<We add that in this spirit we search for physical sites and structures
to use as another form of design language to communicate ideas to those
who may not comprehend paper documents but will readily respond to
environmental signs and symbols...>
The above passage interests me very much. Stephen was right, but I am not
just a visitor from the Foucault List, I am the moderator. My interest in
architecture is relatively new. Previously I primarily concerned myself
with discursive forms. However, these concerns have expanded to the
social melieu where architectural forms play a significant role in
socio-cultural constitution.
Some of you who are familiar with Foucault are probably aware of his
treatment of Bentham's panopticon in _Discipline and Punish_. In brief,
the panopticon is an institutional form designed to create subjects of
the sort that internalize surveillance relations for the purpose of
achieving their docility. My interests in architecture are
interpretively similar.
There is an intense profundity in what I see that architects do. The
profundity is exemplified in the expressions of buildings or other
manifestations that often appear to me as concrete configurations of
power relations. But this is all too abstract. I am currently
attempting to focus my vision on the "spirit" of the architect mentioned
in the passage quoted above. I am trying to comprehend and understand
_designer subjectivity_.
A pet project of mine at the moment is a philosophical analysis of the
epistemic relations in the architectural forms of Lebbeus Woods. While I
find Woods' drawings spectacular and fascinating, I also feel incredible
discomfort when I study the drawings and reflect on the philosophy giving
them shape. Some time soon the analysis will be a paper, but I am just
now beginning to frame the exploration.
Thus I have a request that may satisfy the yearnings of Stephen. Are
there any of you on this list that can elaborate on the architectural
"spirit" mentioned? What do those of you whom are architects interpret
to be "designer subjectivity"? What are the epistemic functions that
pivot on the communication of ideas through the architectural, or
"environmental signs and symbols"? What is the epistemic importance of
"response" in the forementioned sense? What is the epistemic value of
architectural "language"?
I am serious about this; so I apologize ahead of time to those who have
expressed their objectivity anxiety in regard to continental thinkers.
Yours in discourse,
Steven Meinking
The University Of Utah
steven.meinking@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
to use as another form of design language to communicate ideas to those
who may not comprehend paper documents but will readily respond to
environmental signs and symbols...>
The above passage interests me very much. Stephen was right, but I am not
just a visitor from the Foucault List, I am the moderator. My interest in
architecture is relatively new. Previously I primarily concerned myself
with discursive forms. However, these concerns have expanded to the
social melieu where architectural forms play a significant role in
socio-cultural constitution.
Some of you who are familiar with Foucault are probably aware of his
treatment of Bentham's panopticon in _Discipline and Punish_. In brief,
the panopticon is an institutional form designed to create subjects of
the sort that internalize surveillance relations for the purpose of
achieving their docility. My interests in architecture are
interpretively similar.
There is an intense profundity in what I see that architects do. The
profundity is exemplified in the expressions of buildings or other
manifestations that often appear to me as concrete configurations of
power relations. But this is all too abstract. I am currently
attempting to focus my vision on the "spirit" of the architect mentioned
in the passage quoted above. I am trying to comprehend and understand
_designer subjectivity_.
A pet project of mine at the moment is a philosophical analysis of the
epistemic relations in the architectural forms of Lebbeus Woods. While I
find Woods' drawings spectacular and fascinating, I also feel incredible
discomfort when I study the drawings and reflect on the philosophy giving
them shape. Some time soon the analysis will be a paper, but I am just
now beginning to frame the exploration.
Thus I have a request that may satisfy the yearnings of Stephen. Are
there any of you on this list that can elaborate on the architectural
"spirit" mentioned? What do those of you whom are architects interpret
to be "designer subjectivity"? What are the epistemic functions that
pivot on the communication of ideas through the architectural, or
"environmental signs and symbols"? What is the epistemic importance of
"response" in the forementioned sense? What is the epistemic value of
architectural "language"?
I am serious about this; so I apologize ahead of time to those who have
expressed their objectivity anxiety in regard to continental thinkers.
Yours in discourse,
Steven Meinking
The University Of Utah
steven.meinking@xxxxxxxxxxxxx