century, when Einstein was hot).
Decon is a direct consequence of this sort of non-figural spatial thinking. It's all about arrangement of things--what we call "object fetishism."
Free 3D Models