>Anand Bhatt:
>For the same reason there will not be a concentration camp 'architecture'.
>One cannot 'make' a concentration camp, one cannot programmatically
>represent it: the shell does not say much about the act-the concentration
>camp resembles a factory, or a farm, or a school---anything can be turned
>into a concentration camp. It is not an architectural type.
>
there are concentration camps in the language of architecture.
the way you define a 'concentration camp' puts limits on the ability
to categorize/understand it as an architectural type. yes, a factory
turn into a concentration camp for the reason you stated, but i also
think a 'concentration camp' is a thing unto itself, as a type.
the difference seems to be, whether or not a building was made
to be a concentration camp. i believe it can be either made for
this purpose, or adapted. but nevertheless, the buildings can be
made to programatically _function_ in this way. i think both cases
can be considered architecture for this typological reason.
i think, contrary to what you've presented, that yes, concentration
camps have been made repeatedly over centuries, that at some point
an architect could have helped in their design and construction, and
that they have a programatic function: to contain certain peoples,
and extinguish human life, like 6 million Jews in WWII Germany. i
think it is important to document such buildings in all their
ethical complexity and different states, good, bad, and ugly.
i believe that denying their existence as a building type would
limit ones understanding of architecture and buildings to only
a certain kind of (good) ideological design.
bc
________________________________________________
a r c h i t e x t u r e z : an online community
for hacking and cracking the architectural code
www.sirius.com/~schizo/architexturez/main.htm
>For the same reason there will not be a concentration camp 'architecture'.
>One cannot 'make' a concentration camp, one cannot programmatically
>represent it: the shell does not say much about the act-the concentration
>camp resembles a factory, or a farm, or a school---anything can be turned
>into a concentration camp. It is not an architectural type.
>
there are concentration camps in the language of architecture.
the way you define a 'concentration camp' puts limits on the ability
to categorize/understand it as an architectural type. yes, a factory
turn into a concentration camp for the reason you stated, but i also
think a 'concentration camp' is a thing unto itself, as a type.
the difference seems to be, whether or not a building was made
to be a concentration camp. i believe it can be either made for
this purpose, or adapted. but nevertheless, the buildings can be
made to programatically _function_ in this way. i think both cases
can be considered architecture for this typological reason.
i think, contrary to what you've presented, that yes, concentration
camps have been made repeatedly over centuries, that at some point
an architect could have helped in their design and construction, and
that they have a programatic function: to contain certain peoples,
and extinguish human life, like 6 million Jews in WWII Germany. i
think it is important to document such buildings in all their
ethical complexity and different states, good, bad, and ugly.
i believe that denying their existence as a building type would
limit ones understanding of architecture and buildings to only
a certain kind of (good) ideological design.
bc
________________________________________________
a r c h i t e x t u r e z : an online community
for hacking and cracking the architectural code
www.sirius.com/~schizo/architexturez/main.htm