Week 3 Reading
The reading for Week 3 (which will meet Friday September 12, 5:45-7:45 pm) is as follows:
-Paul Rabinow and Gwendolyn Wright, “Space, Knowledge, Power: an interview with Michel Foucault” Skyline, the architecture and design review (March 1982), pp. 16-20. reprinted in The Foucault Reader, ed. Paul Rabinow. (PDF, sent via email)
(Also, if you have time, you can read another Foucault article, "The Politics of Health in the Eighteenth Century", http://www.princeton.edu/~mtenhoor/foucault-biopolitics.pdf.)
- Kenneth Frampton, “Prospects for a Critical Regionalism” Perspecta 20 (1983): 147-162 (Download PDF here: www.princeton.edu/~mtenhoor/framptonregionalism.pdf)
- Alan Colquhoun, “The Concept of Regionalism,” Postcolonial Space(s), ed. G.B. Nalbantolu, C.T. Wong. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1997: 13-23. (PDF, sent via email)
-Paul Rabinow and Gwendolyn Wright, “Space, Knowledge, Power: an interview with Michel Foucault” Skyline, the architecture and design review (March 1982), pp. 16-20. reprinted in The Foucault Reader, ed. Paul Rabinow. (PDF, sent via email)
(Also, if you have time, you can read another Foucault article, "The Politics of Health in the Eighteenth Century", http://www.princeton.edu/~mtenhoor/foucault-biopolitics.pdf.)
- Kenneth Frampton, “Prospects for a Critical Regionalism” Perspecta 20 (1983): 147-162 (Download PDF here: www.princeton.edu/~mtenhoor/framptonregionalism.pdf)
- Alan Colquhoun, “The Concept of Regionalism,” Postcolonial Space(s), ed. G.B. Nalbantolu, C.T. Wong. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1997: 13-23. (PDF, sent via email)
posted by Meredith at 9/07/2008 12:12:00 PM
29 Comments:
I did not understand Foucault’s reference to Jean-Baptiste Godin’s Familistere so I took this opportunity to find out more. The Familistere is essentially a self-sustaining town within the town of Guise in France. Inspired by the ideas of Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier, a French mathematician and physicist, and Claude Henri de Rouvroy (comte de Saint Simon,) a French utopian socialist thinker, Godin decided in the mid-nineteenth century to conduct an experiment in social utopia. The experiment lasted in cooperative form until 1968.
In this experiment, work facilities were linked to a communal settlement. In addition to a large factory, there exist three four-story buildings capable of housing all the workers and their families, each family allotted two to three bedrooms. The central building comprises three rectangular blocks joined at the corners. Each block has a central glass roofed courtyard where children can play throughout all the seasons of the year. In addition to this playground, the community runs a nursery at the back of the main block and a school. The block known as the “economat” is lined with all sorts of retail shops to satisfy the community’s consumer needs. In terms of entertainment, opposite the main block stands a theater where concerts and plays take place. This theater is often identified as the community’s temple since no church of any kind exists within the Familistere. There is also a community laundry room and pool .
Foucault believes that although Godin intended for his architecture to provide freedom for those living within it, he believes Godin failed to realize one thing: that in allowing for everyone entering and exiting the structure to be seen, he creates an oppressive environment that evokes Jeremy Bentham’s “Panopticon.” This site provides a clear image of Godin’s prison-like atmosphere: http://www.pbase.com/jcliehn/image/92479680.
Although the workers in the Familistere are “free” to practice their trade, they do so more out of necessity than out of desire. Labor does not coincide with the real exercise of freedom. As Foucault states, “The guarantee of freedom is freedom.”
Architecture is the organization of space and thus, social relations. It directs circulation and controls the density of people and things. Consequently, freedom is in no fashion inherent to architecture. It is through his structure that the architect obtains power .
Foucault’s discussion on 18th century urban planning raises the idea of political and burecratic architecture in the approach or representation and allocation of power and authority in urban centers. As a response I like Foucault’s definition of Liberating Architecture as one that is developed for a series of “human relations.” He argues weather this type of reactive vs dictative architecture truly exists.
During my first year in undergrad I was browsing through a modern houses book; it included all of the famous contemporary and modern architects. It was my first encounter with the book and leafing it in reverse from its intended order. I came across an image that reminded me of Portugal. Not traditionally since it was highly modern; or a landscape since it was a close up of a window facing a bed of rock. It made me more home sick than if I had seen a picture of Sintra’s castles. I could smell the crispness of the limestone cooling after being in the sun all day…I know it sounds pretentious and cheesie but it is very genuine. Sure enough it was Alvaro Siza. Kenneth Frampton’s discussion on critical regionalism explained this sensibility to identity, and interpretation of the traditional, original, authentic and natural or vernacular. I want to ask Tatsuya if he feels the same when he sees images of Tadao Ando’s work. In addition in one of our previous readings, Reflections on Postcolonial Challenges to the Modern Survey by Sibel Bozdogan discusses “modernity as not being an indigenous development, but also not simple extensions of western developments.” So why does modern architecture serve non-western contexts; does it?
The Concept of Regionalism- Alan Colquhoun
The author suggests that upon closer examination of the Modern Movement one would find deeply rooted connections between “regionalism” and “modernism” which are often overlooked. One example Colquhoun offers is “Mediterraneanism” and its influence in Le Corbusier’s work. The second, is how the work of Alvar Aalto found its way into later editions of Sigfried Giedion’s text Space Time and Architecture. Both points reinforce his notion that Modernism cannot be reduced to a single category, “Rationalism”. The problem of “simple binary oppositions” and “essences” is brought up again in this text.
“… a number of groups distanced themselves from the countries by which they had been politically or culturally dominated.” For example, Finland constructed a representation of “Finnishness” through a combination of different styles, some were indigenous and some were not, and presenting this in as architectural style that embodied the essence of their culture. Colquhoun spots this “essence” as a mere fabrication, but at the same time gives credit to its “ideological function” as it was successful in “the legitimatization of a nation-state in terms of a regional culture.”
Two types of human association, associations based on rational deliberation and associations developed organically. The “doctrine of regionalism” falls under the “organic” category. Regionalism manifests into architecture with the “use and transformation of local, ‘natural’ materials, but as Colquhoun points out “architects are not trying to express the essence of particular regions, but are using local features as motifs in a compositional process in order to produce original, unique, and context-relevant architectural ideas.”
I particularly liked the author’s reference to the Herzog and de Meuron house in Italy where he describes the reading of the building “as a sort of endless text.” The architects pose sorts of questions through the juxtaposition of spatial and material relationships which provoke the author to think about “a number of hypotheses, none of which are completely confirmed or denied.” The project is not assuming one unified identity, although it does comment on the local materials and context.
