Bjarke Ingels and the challenges of designing Two World Trade Center
Funny how the Farnsworth House accommodated living less than the Glass House accommodated living. The Farnsworth House became a museum(piece) well before the Glass House even.
Museification could be considered a step toward anti-architecturism, but only if the museumpiece lost all usefulness in the process.
So Gehry was making less sense in those days?
8 October 3312t
read last night--no such erasures, exclusions, or omissions are possible
"It is no small irony that the history of modernism is the the history of forgetting. The modern movement famously forged its future in the conflagration of forgetting: Marinetti imagined a fiery crach that would burn all remnants of the past at the same moment that photographs of American grain silos were being stripped of their historical form, a rite of purification necessary to cleanse modernity not only of ornament but of even the memory of ornament, Msup>1 These well-known acts of erasure were preceded by less-known but just as structurally transformative efforts to induce forgetting. In 1803, at the height of the Enlightenment, at the very moment, in other words, that the modern science of history was being extablished--Quartremère de Quincy, the most formidable classicist of that era, deliberately excluded data about ancient architecture developed during the Napoleonic expedition to Egypt from his "history" of the origins of architecture. The information was novel, highly publicized, and "scientifically" gathered, and for these very reasons Quartremère preferred not to contest it. Instead, he simply excluded any mention of it from his account.2 Even earlier, when Claude Perrault instructed architects to side with the miderns in the famous seventeenth-century quarrel, it was not just the mythologizing of the classical orders and their proportions that he hoped to evacuate from the nascent discipline, but the continuous history of interpretation and dispute about the orders that many now would consider the very DMA of the discipline.3 Today no such erasure, exclusion, oe omissions are possible because culture operates on the premise that nothing can be forgotten or should be considered merely forgettable. The prevailing ethos, disseminated by a more and more pervasive technological infrastructure, maintains that we can, and more importantly should, remember everything. Architecture increasingly equates its historiography with disciplinarity, and historians have replaced architects as the protagonists of recent histories of architecture.4"
Silvia Lavin, "Today We Collect Everything" in Perspecta 48: Amnesia (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2015), pp 182-85.
1. See the opening lines of F.T. Marinetti, "The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism," Le Figaro, February 20, 1909. Le Corbusier's long unnoticed manipulation of the photographs in Walter Gropius's Jahrbuch der Deutschen Werkbunden is by now a well-known episode in the history of Modernism. For one of the earliest accounts, see Paul Venable Turner, The Education of Le Corbusier (New York: Garland Publishing, 1977).
2. See Sylvia Lavin, Quartremère de Quincy and the invention of a Modern Language of Architecture (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992).
3. There is now a significant literature on architecture's entry into the querelle. Two distinct points of view can be found in Alberto Perez-Gomez's introduction to Ordonnance for the Five Kinds of Columns after the Method of the Ancients, by Claude Perrault, trans. Indra Kagiz-McEwen (Santa Monica, CA: Getty Center, 1993); and Lucia Allais, "Ordering the Orders: Claude Perault's Ordonnance and the Eastern Colonnade of the Louvre," Future Anterior 2, no. 2 (2005): 52-74.
4. One only needs to look at the list of recent titles from architectural publishers like MIT Press, Princeton Architectural Press, or Yale University Press to notice that the majority of authors are professional historians rather than practicing architects.
front-line ideas + regional tradition = potential for a design culture of thinking/making?