>i know, i was just economically utilizing some poetic emphasis. sl
sorry, i guess i don't understand. bc
brian, it's simple. you are interested in "seeing" and recognizing the
invisiblity and (modern) transparancy of our architecture/environment today.
all your points are poignant and all worth further consideration. my point,
however, deals specifically with architecture's first principles, i.e.,
duality in extreme and its unrelenting distinction between inside and
outside. i cite the great pyramid as a prime example of architecture as
duality in extreme, and you (correctly) cite the international space station
as also an example of extreme architecture. just be sure that you likewise
acknowledge that the international space station is also an example of
architecture's unrelenting distinction between inside and outside (and in
that sense, even a space suit is exteme architecture). sl
sorry, i guess i don't understand. bc
brian, it's simple. you are interested in "seeing" and recognizing the
invisiblity and (modern) transparancy of our architecture/environment today.
all your points are poignant and all worth further consideration. my point,
however, deals specifically with architecture's first principles, i.e.,
duality in extreme and its unrelenting distinction between inside and
outside. i cite the great pyramid as a prime example of architecture as
duality in extreme, and you (correctly) cite the international space station
as also an example of extreme architecture. just be sure that you likewise
acknowledge that the international space station is also an example of
architecture's unrelenting distinction between inside and outside (and in
that sense, even a space suit is exteme architecture). sl