The Greek word “techne” comes up in both readings; techne in the pre-Industrial world in the phenomenological sense, and techne in the modern sense Colquhoun almost avoids to define. He uses the word “technique” when referring to modern society, and uses it in opposition to the meaning of techne. It is interesting that in the interview with Foucault, Foucault points out the problematic relation of the word techne to technology, in the sense of technique.
The Immediate connection that came to mind In reading the interview with Foucault were his references, almost in passing, to understanding, examining architectural history from the perspective of a "practical rationality governed by a conscious goal", or techne. He further states (very succinctly I might add) the issue of orientalism we explored in class,
"I believe that if one placed the history of architecture back in this general history of techne, in this wide sense of the word, one would have a more interesting guiding concept thatn by considering opposition between the exact sciences and the inexact ones."
Examining architecture and the cultures from which it springs from the standpoint of rationality and goals leave us in a much better position to appreciate the heterogeneity of architectural expression as opposed to reducing it to east and west, or exact and inexact.
Moving on to more of Foucault's thoughts. He raises the thesis that after the 18th century architecture became a prominent part in political and social theory. It wasn't that architecture spontaneously became political but that the social discourse began focusing on it in written and spoken language.
I felt the main thesis from the Alan Colquhoun article was,
"The seach for the absolute authenticity that the doctrine of regionalism implies is likely to create an oversimplified picture of a complex cultural situation"
Throughout his article Mr. Colquhoun pokes a few holes in the regionistic approach. As I understood it his main qualm was the use of "absolute" and "critical" as self-descriptors of the regionalistic mentality. What he favors instead is a kind of go between a regional appreciation for materials and a striving for a broader culturally sensitive context.
Approximately halfway through his critique of regionalism Alan Colquhoun writes, “It is true that many interesting contemporary design refer to local materials, typologies, and morphologies. But in doing so their architects are not trying to express the essence of particular regions, but are using local features as motifs in a compositional process in order to produce original, unique and context-relevant architectural ideas” (19). Before I came to these few lines in the article I was wondering where sustainable architecture would fit into the concept of critical regionalism and if Colquhoun is not in favor of sustainable design because it coincides with many of regionalism’s aspects. After reading this statement I understood more thoroughly what critical regionalism is and why Colquhoun disagrees with it. I realized that sustainable design is not a “movement” or “period” of architecture. It is a design practice that will soon be embraced by every future movement out of necessity for human survival. Sustainable architects are not trying to express the essence of the regions for nostalgic purposes, but are designing in harmony with the essence of nature. Perhaps in the act of immersing a project in the natural habitat at the extent a sustainable architect must, the essence of an earlier native culture that also co-existed with nature out of the need for survival, long before technology and the modern movement, will re-emerge as a result?
With the ideas in mind that Kenneth Frampton put forth, sustainable architecture does not theoretically oppose the ideas of modernism like regionalism, but many of the design practices used to achieve sustainable structures will never produce the intentions of modern architects. Sustainable architecture depends on the use local materials and will adopt local building customs, often times natural techniques that were widespread before the technology of heating and cooling systems, to create structures that will require the least amount of energy. Williams McDonough writes in his book Cradle to Cradle, “Large sheets of glass, steel and concrete, and cheap transportation powered by fossil fuels, gave engineers and architects the tools for realizing [the International Style] anywhere in the world. Buildings can look the same anywhere, in Reykjavik or Rangoon” (29).
To say sustainable architecture largely takes into account locality is an understatement. Architects providing sustainable designs have to completely understand all aspects of the environment where they are building in order for their structure to coexist and reap any local benefits provided by nature. Architecture firms today can design buildings all over the world. It is often said that more firms in New York City are designing buildings in Asia than on Manhattan. Although with technology, especially the internet and advanced modes of transportation, the opposite side of the globe can be familiar and tangible, I think sustainable architecture will become more and more geographically localized as the field advances. Nature is complex and to understand a particular environment takes more than remote research. As more firms become involved in sustainable aspects of design more with become specialists in specific climates and even more specific regions. The best sustainable designs will be produced by architects that live in and therefore fully understand the climate for which they design.
Going along with the themes from the last class discussion, I am becoming more interested in how the combination of Foucault and Calquhoun’s arguments brought up the issue of how history is used to create identity. If the identity of being “western” and of a “historical” lineage is based on a contrivance, then on what basis, from Nalbantoglu’s earlier argument against Fletcher, can we, the “westerners” make claim of what is valid architecturally in the East? I suppose that is the question that we are asked to answer in this course as well as asking what role architecture really plays in shaping our society. From Foucault it is seen that others began to discuss this issue most seriously beginning in the late eighteenth century. Foucault is explaining more that the formation of space begins to take on more political significance: the ways that architecture acts to frame a concept for space as it use to govern and influence a society. For architecture, an idea like this can be dangerous, not in so far as the possibility that architecture can act to enslave us, or even liberate us; more that the idea of that it should try to. In Calquhoun’s argument we see that Europeans in the nineteenth century promulgated interpretations of their histories to establish some kind of national identity. Collecting and classifying historical and regional traits were accumulated to fulfill this goal and also to galvanize all of the different regions into one nation-state. The further examination of what constitutes these separate regions in Calquhoun’s argument showed the precarious footing of what one considers to be “regional” architecture. The geography, culture, language, custom, and religion that would define a certain regional identity are shown to be relegated to mere material expression in Calquhoun’s critique. Further, we can see that once a country established and controlled all regions under one single identity that conglomerated all the cultures, geographies, languages, and religions into one, the singular region ceased to be. When synthesized with Foucault’s argument, the formation of national spaces was done so with a specific political agenda to establish individual identities and thereby enabled European governments to make claim to what was theirs. I think Foucault would have agreed that architecture as an agent in this process is more a result of these forces rather than among them. As much as some of the modernists would have liked, including Le Corbusier, architects cannot really act in such a powerful manner. Architecture may channel the forces of our politics and culture by way of the channeling the people it serves. But, as Foucault argued, there is no such thing as a liberating machine, or any kind of machine that ensures human happiness of freedom. Thus, architecture cannot liberate or enslave the people; however, it may be able to liberate or enslave itself. This may be the case in terms of Western perceptions of the East, especially when we remember what Nalbantoglu said of Fletcher and what Said showed of Orientalism.
