Responding to Suzan, Mark, Ray, et al:
No non-museum sign of De Stijl but the Theosophists are
thriving in Manhattan as:
The Rudolph Steiner School
Waldorf Schools Fund Inc
Theosophical Society Adyar
United Lodge of Theosophists
The Theosophy Company
Their accommodations show no obvious exterior imprint of the
architects and artists listed by Ray, but reciprocity may not
have been in the cards.
Does anyone know if the Theosophists employed such
artists/architects who propagated the faith, or was it a
one-way deal?
I ask not least because architects often claim allegiance to a
larger philosophy for their work which is usually
architecturally indifferent, say democracy, or republicanism,
or socialism, or real estate development, or you name it.
Anyone want to venture a guess as to why modern architects seem
compelled to seek a justification for their work in
non-architectural arenas -- environmental, political, social,
epistemological, and such? I mean more than the promo used to
gain commissions and publicity.
Okay, Mark, you are trying to separate the rope into threads
because of one complaint, but the "green" thing is not off the
mark if it is broadly interpreted as a search for more
responsible architecture rather than seen as a single-minded
fad.
To plunge on:
I'm no proponent of the imperious, know-it-all architect, but
it seems to me too much architectural critique these days is
derivative of others hard-fought and hard-wrought ideas and too
little shows creative exploration of strictly architectural
possibilities. It seems most spokepersons for architecture --
critics, journalists, professors, patrons, investors -- stake
their own claims for erecting a kind of pseudo-architecture,
with the implicit presumption that these bits chart the whole
domain.
Architectural currency seems to have been exchanged for specie
from other fields -- architectural history, art, philosophy,
literary criticism, psychiatry, electronic media, military
strategy, and on and on.
Such erudition is entertaining but also appears escapist about
architectural matters per se because it peters out at the very
point it should blossom in the architectural realm. But I too
find it easier to join the pseudo-architectural banter rather
than explore the troubling gap between architectural theory and
practice, and the increasing separation of the advocates of
each.
Speaking petulantly, I resent publications or conferences or
lectures that do more than skim this gap between high and low
architectural work; most take one side or the other with a nod
at the difference. All high intellect on one hand and all nuts
and bolts on the other.
I restate the question above about why architects keep looking
for philosophical grounding of their work outside architecture
rather than, say, affirm confidence in their peculiar
apprehension of the world by working to expand its influence
without the props of other disciplines.
(Pardon me, but I've been troubled for 35 years on this, while
pursuing both philosophy and architectural practice, and have
not found relief yet, so I slog on, optimistically. Pathology
may have set in by now.)
Help.
John
No non-museum sign of De Stijl but the Theosophists are
thriving in Manhattan as:
The Rudolph Steiner School
Waldorf Schools Fund Inc
Theosophical Society Adyar
United Lodge of Theosophists
The Theosophy Company
Their accommodations show no obvious exterior imprint of the
architects and artists listed by Ray, but reciprocity may not
have been in the cards.
Does anyone know if the Theosophists employed such
artists/architects who propagated the faith, or was it a
one-way deal?
I ask not least because architects often claim allegiance to a
larger philosophy for their work which is usually
architecturally indifferent, say democracy, or republicanism,
or socialism, or real estate development, or you name it.
Anyone want to venture a guess as to why modern architects seem
compelled to seek a justification for their work in
non-architectural arenas -- environmental, political, social,
epistemological, and such? I mean more than the promo used to
gain commissions and publicity.
Okay, Mark, you are trying to separate the rope into threads
because of one complaint, but the "green" thing is not off the
mark if it is broadly interpreted as a search for more
responsible architecture rather than seen as a single-minded
fad.
To plunge on:
I'm no proponent of the imperious, know-it-all architect, but
it seems to me too much architectural critique these days is
derivative of others hard-fought and hard-wrought ideas and too
little shows creative exploration of strictly architectural
possibilities. It seems most spokepersons for architecture --
critics, journalists, professors, patrons, investors -- stake
their own claims for erecting a kind of pseudo-architecture,
with the implicit presumption that these bits chart the whole
domain.
Architectural currency seems to have been exchanged for specie
from other fields -- architectural history, art, philosophy,
literary criticism, psychiatry, electronic media, military
strategy, and on and on.
Such erudition is entertaining but also appears escapist about
architectural matters per se because it peters out at the very
point it should blossom in the architectural realm. But I too
find it easier to join the pseudo-architectural banter rather
than explore the troubling gap between architectural theory and
practice, and the increasing separation of the advocates of
each.
Speaking petulantly, I resent publications or conferences or
lectures that do more than skim this gap between high and low
architectural work; most take one side or the other with a nod
at the difference. All high intellect on one hand and all nuts
and bolts on the other.
I restate the question above about why architects keep looking
for philosophical grounding of their work outside architecture
rather than, say, affirm confidence in their peculiar
apprehension of the world by working to expand its influence
without the props of other disciplines.
(Pardon me, but I've been troubled for 35 years on this, while
pursuing both philosophy and architectural practice, and have
not found relief yet, so I slog on, optimistically. Pathology
may have set in by now.)
Help.
John