Sorry for the late reply, was off-line,
Lauf's right, I often read Deleuze (and Foucault says the use-value of Deleuze is in his helping us in recognizing fascism within ourselves, coming to terms with it and treating it) through prison architects: Prance, Bantam, and so on...
I have this general reservation about concentration camps as architectural types. It seems to me that by claiming concentration camps, architecture makes a subject out of them: they become a sub-set, a part of the overall taxonomia of the architectural. Whereas the significance of camps far exceeds them. I would wholly accept Stephen's line if concentration camps > architecture, and not architecture > concentration camps.
To Brian, if I am to agree with you, we are talking about two different kinds of types here.
First, there is an architectural type (proper) as defined by the western enlightenment (Durand, de Quincy ...) through to the late 20th century (Krier, Rossi et al.) A kind of morphology (or at least a system of architectural elements) arranged in certain specific, conventional manners to represent certain functions and their significance. Indicating a pre-determined and pre-meditated representation. A concentration camp would not fit into this definition.
Second, architectural types in a more linguistic sense, where the building (a thing) is associated to (in this case) an action, a memory; through an arbitrary contact. A contract. Which becomes established through convention, usage, history or what-have-you. In which the type comes into existence subsequent to the construction of the building.
I feel what is termed 'shameful architecture' would fit into this second category: it is also a category (in my opinion) that does not belong to the profession par se.
Lauf's right, I often read Deleuze (and Foucault says the use-value of Deleuze is in his helping us in recognizing fascism within ourselves, coming to terms with it and treating it) through prison architects: Prance, Bantam, and so on...
I have this general reservation about concentration camps as architectural types. It seems to me that by claiming concentration camps, architecture makes a subject out of them: they become a sub-set, a part of the overall taxonomia of the architectural. Whereas the significance of camps far exceeds them. I would wholly accept Stephen's line if concentration camps > architecture, and not architecture > concentration camps.
To Brian, if I am to agree with you, we are talking about two different kinds of types here.
First, there is an architectural type (proper) as defined by the western enlightenment (Durand, de Quincy ...) through to the late 20th century (Krier, Rossi et al.) A kind of morphology (or at least a system of architectural elements) arranged in certain specific, conventional manners to represent certain functions and their significance. Indicating a pre-determined and pre-meditated representation. A concentration camp would not fit into this definition.
Second, architectural types in a more linguistic sense, where the building (a thing) is associated to (in this case) an action, a memory; through an arbitrary contact. A contract. Which becomes established through convention, usage, history or what-have-you. In which the type comes into existence subsequent to the construction of the building.
I feel what is termed 'shameful architecture' would fit into this second category: it is also a category (in my opinion) that does not belong to the profession par se.