One of the main concerns with the idea of “critical regionalism” is that which Colquhoun states, “So from the start, the concept of a regional architecture was not exactly what it seemed. It was more an object of desire than one objective fact. That is why the architecture of regionalism put forward by the romantics could not be that ‘authentic thing’ of which it had formed a mental image, but only its representation.” If we are to look closely at a regions vernacular architectural forms these ideas and details often stem from a localized condition that needed to be dealt with for productivity purposes. One example of this would be the form of granaries in Finland. The wooden buildings are typically two to three stories high with the entire structure sitting on logs as rollers. Using the logs to elevate the building solved two main concerns for the finish people. Firstly, the logs allowed for the granary to be located on typically uneven ground as well as allowing for their movement to different locations. Additionally, the placement of the structure on the logs was to elevate the housed grain above the line of the heavy snowfall and prevent the entire wooden structure from rotting. It was easier to replace the wooden logs below than the entire structure.
The below image is a typical Finnish granary from the Seussari Museum in Helsinki. Photo by Olli Alopaeus.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/73/198905578_00b18876b6.jpg?v=0
In Aalto’s Villa Mairia we are confronted with the same detail. Photo by Bttgcm.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2048/2859068217_bdb9b0191e.jpg?v=0
The difference is that Aalto is using the detail as a reference to the Finnish vernacular and in all actuality has no function in his design. In fact they posed more of an issue in that the logs supporting the structure did rot and were exceedingly difficult to replace. In this specific case Aalto has created a reference to a past culture of the Finnish people, a sign, with no functionality. As Frampton says in “Prospects for a Critical Regionalism,” “It is necessary to distinguish at the outset between critical regionalism and the simplistic evocation of a sentimental or ironic vernacular.” To Frampton it would seem that this specific detail would be that of populism “a communicative or instrumental sign.” Yet, later on he praises Aalto for his “extraordinary sensitivity towards local materials, craft work and above all to the subtleties of local light.” In reference to the Villa Mairia detail there becomes an almost kitsch effect as there is no necessary function other than it’s representation of a Finnish history. I do believe that culture and regionalism are important parts of architecture and can provide an identity with honored historical references, but we must do this without producing, as Venturi and Brown would say, a duck.
The text of Kenneth Frampton brought up the question to my mind, if there is still an argument not to be critical about the region you work in.
In these times where the word sustainability is usesd randomly in any context. The global recsources are going to deplet and there is no answer yet.
So how can we as architects not use an regional setup for our design?
Architects like Mario Botta with his capels in Mongo or on the Monte Tamaro , Peter Zumthor with the famous thermal bath in Vals or the already mentioned Alvaro Siza and Tadao Ando are critical in each analysis for a project in terms of the regional traditions, materials and the needs for these different cultures. Thay have a deep knowledge of their home regions.
In the globalized world it is not so incomplex and uncritical to be aware of all the facts in the huge amount of projetcts most of these "global architects" have.
Thats why for example Herzog de Meuron calls something regional when they use a local stone or material for their design.
The explict touch or the sense and the personal rootedness is missing.
Some of the outstanding work of for example Ando
is based on an explict understanding of the japanese culture and their needs.
Andos "Row House" was designed with the knowledge of a local architect. The design is introversive and it has an open patio which is typical for traditional japanese residentals.
Also most of Sizas work is located in the Portugal
which allows a wider conceptual freedom because of the lets call it regional knowledge.
OMA, Hadid and all the others have a different aproach to the profession, but this has also a relavance.
From my understanding of this week’s readings two main arguments are discussed. The first, Critical Regionalism as outlined by Alan Colqhoun and then broken down further by Kenneth Frampton. And second, the political and powerful underlying potentials of architecture that Michele Foucault is fascinated with.
The Foucault reading was particularly interesting to me because highlighted the underlying history to some common design decisions that architects are accustomed too. Specifically he deals with the layout of hospitals, a typology that seems very rigid and unchanging to most architects. He calls out; the placement of them within the city, the sudden requirement for ventilation that is discovered, and the departmentalization that happens within them. He attributes the very purpose of hospitals to be driven by the need for a healthy enough working class and not necessarily for any humane aspects. In this example Foucault explains the power structure that architecture has the potential to achieve, he does point out however that as architects we have lost this power.
The Frampton article on Critical Regionalism expresses a few architects that, in Frampton’s mind, posses a true sense of regionalism in their work. Tadao Ando for example is an architect who is regional by way of his consideration of environmental elements in his design. He attributes the sunlight and wind to be equal site specific factors in each design problem. Another architect mentioned in the article is Mario Botta, who also pays close attention to site strategies of each design. His term of “building the site” summarizes his stance on regionalism much like Ando’s position Botta too considers each site to be a valid contextual design problem equal to that of the programmatic issues of a project. Frampton further defines Regionalism as something more than just a material issue but rather an all encompassing design approach specific to each site. This notion of regionalism is discussed here in response to its counterpart that is international style and modernism. In which, site strategies and material issues are considered universal.
As a warning to those who read my post…I wrote 90% of this before our discussion, soo some of my understanding has changed a bit. But I wanted to include these comments anyway…
Kenneth Frampton first introduces critical regionalism by asserting what it is not : the vernacular – a physical manifestation of the combination of “climate, culture, myth and craft.” This was the first surprise to me – I always connected critical regionalism with the attempt to identify, utilize, and give value to the physical attributes (culture, climate, resources, etc) of a particular place. I realized that Frampton’s critical regionalism more so attempts to grasp a region’s school of thought, capture the identity of a place and in doing so, it gives a “kind of cultural, economic, and political independence” to a place.
I thought it was interesting that Frampton insists Regionalism is not Populism. Regionalism that he speaks of is less about a nostalgic connection to a past, popular culture and the commodities that come along with such a connection.
When he finally explains what Critical Regionalism IS I’m not sure I fully grasp his interpretation. Frampton asserts, “On the other hand, Critical Regionalism is a dialectical expression. It self consciously seeks to deconstruct universal modernisms in terms of values and images which are locally cultivated, while at the same time adulterating these autochthonous elements with paradigms drawn from alien sources” (149). What’s funny is that vernacular is a synonym of dialect, which Frampton already told us is not what Critical Regionalism is. That makes me think the second part of his description (the word ‘expression’) might be more indicative. I interpret Frampton’s Regionalism as an expression of a region’s ideas and values, rather than a physical snapshot of how something in popular culture (such as architecture) appeared historically.
That might be my interpretation of the definition of Critical Regionalism, but achieving this expression of ideas is another challenge. Actually, forget achieving it – how about defining the ‘ideas’ that represent a place? For one, what time period is appropriate and how far back do we search? Who is included and represented in the discourse and who is not? These decisions have political and social implications within a society as witnessed in the Greek example described by Alex Tzonis. Here, historical regionalism creates power struggles within a society; that is, “historical regionalism had united people but it had also divided them” (161). I find it interesting that the same power struggles that related to Orientalism continue to appear when individual places try to determine their own "essence."
