a deliberate deterritorialization

2 April

2014.04.03 21:49

...this is the write-up you suggest: ARCHITECTURAL THEORIES /// Critique of a new “post-ideological” Architectural Paradigm. Not sure, however, how well it describes the process, nor how in-depth (or accurate) the commentary critiques are either. Thanks nonetheless, because it makes me realize that what I'm interested in how this design approach is something different than the approaches to architectural design up to now, as well as how it fits into the history of design methodology in general--note how I see precedents in some 1960s designs (as opposed to the 'Seventies').
...see BIG's Art Cluster Arhnem where...

...the interior is not the residual of the exterior geometry chosen--to the contrary, a very inventive interior (had to be) developed because of the manipulated solid geometry. As to "What about that shape says *plaza* to you?", I ask, "What about any shape says *plaza*? As far as I'm concerned, an unconsidered shape can be a (good) plaza just as much as a considered shape can be a good plaza, and it might even be true that considered-shape-plazas have a higher failure rate.

Anyway, this notion of exterior/interior got me thinking of a 1979 school project, a Clay Worker's Co-op for a site in Olde City, Philadelphia:

which manipulates a solid geometry via carving out, which I see as not quite the same as the present-day solid geometry manipulation. And it's exactly what makes that difference that I would like to more fully understand.




Quondam © 2017.11.29