From: Brian Carroll
To: design-l
Subject: Re: venturi and koolhaas
Date: 2002.04.18 15:41
in terms of the social entity, yes. it is not about a specific religious belief/sect/person, from one point of view but of insitutionalizing some script/word, often revolving around an ID/identity, which is then interpreted by disciples of the founder (such as economists, for example, like tribes of 'schools of thought').
therefore, "Jesus" or others in holy books are not the gripe, yet the 'theological-like' nature of architectural texts and books (and disciples of these 'thinkers' or architectural 'geniuses') in a sense mirror religious-like structure, as does the eductional system, socially, work like that of a predefined (and bounded) belief system, in which there are holy-seers and heretics. those who can divine the architectural truth behind closed doors for the rest of the populace to swallow, and those who detest dog training.
the 'theological' aspect, being a question of value, of moral (not necessarily a religous question, nor religiously-based) and ethical value, in relation to these untouchable, and undoubtably delightfilled architectural masterpieces, the-making-of another architectal-fiction.
great for hollywood, celebrities, and those who want a predefined belief system to order their worldviews, in terms of social thought. whether or not it is a public or private decision, and how it relates to personal religious beliefs is, it is assumed, a question only individuals can deal with for themselves. so 'theology' was meant in a neutral, but also analogous sense of parallel.
bc
| |
|