On a different topic, I was very surprised at the connection between Le Corbusier and regionalism. Francesco Passanti’s article “The Vernacular, Modernism, and Le Corbusier” answered some of these questions for me. I always assumed that the Modernist’s attitude of “tabla rasa” and regionalism were incompatible. Passanti argues that Modernist figures like Corbusier did consider the vernacular in their career. He begins, “Le Corbusier’s connections to the vernacular cover an even longer span: he received his early education within a regionalist movement, used vernacular rubble walls in his Villa Mandrot in the 1930s and brick vaults in the Jaoul houses in the 1950s, and showed a continued interest throughout his career”(438). I might argue that Corbu’s consideration of the local vernacular and region fall short. Like Calquhoun critiques Herzog and De Meuron’s limited use of regional elements, Corbu’s inclusion of vernacular, regional elements are similarly very hard to discern.
Overall, I really enjoyed the readings this week.
While reading Frampton and Colquhoun's text, I couldn't help but tie the concept of 'critical regionalism' in architecture to the current cultural and economic globalization as a whole.
Frampton argues for an architecture that has roots in the surrounding region, but uses this understanding of the surroundings very specifically. Colquhoun counters his argument by questioning whether regionalism in any context even makes sense. He points out that much of the culture that regionalism is attempting to save is already lost. By attempting to replicate a regional architecture, architects are in danger of oversimplifying the situation.
These arguments can be applied to fields apart from architecture, all over the world.
Globalization has changed societies so much that they are in danger of losing cultural traditions. The world is becoming more and more homogenized. Paul Ricoeur's quote at the beginning of Frampton's text is quite accurate - "Everywhere throughout the world, one finds the same bad movie, the same slot machines, the same plastic or aluminum atrocities, the same twisting of language by propaganda, etc." The knee-jerk reaction to globalization is to attempt to save local traditions, whether it be architecture, art, literature, traditional food, or locally based businesses. (This ties back to last week's reading on the "salvage paradigm".)
While getting back to local traditions seems like a good idea at first, I think Colquhoun's arguments about regionalism in architecture pertain to this as well. Trying to save these disparate cultural elements could result in almost a parody of their original forms. It would end up being shallow, and often not even historically correct.
It seems a shame, however, to simply let traditional cultures die. I've come to the question, then: Even with today's cultural and economic globalization, is it possible to keep a cultural independence, without resulting in kitch? After Friday's discussion on this topic, I'm still not sure that the class came up with a satisfying answer. Hopefully we will explore this more over the semester.
In the postmodern age, as the issues of critical regionalism arose, so did the issues of the distinction between public and private realms and how the new emerging process of “privatization” affected architecture.
This was not the change only in architecture. It exists in a daily routine that sometimes people don’t even notice it because it has been our practice for generations. In the 18th century, there was a system of health organization where a number of private groups were in charge of the health of a collectivity. This led to a health industry. It later became a politics of health which both the government and private groups take part in. Not only does this affect the society as a whole, but also the smaller scale such as family institution. For example, according to Foucault, parents are obliged to provide their children vaccination at each certain age. This may sound normal as it is for the child’s own good, but it is a social requirement i.e. schools require a complete health form of what types of vaccination an incoming student has had and which ones are required before one is to start a semester at the school. This puts an economic cost and a moral responsibility on every parent. As the society gets more freedom in the postmodern world, with more private businesses, a person is more constrained on what he/she has to do to keep up with the social regulations.
The similar contradiction between public and private realms can also be seen in architecture. A quote from Colquhoun’s article on Ernest Gellner’s statement, “Differences between regions were part of the structure of the agrarian world. The needs of industrial society, on the contrary, demand a high degree of uniformity and the flattening out of local differences,” implies that the industrialization has affected our lifestyle that it takes away our regional aesthetics. Thus uniformity in architecture is necessary. A process of “privatization,” as suggested by Michel de Certeau, was the process that shifted architecture from the public to private realms, from having stable and public meanings to randomness, from the preindustrial to postindustrial world.
Luis Barragan had his comments on the postindustrial world that man no longer connects himself with nature. People only spend time in their enclosed living box. Even when someone commutes to another place, he puts himself in an automobile which is another manmade creation. This again indicates a shift from public to private spaces.
This brings up a question of what private realm really means. Why do we get more constrained regulations in our more private lifestyle in the postmodern world? Does private realm truly allow its people privacy? Have we given up our traditions for the new digital age?
When reading Alan Colquhoun’s The Concept of Regionalism I was constantly referred back to the notion of Regionalism as a product of a national Ideology; the process of creating culture through the process of identifying ideals. They weighed less on the biblical history and began to focus on the organic or vernacular cultures that were a product of everyday life. In many examples the “Kulture” or the organic development was in fact not native to the nation states that were displaying them; As in the case of Finland’s Regionalism process in which they borrowed heavily from the English arts and crafts movement to identify their “essence” of “Finishness”. They were able to invent what was important. This romanticism of Finland’s Kulture is a clear example of an ideal social model.
As a result the architecture was not one that related to geography, natural materials, climate, or tradition but rather to an “essence” of what should be important. Colquhoun states that the absolute authenticity of regionalism is likely to create an oversimplified picture of a complex cultural situation. Critical Regionalism attempts to alleviate the pitfalls of Regionalism, however when attempting to define the “critical” we are presented with further conflict over the ability for critical regionalism to produce architecture that is in itself preserving the difference of that specific region. Therefore is it possible to define new architecture as a regional product or have the materials and practices of the modern world homogenized so far that we are only able to create forms that express the ideals and essences of our national and global ideologies.
Couple of thoughts from Friday September 12, Class.
-Tadao Ando’s architecture as critical regionalism because he plays with pre-war traditions local light and weather, and holistic way of looking at architecture in an urban scale.
From my perspective, Ando’s architecture is new way of looking at authenticity of Japanese architecture, not only because his use of light, but more importantly, his technique. In general, I think building technique develop because of availability of local material. For Greek, they had marble as primary architectural material, which progressed building technique by use of stone. It seems that this technique eventually evolved to discovery of building dome structure in Western architecture. In a similar sense, Japanese developed wooden structure system as primary building technique that is predominately visible in Japanese wood joinery system.
In Japan, people strongly believe this preconception of Western stone technique and Japanese wood technique. On the other hand, Ando’s technique seems at first very new, “exposed concrete”. However, his stone, “concrete”, architecture reminds me of stone that existed in sub elements of traditional architecture such as stone garden, lantern, or sake cellar. By physically experiencing his architecture, I feel very nostalgic, not by visual but by atmosphere. It appears that Ando redefines authenticity. Am I answering your question, Tania?
