anand-bhatt <anand.bhatt@xxxxxxxx>:
>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.
thanks for your reply. i wish to re-address my basic assumption, in
hopes of clarifying why i think a concentration camp could be considered
an architectural type.
i agree with your analysis of two different kinds of types, but i also
think there is a grey, fuzzy area where they blend one into the other.
another example i would give (besides concentration camp) is that a
"Stock Exchange" is a type, replicable over the world, consisting of
electronic displays, a command-control-communications setting, and
a shell of arbitrary design, that, most likely could be either of
the types you describe above.
[i think the Stock Exchange, as a type, may be the most signficant
building type of the 20th century, with the DOW at 10,000. a super-
natural representation of the economic, social, and political culture
of the ordering of our [American] world civilization].
i think, like the book whose author (Pevsner?) i forget, which is
an anthology of building types up to the late 19th century, which
documents banks, temples, churches, markets, halls, as they have
gone slightly altered as types to explore a language of refinement,
but, which to my eyes, stops its exploration mid-way into the new
world, a new order. is not the modern CAD/CAM manufacturing facility
a type, or an airport complex, or a Stock Exchange? i think to myself.
what about all of these newer buildings, these new technological real-
itities of the built environment, why do they go undocumented in the
[his|her]-story of architecture?
i ask myself this question and think there is a discontinuity, maybe
a gap exists between the worlds of Durand and Virilio and Foucault.
I personally do not think so, but i think there may be a certain
shift in our understanding of architecture as an entity, as a
work-in-progress, as a thing which is defining itself into the
future by each one of us, seeing, talking, thinking, dicussing.
i think the concentration camp touches upon both, different kinds
of typology. i believe that, if an architect indeed did draft the
plans for the incarceration and the extermination of human life
[most likely an architectural-engineer!], at some point in the
development of "concentration camps" proper, that is, that an
architect "designed" the c-camp, then, it consists as a part
of the total work of architecture, the total field. i imagine,
with people like Hitler's architect Speer, that there was an
equally shadowy architect designing death camps at the same
time as the Classical was being reborn for 'a superior race.'
that is, that there may have been, i speculate, an architectural
devil, or an architect of hell making "satanic architecture" which
is so disgraceful to the profession that it is ignored, deemed
not architecture by the indoctrinated. the profession thus using
architecture-as-moralism, only "good" architecture exists. the
rest is building. it may be like the quote i read today from
The Theory of Architecture, by Paul-Alan Johnson:
"The demand that all buildings should become works of architecture...
is strictly offensive to common sense....One might possibly stipulate
that architecture is a social institution related to building in much
the same way that literature is to speech." Colin Rowe and Fred Koetter.
Collage City
i disagree with this line of thinking, limiting the actuality of
the architect in less-than-moral building. it is similar to the
tract-home developers in the USA. the "architects" that work for
these firms, from my experience, are not considered _real_ architects
because they mostly build blight, or replicable buildings on the land
without much value for the role of architectural "design" in the process.
but there is design inherent in these, it is just mostly not good design.
by saying these buildings are not architecture, it removes the ethical
role of the architect in their creation/building, and thus leaves the
situation unchallenged both in terms of design, and in terms of the
role of architecture having a negative impact on the environment.
likewise, for this same reason, i think that, if a concentration camp
has been designed and built by an architect, and that, say, such camps
reappear over time with the same elements, barracks, work areas, fence,
entry, washrooms, and even in the worst case, incinerators, firing-
ranges, gas-chambers- that it may have some impact on the role of
(shameful) design in the built environment... that, it may be a
negative type, a disgraceful type, but a type nonetheless.
thus, i believe that, if architects have had the role in the creation
of c-camps, then this would enter it into both kinds of types, or as
a unified type, both linguistic and formal.
brian
________________________________________________
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
>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.
thanks for your reply. i wish to re-address my basic assumption, in
hopes of clarifying why i think a concentration camp could be considered
an architectural type.
i agree with your analysis of two different kinds of types, but i also
think there is a grey, fuzzy area where they blend one into the other.
another example i would give (besides concentration camp) is that a
"Stock Exchange" is a type, replicable over the world, consisting of
electronic displays, a command-control-communications setting, and
a shell of arbitrary design, that, most likely could be either of
the types you describe above.
[i think the Stock Exchange, as a type, may be the most signficant
building type of the 20th century, with the DOW at 10,000. a super-
natural representation of the economic, social, and political culture
of the ordering of our [American] world civilization].
i think, like the book whose author (Pevsner?) i forget, which is
an anthology of building types up to the late 19th century, which
documents banks, temples, churches, markets, halls, as they have
gone slightly altered as types to explore a language of refinement,
but, which to my eyes, stops its exploration mid-way into the new
world, a new order. is not the modern CAD/CAM manufacturing facility
a type, or an airport complex, or a Stock Exchange? i think to myself.
what about all of these newer buildings, these new technological real-
itities of the built environment, why do they go undocumented in the
[his|her]-story of architecture?
i ask myself this question and think there is a discontinuity, maybe
a gap exists between the worlds of Durand and Virilio and Foucault.
I personally do not think so, but i think there may be a certain
shift in our understanding of architecture as an entity, as a
work-in-progress, as a thing which is defining itself into the
future by each one of us, seeing, talking, thinking, dicussing.
i think the concentration camp touches upon both, different kinds
of typology. i believe that, if an architect indeed did draft the
plans for the incarceration and the extermination of human life
[most likely an architectural-engineer!], at some point in the
development of "concentration camps" proper, that is, that an
architect "designed" the c-camp, then, it consists as a part
of the total work of architecture, the total field. i imagine,
with people like Hitler's architect Speer, that there was an
equally shadowy architect designing death camps at the same
time as the Classical was being reborn for 'a superior race.'
that is, that there may have been, i speculate, an architectural
devil, or an architect of hell making "satanic architecture" which
is so disgraceful to the profession that it is ignored, deemed
not architecture by the indoctrinated. the profession thus using
architecture-as-moralism, only "good" architecture exists. the
rest is building. it may be like the quote i read today from
The Theory of Architecture, by Paul-Alan Johnson:
"The demand that all buildings should become works of architecture...
is strictly offensive to common sense....One might possibly stipulate
that architecture is a social institution related to building in much
the same way that literature is to speech." Colin Rowe and Fred Koetter.
Collage City
i disagree with this line of thinking, limiting the actuality of
the architect in less-than-moral building. it is similar to the
tract-home developers in the USA. the "architects" that work for
these firms, from my experience, are not considered _real_ architects
because they mostly build blight, or replicable buildings on the land
without much value for the role of architectural "design" in the process.
but there is design inherent in these, it is just mostly not good design.
by saying these buildings are not architecture, it removes the ethical
role of the architect in their creation/building, and thus leaves the
situation unchallenged both in terms of design, and in terms of the
role of architecture having a negative impact on the environment.
likewise, for this same reason, i think that, if a concentration camp
has been designed and built by an architect, and that, say, such camps
reappear over time with the same elements, barracks, work areas, fence,
entry, washrooms, and even in the worst case, incinerators, firing-
ranges, gas-chambers- that it may have some impact on the role of
(shameful) design in the built environment... that, it may be a
negative type, a disgraceful type, but a type nonetheless.
thus, i believe that, if architects have had the role in the creation
of c-camps, then this would enter it into both kinds of types, or as
a unified type, both linguistic and formal.
brian
________________________________________________
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