Ronald, and all, i am thinking specifically of a certain
conceptual problem that i see in architecture, which the
Movie/Re: Designs That Stink posting brings up. that is:
what is the difference between a building portrayed in
film or on television or on the computer- and the building
that we come to know and understand through architectural
education and indoctrination into a certain 'way of seeing'
architecture. specifically:
1 in terms of a referent (building), the signifier (image of
the building on moviescreen), and the signified (the idea of
the building).. how is this different, than, say:
2 a building (referent), the image of the building (signifier),
and the idea of the building in the brain (signified)..
[the above is my basic attempt at applying semiotic language
which could be wrong, very very wrong]
although the events may seem identical, i would bargain to
say that the movietheater building is closer to separating
the 'sign' function of architecture much moreso than is
the traditional understanding of architecture.
my acid-test is the White House as sign-symbol system. it
has to be the most media-saturated piece of architecture
ever built, an icon far outweighing the closest contender.
but, it is not the architecture per se, as building, but
the architectural building as sign that carries the weight
of its impact. that is to say; it's form, materiality, use
of light, structure- all are to be reinterpreted differently
in this new, electronic light of the TV camera and newscast.
i think that it needs to be explained somehow, the phenomenon...
bc
conceptual problem that i see in architecture, which the
Movie/Re: Designs That Stink posting brings up. that is:
what is the difference between a building portrayed in
film or on television or on the computer- and the building
that we come to know and understand through architectural
education and indoctrination into a certain 'way of seeing'
architecture. specifically:
1 in terms of a referent (building), the signifier (image of
the building on moviescreen), and the signified (the idea of
the building).. how is this different, than, say:
2 a building (referent), the image of the building (signifier),
and the idea of the building in the brain (signified)..
[the above is my basic attempt at applying semiotic language
which could be wrong, very very wrong]
although the events may seem identical, i would bargain to
say that the movietheater building is closer to separating
the 'sign' function of architecture much moreso than is
the traditional understanding of architecture.
my acid-test is the White House as sign-symbol system. it
has to be the most media-saturated piece of architecture
ever built, an icon far outweighing the closest contender.
but, it is not the architecture per se, as building, but
the architectural building as sign that carries the weight
of its impact. that is to say; it's form, materiality, use
of light, structure- all are to be reinterpreted differently
in this new, electronic light of the TV camera and newscast.
i think that it needs to be explained somehow, the phenomenon...
bc