In similar context, another example of redefining authenticity is FOA’s Yokohama Port Terminal. Even though their project seems very contemporary in a sense that it is not related to context, their use of folded aluminum panel present itself as being inspired by Japanese Origami. Actually, Alejandro Zaero Poro admitted to this fact. I don't know if they had this idea from competition phase or it happened in construction documents phase. Anyway, the result is astonishing. It is because they are inspired by Origami. To be honest, Japanese do not make a big deal of Origami. Origami is just a craft. However, foreigners do make a big deal out of it. Therefore, if FOA were to be Japanese, this birth of Origami idea would have been a very difficult. This is very foreign perspective to me. FOA did redefine Japanese aesthetic by evolving a piece of craft that existed in Japanese tradition and turning it into architecture expression.
I found our discussion on how architecture can influence human behavior to be very interesting. In particular, the reference to the Panopticon made me think of Jane Jacob’s idea of “eyes on the street.” In the case of the prison, the inmates are deterred from acting out simply by knowing that the guards might be watching them. With Jacob’s concept, she believes that a vibrant, busy street is essentially a safe street. In her book, “The Death and Life of Great American Cities,” she states, “…there must be eyes upon the street, eyes belonging to those we might call the natural proprietors of the street. The buildings on a street equipped to handle strangers and to insure the safety of both residents and strangers, must be oriented to the street. They cannot turn their back or blank sides on it and leave it blind.” By simply positioning buildings in the proper direction and ensuring that there is a variety of building types (i.e. shops that would be open during the day and bars and restaurants that would be open at night, with housing interspersed), one can safely say that a street will be fairly populated during most hours of the day. With many people watching, a person is much less likely to commit a crime or act out in some way. This idea is a bit different from the Panopticon in that people know that they are very likely being watched, rather than possibly watched. Nevertheless, the central core to both ideas is that a type of architecture which encourages surveillance will discourage individuals from acting out whether it be due to a fear of punishment or simply a result of social conditioning where the individual feels that they must abide by their society’s established moral code. One could argue that this is not truly changing negative human behavior, but rather deterring it (so that it might simply happen somewhere else), but nonetheless, I think it is truly the best we can hope for as architects.
I wanted to examine further a specific area that was under discussion in Friday’s seminar: Foucault’s aggressive argument that in light of an architect’s objective of imperative attainment, he/she ultimately renders a failure. Foucault does declare the ambition of an architect is indeed important, but discredits the result as imperfect, producing a need for alteration and leading to misuse with the passage of time, or poor design overall. This abuse may be caused by something as local as the inhabitant due to personal preferences, or something on a larger scale such as government restrictions, epidemic outbreaks, political autocracy, or war. Although this rationale is true to a certain extent, it has always been my attitude that it is imperative for the architect to challenge social and political (and of course, now environmental) boundary conformities that are conventional in design. I would like to offer a counter argument: perhaps it is the intention of the architect that outweighs the outcome.
Whether referencing Le Corbusier’s intention of creating a “liberating architecture” or generally referring to an architect’s “power” over the future inhabitant, Foucault denies the effectiveness of both. He contends that the aspirations of architects do not coincide with the real practices people engage in, and therefore the efficacy of design is lost. It seems as if architecture in Foucault’s mind is being defined in a win-or-lose dichotomy. And that is where I find fault: in war for instance, it is important who wins or loses based on the casualties, time invested, capital spent on research, weaponry, technology, etc; but architecture is not a strategic game. I feel it is equally important to study the intent or an architect and extract what is successful in order to generate a contemporary architecture that investigates and attempts to respond to social, political and environmental concerns.
This comment has been removed by the author.
To follow up on our class discussion of architecture as a form of power, I question Foucault’s use of the term. Personally, I view the word, ‘power,’ to be a bit supreme in this context. Foucault defends his use of the term in referencing and describing figures of domination, such as doctors for whom pass power or who are important in the fields of power relations. While I do respect and understand his reason for using the term, I’m moved to believe that there is a better way to describe these roles in order to maintain a more stabilized and working society.
In class, Matt posed a good point in questioning how ethical it is for an architect to be involved in the management of power. My initial response is that it definitely is unethical for an architect to be involved in the management of power. Now let me explain. Once again, it is this term ‘power’ in this context that makes me on edge and uncomfortable. While Foucault does defend his point sufficiently by defining his use of the term in reference to power relations, perhaps the word ‘responsibility,’ would be a more appropriate replacement and possibly translate more effectively in response. In the context of responsibility, I believe that it is a doctor’s responsibility to cure the sick; it is a prison warden’s responsibility to guard the prisoners; it is a priests responsibility to translate Christ’s visions and intentions through scripture; it is a judge’s responsibility to bring justice to a court, and it is an architect’s responsibility to not only provide shelter from the existing environment, but also apply current affairs as a technique to improve the quality of life. While this isn’t the sole responsibility of and to the architect, would you agree that it very well may be a good starting point? Isn’t this what architecture has been attempting to do throughout history? Isn’t it the reason that architecture has constantly and consistently changed throughout generations and decades?
Throughout different periods and within different locations, societies get fixated on a general theme that they believe will provide improved living standards. In the case of Foucalt’s argument, he relates politics through the power of architecture. In the case of today’s society, we are not only responsible to conform to producing ‘environmentally friendly’ buildings (since in reality, I believe that architecture has always considered this), but we are expected to be role models to all other industries and corporations. Now I've come to a state of perplex in dialoguing...perhaps Foucault is right in using the term power, because being role models is more than a responsibility.
My comments on this week’s blog pertain to Michel Foucault’s discussion on the incorporation and possibility of architecture and its political power. Foucault says that unlike other professions, the architect has no power over his buildings once they are built. After the initial building is completed the inhabitant is completely free to redesign and edit both the interior and exterior of said building. True, the architect has no physical ability to guard the integrity of his work. However, if architecture has political clout, which Foucault claims it should have, then it doesn’t matter whether a piece of architecture is guarded over by the architect or whether it is left alone unguarded. If a piece is built with political intent it should be clear to the viewer and in habitant that the piece is making a political statement. The fact that Foucault thinks an inhabitant would want to change a political piece of architecture means that the architect has not done a good enough job explaining the political stance that is desired. Foucault’s belief of the ability of architecture to convey meaning or significance contradicts his statement of the architect’s lack of control over his designs. If a true meaning is conveyed in a piece of architecture, its power transcends any desire to edit the original form of the structure. Therefore, any politically influenced piece of architecture which is disturbed from its original state is bad architecture whose intentions and meanings have been lost. The one exception to this statement is when political architecture is destroyed for political reasons. In this instance, it is obvious that its meaning and intentions were clear and either for personal reasons or reasons pertaining to a larger agenda, the structure was modified. The example I bring to light is Hagia Sophia. The structure was intentioned as a church and throughout the course of its existence it has been modified from a church to a mosque and back to a church depending on the governing belief system of the country. The structure has meaning so powerful that once the building’s meaning was invalid, the governing power wanted its influence transferred to the new regime. It’s almost BigBrother-esque the way that history is written and rewritten through its structures and the use of the monumentality of the building to convey a political belief. The one good thing to glean from the example of Hagia Sophia is that even though the building was modified and re-modified to suite the political and religious stance of the time, the building was not destroyed and its beauty preserved.
