> On Mon, 6 Feb 1995, Stephen Perrella wrote:
> > Garry, Zaha's work attempts to vitalize a sense of immobility in stasis
> > architecture. In your view it seems that anyone who attempts to question
> > or manipulate cartesian architecture somehow alienates those that do not
> > have. If Zaha's work is about EVENT or the temporalization of the subject
> > as opposed to IDENTITY in and object, how can her swerve away from
> > normativity not be an attempt to generate an architecture of
> > immateriality: that anyone could RELATE to?
David Sucher then replied:>
> And here I've sat---fat, dumb and happy---and thought that it was the
> architect's job to design a building that kept out the elements and made
> people feel comfortable at whatever they are doing in that building. How
> naive of me!! :)
>
s. perrella:
David,
Aren't you contributing to a similar simplistic reduction as Garry? RMA is
right, your cat is out of the bag, but i want to go further and not leave this
as a cynical exchange (am I the naive one?); your cynical remark,
regarding making people feel comfortable at whatever they do, when one
reads past the sarcasm, i am left wondering to what extent you feel
obliged to render the profession of architecture as stricly complicit
with normative programs. In other words, is your refusal to consider
architecture as a methodology to question culture (this doesn't mean
deconstructed either) a matter of sheer laziness on your part?
spn
> > Garry, Zaha's work attempts to vitalize a sense of immobility in stasis
> > architecture. In your view it seems that anyone who attempts to question
> > or manipulate cartesian architecture somehow alienates those that do not
> > have. If Zaha's work is about EVENT or the temporalization of the subject
> > as opposed to IDENTITY in and object, how can her swerve away from
> > normativity not be an attempt to generate an architecture of
> > immateriality: that anyone could RELATE to?
David Sucher then replied:>
> And here I've sat---fat, dumb and happy---and thought that it was the
> architect's job to design a building that kept out the elements and made
> people feel comfortable at whatever they are doing in that building. How
> naive of me!! :)
>
s. perrella:
David,
Aren't you contributing to a similar simplistic reduction as Garry? RMA is
right, your cat is out of the bag, but i want to go further and not leave this
as a cynical exchange (am I the naive one?); your cynical remark,
regarding making people feel comfortable at whatever they do, when one
reads past the sarcasm, i am left wondering to what extent you feel
obliged to render the profession of architecture as stricly complicit
with normative programs. In other words, is your refusal to consider
architecture as a methodology to question culture (this doesn't mean
deconstructed either) a matter of sheer laziness on your part?
spn