- - The original note follows - -
From: mark verwoerdt <ifdm333@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re-Arch.Schl.Futr.-Ego v Region
Date: 22 Apr 1994 18:59:00 GMT
In article <39477.gost0003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> , gost0003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
writes:
>
>This seems to be what is missed by those who respond to me.
>_Architecture_ is about the building (which includes design) of
structures.
>Most architecture is NOT done by architects. My point in all this is
>that the thoughts and concerns of the average academic architect of today
>are not coincidental with those of the average person who wants a new
home
>or barn. Yet the dross following the original question and his reply
>(and yours) indicate an ignorance of this.
>
>alex
In article <39477.gost0003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> , gost0003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
writes:
>This seems to be what is missed by those who respond to me.
>_Architecture_ is about the building (which includes design) of
structures.
>Most architecture is NOT done by architects. My point in all this is
>that the thoughts and concerns of the average academic architect of today
>are not coincidental with those of the average person who wants a new
home
>or barn. Yet the dross following the original question and his reply
>(and yours) indicate an ignorance of this
There is an interesting diversion going on here. From the beginning of
the near Non-question, why architecture, interesting voids occur in the
discussion..
First of all, ego means 'I'. That begins to define a region of an
individual. Therefore any architecture that describes the raising of the
ego by necessity will address this function. This is not an unhealthy
thing, at all, and is a necessary part of life as well as history.
Ego might even be broadened to the idiosyncratic nature of community, or
vernacular.
With the very common gripe about architecture as ego and architecture as
fulfilling world needs, there are two definite regions formed that have
very different intents. One is under the premise of shelter and the other
(at a limit) the expression of voice at a time. (Remember also that all
physical and metaphysical definitions are in motion.) These things are
both necessary for survival.
The final point is that architecture as design is intended as a living
process on all levels. In that it requires new energy and new ideas, so
that it is a similar model to the mechanics of life. We as humans put
energy into the system, spinning up in complexity, contradicting the flow
of energy from high to low. To leave design alone for the evening out of
the system for the whole at the expense of any voice, lags behind the
vital boundaries of the 'know-don't know'. AT the edge of that boundary
we will find many things, some hurtful, some healthful, and if we are to
be ethical beings, then we will make the right choices.
I agree that architecture will include all built things, as in all of
these things is the record of all the voices expressed in building. To
deny its importance is to dangerously neglect part of the vital energy,
though that energy is not part of the powerful political machine of the
time. Because, again, the dynamic redefinition of architecture as a
function of time and region may well tell us that there is health in
those smaller intents that went unrecognized.
Read Critical Path by Buckminster Fuller.
From: mark verwoerdt <ifdm333@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re-Arch.Schl.Futr.-Ego v Region
Date: 22 Apr 1994 18:59:00 GMT
In article <39477.gost0003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> , gost0003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
writes:
>
>This seems to be what is missed by those who respond to me.
>_Architecture_ is about the building (which includes design) of
structures.
>Most architecture is NOT done by architects. My point in all this is
>that the thoughts and concerns of the average academic architect of today
>are not coincidental with those of the average person who wants a new
home
>or barn. Yet the dross following the original question and his reply
>(and yours) indicate an ignorance of this.
>
>alex
In article <39477.gost0003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> , gost0003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
writes:
>This seems to be what is missed by those who respond to me.
>_Architecture_ is about the building (which includes design) of
structures.
>Most architecture is NOT done by architects. My point in all this is
>that the thoughts and concerns of the average academic architect of today
>are not coincidental with those of the average person who wants a new
home
>or barn. Yet the dross following the original question and his reply
>(and yours) indicate an ignorance of this
There is an interesting diversion going on here. From the beginning of
the near Non-question, why architecture, interesting voids occur in the
discussion..
First of all, ego means 'I'. That begins to define a region of an
individual. Therefore any architecture that describes the raising of the
ego by necessity will address this function. This is not an unhealthy
thing, at all, and is a necessary part of life as well as history.
Ego might even be broadened to the idiosyncratic nature of community, or
vernacular.
With the very common gripe about architecture as ego and architecture as
fulfilling world needs, there are two definite regions formed that have
very different intents. One is under the premise of shelter and the other
(at a limit) the expression of voice at a time. (Remember also that all
physical and metaphysical definitions are in motion.) These things are
both necessary for survival.
The final point is that architecture as design is intended as a living
process on all levels. In that it requires new energy and new ideas, so
that it is a similar model to the mechanics of life. We as humans put
energy into the system, spinning up in complexity, contradicting the flow
of energy from high to low. To leave design alone for the evening out of
the system for the whole at the expense of any voice, lags behind the
vital boundaries of the 'know-don't know'. AT the edge of that boundary
we will find many things, some hurtful, some healthful, and if we are to
be ethical beings, then we will make the right choices.
I agree that architecture will include all built things, as in all of
these things is the record of all the voices expressed in building. To
deny its importance is to dangerously neglect part of the vital energy,
though that energy is not part of the powerful political machine of the
time. Because, again, the dynamic redefinition of architecture as a
function of time and region may well tell us that there is health in
those smaller intents that went unrecognized.
Read Critical Path by Buckminster Fuller.