I wanted to give my perspective on the class discussion that referenced Foucault’s statement about the role of the architect not being a role of power or dominion over others. One of our classmates argued against Foucault and said that the architect does have dominance over others when he/she has designed something so perfectly that the user doesn’t want to change anything about it. Therefore that user is conforming to the ways that the architect has laid out the programming of the spaces created. I guess I just wanted to note that this isn’t what I would call dominion of the architect, but rather collaboration between user and architect. It is highly unlikely that any architect could ever build anything successful without the blessing of the user in accordance to their needs.
The word dominion in relation to the role of the architects suggests to me more of a radical personality whose ideologies are inserted into a new a building archetype that is later constructed and inhabited. It becomes almost immediately evident that these spaces are not only making the users unhappy, but they don’t have the choice to change the spaces if they wanted to. A twentieth century example that comes to mind exists near the IIT campus in Chicago. The concrete midrise building was supposed to become a sort of model for dealing with density while building with elegant concrete. Instead it became a neighborhood eyesore the users found very unfriendly. When I saw the building four years ago, it had been converted into a low-income housing facility. Rumor was that it was about to be torn down. I can’t find any information on it now, but I do remember that the architect was LeCorbusier. His ego and reputation for style earned him this dominance, as it did several other architects during this time in architectural history. It’s obvious now that never meant that LeCorbusier was immune to error though. I think this is the danger in considering anybody, or even ourselves, as a dominant force over societal issues. Skills can be taken for granted, and questions won’t be asked until the damage is done.
I was interested in the discussion of what constitutes nations and regions in The Concept of Regionalism. Ernst Renan is referenced as declaring that national boundaries are formed by neither common customs, language, race, religion nor any other “natural” factor. The only factor that that creates a nation is a will towards political unity than any preexisting set of customs. Industrial society flattens out local differences.
This made me think of recent uprisings and separatist movements, as well as the opposite, the recent formation and incorporation of nation-states which may include within their boundaries former independent republics. In this context, Renan’s explanation is correct. These situations are a struggle between regional differentiation vs. the modern industrial economy.
I find the idea of Ando’s work fascinating—whether or not it is Critical Regionalist. Ando uses regional architectural spatial systems to solve contemporary problems in a holistic way. He speaks in his writing of pre-war architectural spatial traditions that were lost to Modernist town planning systems. He responds to and puts these systems to use in his architecture. Additionally, he writes of the “trans-optical” quality of his architecture which includes materiality beyond wood and concrete to include the charged details created by light and wind.
I want to continue our contentious class discussion of Foucault, Politics and Architecture...
*On Foucault's ideas of Politics and Architecture and Sex?:
I found Foucault's explanation of the inclusion of architecture into the political discourse truly arousing but off-putting!
Here's why...
Whether or not you agree with his assessment that this politico/architectural synthesis occurred in the 18th century, the
reality is that architecture is attentive to the betterment of society; Our discipline is no stranger idealist and utopian zeal.
However, as we discussed in class, the politically minded people who first noticed that it was socially useful to transform
hospitals from places for spreading disease into places to return a thriving workforce to health in order to maintain the
economy and prevent open popular revolt out of poverty, etc. etc. ... [these political people] make it clear that architecture can be an instrument of
good and/or (pick one) evil after the architect has finished. I'm being vague I'm sure - but basically I left class very unsure of how I, or anyone
else in class feels about architecture as a pawn in some political power-play - Yes, yes, I know that fixing hospital design is 100% beneficial
to society - even if some politician advocates it for less than altruistic reasons...but what about Fascist architecture in Germany? Or Fascist architecture in
Italy under Mussolini? These are symbolic uses (or mis-uses?) of architecture by a overbearing political pressure - and we were concerned more with utilitarian,
formal and organizational aspects of architecture and politics in class? Then there's the trouble with the eureka moment when everyone realized that surveillance
is power ( a la panopticon and the Familistere... see Nicole's blog for the link!) - which immediately makes it difficult to look at using politics in creating architecture
as a "positive" thing! Actually, I was amused that Foucault equivocated on whether or not the Familistere was "oppressive" or "liberating" depending upon the occupants:
if they are prone to watch each other then the place could be oppressive - but if the occupants are .... ummmmm say....into group sex .... then the place could be
"liberating". Liberating is right! If you haven't read this article yet - please do... because I'm not making up the group sex thing! (pg. 6, lower paragraph) I know, I know...you
are all saying, "Matt you're a pervert". I don't know about you, but photoshopping people into my architectural renderings will never be the same.
After reading this week’s texts, which I found to be very interesting, I want to share with you what I feel is an architectural example of a commitment to place rather than space, where the goal was also to practice liberty.
The architect was, Enric Miralles (1955-2000), of EMBT in Barcelona, and the project in question is the Scottish Parliament.
What interests me is EMBT’s approach for designing the first parliament in Scotland since the Union of the Parliaments in 1707; their vision for opening up the Canongate/Royal Mile to Arthur’s Seat, a huge mountainous open green space and taking advantage of the qualities of the site in contrast with the rigidity of the upper Royal Mile, whereas the main public buildings of historical Edinburgh were connected with infrastructure/bridges, they saw the opportunity to connect the building with the land, thus reinforcing the qualities of the site/place.
Conceptually distancing itself from the Holyrood Palace, which is facing the parliament and superimposed directly onto the landscape, the Parliament would be slotted into the landscape, sitting in it, arising from the sloping base of Arthur’s seat and arriving in the city as if it were grown out of the rock. The slope represents a natural amphitheatre, carved in the landscape for the citizens to gather in and the seats of parliament are a fragment of the large amphitheatre. The building was seen as land within the land, the building belonging to Scotland and its citizens. Here Miralles’ intention was to create a place within a place, meant for the liberation of the Scottish people and belonging to the Scottish people.
However, to me the building seems to discriminate the public from the MSP’s. The fact that the Debating Chamber is above the public area, creating a hierarchy between the two and the entrance for the public is almost in contrast to the MSP entrance. The public entrance is dark and gloomy with a heavy low ceiling made up of three vaults but the MSP’s entrance is grand and bright, a flowing overhead structure with twelve roof lights shaped like leaves, giving the space a sense of lightness. This contrast does not seem to follow the concept of the building belonging to its citizens. Possibly Miralles had different intentions than what was in fact realized but his untimely death in 2000, only a few months after the construction of the building started might be a crucial factor in this fading away from the beautiful and simple concept.
