At 11:11 PM 5/4/99 -0800, you wrote:
> 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:
but what about the ACTUAL building? you compare one on tv with one in
books, but those are really two instances of the same semiotic phenomenon.
the real issue is: what is the difference between the mediated thing and
the actual thing? and i think that difference has to do with the body.
you can touch, smell, get dizzy by, viscerally interact with the actual
building, while the mediated one is not so immediate. granted, this gap is
quickly closing, but it is still fundamental and still very real. i would
further say that there is an implicit understanding of this "shift" in many
art/cultural currents: ritual mutilation (ron ather (?)), body art
(piercings, tatoos), organ/body art (damien hirst), "bloody tampon" school
of feminism, etc. and to extend it to an even more ridiculous extreme, i
think this could be seen as movement to restore the body to a more
prominent place in the "mind/body" continuum, since the nature of
visual-centeredness is a tendency to intellectualize, since it is one of
the "cool" senses (though which is more abstract, sight or hearing? isn't
music the most abstract art?) equivalentizing the senses would
re-emphasize the body, though are we ready to emphasize it to chromosomatic
extents?
>
>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...
plato and aristotle already did it - the difference between being and seeming.
>
>bc
>
>
Ronald Evitts
90-96 Stanton St. 3A
New York, NY 10002
212-674-6329
> 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:
but what about the ACTUAL building? you compare one on tv with one in
books, but those are really two instances of the same semiotic phenomenon.
the real issue is: what is the difference between the mediated thing and
the actual thing? and i think that difference has to do with the body.
you can touch, smell, get dizzy by, viscerally interact with the actual
building, while the mediated one is not so immediate. granted, this gap is
quickly closing, but it is still fundamental and still very real. i would
further say that there is an implicit understanding of this "shift" in many
art/cultural currents: ritual mutilation (ron ather (?)), body art
(piercings, tatoos), organ/body art (damien hirst), "bloody tampon" school
of feminism, etc. and to extend it to an even more ridiculous extreme, i
think this could be seen as movement to restore the body to a more
prominent place in the "mind/body" continuum, since the nature of
visual-centeredness is a tendency to intellectualize, since it is one of
the "cool" senses (though which is more abstract, sight or hearing? isn't
music the most abstract art?) equivalentizing the senses would
re-emphasize the body, though are we ready to emphasize it to chromosomatic
extents?
>
>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...
plato and aristotle already did it - the difference between being and seeming.
>
>bc
>
>
Ronald Evitts
90-96 Stanton St. 3A
New York, NY 10002
212-674-6329