For those who are not familiar with the work of Enric Miralles, I strongly recommend that you familiarize yourselves with his unique flowing architecture, his control over the aesthetic properties and qualities of light, material and space, reminds me a lot of Alvaro Siza’s architecture, but with a stronger reference to nature and its forms.
This is the official website of EMBT, which his wife continued to run after his death (she is the BT, he is the EM in EMBT):
http://www.mirallestagliabue.com/
Speaking of panopticism it is important to mention Jeremy Bentham who designed the Panopticon (1971) and Claude Nicolas Ledoux, who worked out the architectural plans for the Salines Royals d’Arc-et-Senans. The geometry of the “City of Salt” is taken from the circle or sphere. This geometry represents power, control and order, because nothing can escape from surveillance. At Senans Ledous embodied the vision of the ideal city. The main intention of the “salt works” was to use the Chateau Salins “not used” seawaters and boil it to create the crystallization. The half circle shape accommodates the salt plant in the linear middle and starts accommodating the worker houses on the beginning of the rounded area hen the service areas and finishing at the center by the entry gate. At the center radius was the Administrator’s house, which was above the main level and included gave an impression of power and vigilance. In the main portico had an oculus oriented to the workers houses giving that feeling of observation.
Some of the more compelling thoughts I had after this weeks reading probably centered around the Foucault interview. The fact that it was an interview, and thereby limited to how verbose it can be made the transaction of ideas flow substantially more readily as one can only go so far with off the cup speech. Something I found personally quite interesting, although questionable as far as how relevant it is to actual architecture or actual non-western-ness was discussion about one old theory that railways would bring a peace over the nation that had been previously unconnected by virtue or of the greater exchange of ideas and cultures and peoples over large expanses of time leading people's sharing of commonalities to bring about peace. He also goes on to mention how the opposite was true in reference to how the railways became a vital instrument of war. However temporarily that may be true, the overarching fact remains that the world is not still at war, and after some misuse of the railroad, it eventually did bring a certain peace over the region. These exchanges of thought, in the context of this class, appears to be the point of this class, and the other readings concerning regionalism and critical regionalisms and whatever else word you can make up/add ism to..
What I fail to understand is wouldn't it be better to focus on the commonalities than the differences? Making a separate class seems to exacerbate the difference, and rather than looking at work as a human solving problems specific to on particular area, it has turned into this overblown field of study perpetuating its own importance. There is always some history of some group of people being wiped out and their culture was officially lost, although somehow by some human virtue some of that information often resists totally being erased (arguably because of some material connection or maybe some sort of gigantic social unconscious). And perhaps people like Frampton , who want to obsess about a certain specific history fails to remember that most if not all cultures today are really a combination of many other cultures both gained and lost--and the world as is it is indeed in the process of mixing, taking, replacing existing cultures. Which sounds so terrifying to those following the salvage paradigm, but it is how the world works, and the direction of civilization is about a unifying and sharing. It should be no more interesting that Japanese architecture is a certain way than a specific architect on the other side of the country, state or even city creates.
I would argue before critics get too self-absorbed in their discussion about the byproducts of creativity that perhaps there were several practical factors to designing in a particular way, and that regionalism in any sense should be more accurately called, good design--one which is sensitive to local conditions and needs will always follow some reference to previously found answers to local design problems. The obsession with studying the past in order to recreate seems to be a stagnent as well as short sighted one, and by some extension the obsession with studying the regional past of areas would be as well. Much like the reference Foucault makes towards historicism calling on the past to answer today's problems, I would argue such heavy handed, over simplified examinations of a regions building style seems to be just as unfruitful and that instead of having a "non-western" class we should just have a specific class on some specific area where intense personal research on a single particular area of interest would be the only true way of counteracting salvage, historicism, orientalism and whatever other ism you can think of as a whole.
Random thought format aka ‘free’ writing:
We discussed in class that regionalism in its truest form is an attempt to steer away from architectural homogenization. To me this is one of the most important idea(l)s in the practice of architecture. The world would function as a static machine… boring, cold… and forward economic, social, artistic, and political momentum would flat-line.
:::::::::::
The zivilizations and kultures are made up of overlapping histories; therefore reaching back to last week’s discussion of authenticity, there is no such thing as ‘critical regionalism.’ They are left over pieces used to create an ‘authentic’ mosaic of place… and time. ‘Authentic’ is perception is belief.
::::::::::
Zivilization: kulture :: advancement: salvage.
Growth and foundation are important to the aspect of defining architecture and its practice/process.
::::::::::
Architecture is both reactive and dictative as it needs to be.
Factors: time, geographical location, political/economic state, social patterns, weather, competition, catastrophic response, personal use, ect.
::::::::::
Make it faster. Make it stronger. Make it better. Pre-fab it.
::::::::::
The Architect is not god; forget what your ego says. The more I learn, the less I know. My perception as an undergrad entering this field was that I could change the world. I still believe, only my means and methods have shifted. The practice of architecture is collaborative. Therefore, I am one of many… many acting as one. I will be the conductor… choreographer of the architectural dance. *cheese
::::::::::
There is no such thing as the perfect space, in terms of the all-knowing architect designing a space that is and will always be used as originally intended. Space inherently sets up constrains, but they are not absolute. Human nature adapts to necessity and desire over time.
Example: indoor plumbing, air conditioning, electricity – all things that have impacted design… what will impact design…
now: technology and environmental awareness… how?
::::::::::
Evolve: open to the elements – controlling the elements (necessity) – fighting the elements – working with the elements (choice)
::::::::::
User as ‘A’rchitect: if… and when the user alters the space does not yield the authority of an Architect. As I am writing this, I am already having conflicting thoughts… I am a user, and I am not an Architect with a capital ‘A’… I have no piece of paper validating me as such… but I believe my ideas are as valid as any/most/some licensed professionals. If I build a wall it is still a wall….
Another conflicting idea: It pains me to have my efforts of training be diluted…. So no, the user can practice ideas… but not Architecture. * wheew
Changes: fireplace as the heart of the house… kitchen island as heart of the house… build in media center as heart of the house
Changes Two: broken bathroom as storage… it no longer functioned for my needs… so the use has been altered.
Changes, too _________________
One of my dilemmas in this carrier is how far our projects can take us and what are we representing with it. In this lecture According to Frampton, “critical regionalism should adopt modern architecture critically for its universal progressive qualities but at the same time should value responses particular to the context”, which for me creates a complicated language between needs, society, economy and how this two elements (modern-context) are used to create one entity.
This reading in particular calls my attention for the approach that architects are being judge for their differences in approaching their design intent, we see how Frampton and Copenhagen critic Ultzo and Alto, saying about Utzon's bagsvaerd church, “is a self-conscious synthesis between universal civilization and world culture. This is revealed by the rational, modular, neutral and economic, partly prefabricated concrete outer shell “ versus the specially-designed, 'uneconomic', organic, reinforced concrete shell of the interior, signifying with its manipulation of light sacred space and 'multiple cross-cultural references', which Frampton sees no precedent for in “Western culture”.
In the case of Aalto, Frampton discusses the redbrick Saynatsalo Town Hall in which, he argues, one finds a resistance to the domination of universal technology, as well as to vision by means of the tactile qualities of the building's materials; for instance, “in 'feeling' the friction of the brick floor of the stairs to the springy wooden-floored council chamber”.
All this criticism makes me think in how guilty our architecture could be? or our intension when comes to incorporate vernacular elements, and how abused can those elements be in terms of supply the needs of design? Is it wrong to adapt those elements and create a literal architecture that will fall in pure “regionalism”? or is our intent to just take what we consider essence and mixed that with the resources that new technologies can provide us?... I guess that is personal and is that free expression what make us “artists”.
I want to focus on the various ideas about regionalism that continue to come up throughout the course. Frampton and Colquhoun for example take very different views on the ideas on regionalism. Frampton argues the traditional systems of understanding regionalism though the physical and representational aspects of culture and environmental. Frampton argues that regionalism is less connected to the physical aspects of cultural and environmental context and more to the ideas and essence of the local region, much like the arguments of Said we covered in the introduction and first chapter of his Orientalism. Although the difference I’m finding between Frampton and Said is that although Frampton believes the essence of regionalism can be grasped and understood, Said questions how much one can truly understand the essence of cultural regionalism as an observer. Colquhoun I believe takes Said argument further and take a very different argument and challenges Frampton by not only questioning his theories on regionalism but questioning regionalism in any context.
All these arguments play a significant part in understanding the impact, significance and relationship architecture has within various regions. More importantly as the “world” becomes smaller and we all become more homogenous the ideas of regionalism begin to play a larger role in our approach to regional architecture. If we choose to believe in the theories about the worlds leanings to a more homogenous existence maybe Colguhoun arguments begins to have more validity. As well if we try to understand the idea of regionalism and context we see previous ideas regarding regionalism always try to retain and freeze perceptions of regions. Thus the largest flaw in the argument of regionalism is revealed; historical existence and representation is not static and will continue to change, thus chaining it to any specific context or perception becomes a futile exercise.
That is not to say the ideas of regionalism are not to be explored, but maybe the approach is what needs to be questioned. Having the understanding that history is not static but continually changing the idea of absolute arguments may not be the solution to historical analysis, specifically in the realm of regionalism.
First off I believe that the Foucault reading that I read was different from the rest of the class in that it was not in a question / answer format, yet still is titled “The politics of Health in the Eighteenth Century”.
Regardless i'm still going to comment on this because there are a few points that translate particularly to architecture.
In an article concerning itself with the emergence of the modern… in this case… health system there is a part that says that
“Sickness is only one among a range of factors, including infirmity, old age, inability to find work, and destitution, which compose the figure of the “necessitous pauper” who deserves hospitalization”.
What strikes me here is not the individual conditions but the term used to define them the “necessitous pauper”, for Foucault goes on to say that ““pauper” is one of the first to be effaced, giving way to a whole series of functional discriminations (the good poor and the bad poor, the willfully idle and the involuntarily unemployed, those who can do some kind of work and those who cannot.”
It is here that I think that the conditions of the people being described haven’t changed, but the classifications of the particular people have. The necessitous pauper is now one of many…. Let’s say… the good poor, but I’m willing to bet the majority of the needs of both definitions are the same, but the minority details of what breaks one into multiple are what really control. In the article…
(Note: here I pause for 10min trying to find a specific example to use, cursing at myself for not marking it earlier, coming to the conclusion that this is a totally Mario thing to do…. So ill paraphrase)
… in the article a history is given in a form of self surveillance describing how multiple different social organizations were used to care for.. In this case the pauper, churches, families etc. and how this multitude of organizations had a cross over affect in what they could control; ex: someone’s physical and mental health would be treated by one of these groups. But as health was organized into economic issue (politics) that they were reclassified as those who needed medical care at a hospital or those who went to jail as being socially unfit. The groups have been reorganized yet their conditions are the same as they were before, but under this reorganization, politically, they are not reducible to their original parts, for the institutions to treat them don’t recognize their component parts. The top down has taken control of the bottom up. Even in my description of this I show my bias by having to describe the “cross over affect” of one system verses another. My point for focusing on this article is that, in my mind, it sits at the heart of what was discussed in class in terms of how does one define a jail or the possible changing roles of its structure, is it the role of architecture to impose design to control society?
In my view this is not a yes or no question. I don’t believe that architecture has the full power to influence society… to that degree. Don’t get me wrong, architecture does have a social influence but it almost exist after the fact, for an architect can design a hospital but that design still exist as a hospital under the current definitions of “hospital” the same thing applies for school, house… even… dare I say regionalism… architecture is as much social as it is formal, regardless though it exist as a snapshot of the prevailing thought, and definition of conditions, at the particular time that it was created, thus what was the factory warehouse under one given set of conditions is now the over priced loft apartments under a new set of conditions.
What struck me about the other two articles “Postcolonial Spaces” in particular is that great effort is made to “re”capature a past moment in the present, under what I read from Foucault and frankly what I agree with, this kind of thinking is inherently flawed from the outset. For one it involves what Colquhoun called the “invention of tradition” but a tradition involves some sort of repetition that in most pretexts would go unnoticed because it would be unforced so that
“it is only when imbalances and frictions begin to occur that it becomes possible to see them. So, from the start, [a] concept of a regional architecture [is] not exactly what it [seems]” (Frampton). Basically if I’m seeing all of this right regional architecture could never be clearly defined for relies too heavily on past conditions to influence a present context, and is therefore in grave danger of
“…self-consciously seek[ing] to deconstruct universal modernism in terms of values and images which are locally cultivated while at the same time adulterating these autochthonous elements with paradigms drawn from alien sources” (Frampton).
So that from the very outset of any political issue in architect is contingent with the definitions of what is architecture at that time and to attempt to understand architecture from the past or to predict architecture of the future one must understand the differences between each, not aa 1 to 1 reduction, but more alike a 1 to Bananas…? Correlation
…or I could be completely out of my mind… you decide..
And just for kicks… I include the best quotation of the three readings…
“Any attempt to circumvent the dialects of this creative process through the eclectic procedures of historicism can only result in consumerist iconography masquerading as culture.” (Frampton)
Post a Comment
<< Home