thanks Steve for your reply/replay. i think we are closer than i first
imagined in terms of architectural understanding. my main reaction over
the years has been, like your mentioning of place, that it is happening
'here' also, as opposed to just 'over there', elsewhere, beyond our reach
or intellect. sometimes this admittedly seems stupid or ignorant, but like
someone in my class said about Form-Z, 'i am taking this class, not because
i know what is going on - but because i think i need to know and i am not
going to limit myself to doing only things i know how to do or am good at'.
that is why, given the complexity of the topic, i am willing to make a
sometimes ignorant stab at understanding, in hopes that it will open up
a seam or fissure into or out of which new/old ideas/discourses emerge.
i think that is the beauty of the list, and also of your participation.
for example, Anand writes:
'As regards architects making meaning, they will have to agree on as to
what constitutes the stable units of meaning in architecture first.'
from my recent readings, this was where the discourse left off, and in
Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture, Kate Nesbitt, this same point
was where discussion ended. now, in 15 years, maybe things have advanced
well beyond this point, but for me, it hasn't, and so i like to think
about it, what it might be. who knows, together, like parallel computers,
we may be greater than any one of us at working through conceptual ideas
and problem statements.
now, i am skeptical about most any architectural theory, in the old sense,
if only from the viewpoint of the nature of limits. it may be comparable
to the idea of a 'Grand Unifying Theory' in physics. i don't think there
is going to be "one" theory that encompasses the entirety of architectural
discourse any time soon, but rather, architectures (ie. architexturez)
that explore the boundary condition of the field/discipline. ideas, a
big bowl of ideas from which to talk about the built environment. a both-
and and neither-nor architecture, rather than simply this or that.
as per the local/locale being of significance, i highly agree and think
we may share a similar belief system about knowing/understanding from a
first person perspective. that's another reason why, even if seemingly
foolish, i will try to understand semiotecture, because i think there
are these same issues in the everyday environment, and think that these
theoretical/conceptual issues are not that far off of the interpretive
scale of inquiry. i have learned a lot in these recent posting about
the basic, if partial, question at hand.
i think this is a solid philosophy Steve...
>personally, i like to
>look at just about anything out there, and i don't care what qualifiers
>others put on things, good, bad or indifferent -- i like to make up my own
>mind, and almost always tursting my own instincts positions me the best. for
>me, all reality is the same thing anyway (i.e., a wavelength) and i either
>sync with something or i don't. and in terms of all the architectural
>theories out there, i especially like to look at and learn from all the
>things that (other's say) are not worth or supposed to be looked at, and
>that's actually where i learn the most as well as gain more and more
>convidence in my own convictions.
>
>my advise, go out and make your own judgements, write them down, and then go
>out and look some more, and then write down some more. above all have
>confidence in your own instincts (because what you've demonstrated on the
>list since i've been here is that you have a very good eye and a very good
>mind) and use that confidence to make convictions. be yourself first.
..
>western culture and western ideas regarding architecture has so many cracks,
>and i feel confident that those cracks are only getting wider. (as a kid, i
>used to love going down to Tacony Creek in the dead of winter just to crack
>the ice.)
i grew up by the Minnehaha Creek in Minneapolis. it has had a huge impact
on my sense of place. i miss the creek and parkway. it's a magical place.
[dangerous, but if you ever get a chance, right at spring thaw jump up
and down on the ice until it breaks in big chunks and then ride/surf on
the ice down the creek].
>practically all of my recent thoughts and ideas regarding the built
>environment stem from the fact that i have lived in exactly the same place
>for over forty years (all but the first two of my life). my neighborhood is
>not at all what you would call the architectural mainstream, and not at all
>suburban (actually not too far from urban blite). i love it here more and
>more as each year goes by, and i relish the thought of staying exactly here
>my whole life. i've actually come to the conclusion that precisely because
>practically everyone else on this planet moves around so much, they (you
>all) have lost the means of discovering what "place" (or environment) is
>really all about. believe me, different places on this planet have their own
>inert tempo, beat, spirit, what ever you want to call it, and the longer you
>stay in the same place the more it actually becomes a part of you. no school
>and no text can give you that.
[actually, i think it does stay with you Steve, at least with me, but i can
understand losing some of its impact over time.. fading memories/connections.
what i learned from my natural/artificial environment was aesthetic, about
what is harmonious design and beauty. "the place", the crik and parkway and
lakes and Mississippi River and surrounding buildings, all had something in
harmony with one another. there was what i think could be called something
'sacred' about the design of things. if hallucinating/seeing-things, i think
it could be called a magical place, with ghosts, witches, demons, fairies,
little green men, talking animals, human frogs, walking dead, gods and, of
course, goddesses, plus a zeitgeistian architecture to go along with the
fantasy/fantastic-magical-place. for me, i see the same thing in a bench
for sitting, with a firepit, surrounded by a hundred year forest, and a
dirt path, part mud, part rock, with a shallow creek running by, on a
long journey to the river, with a WPA building and stories of the Native
Americans living on this ground, along some of these same paths.. and now,
a natural disneyland, a place of respite from the chaos of artifice, in a
place of retreat.. an isolated but full place connected with nature... i
miss local places like this. but at the same time, they are most everywhere
in America. the park systems and architecture/aesthetic is, i think, one of
continuity and beauty, true visionary design, the bridges, the buildings,
the experience is similiar, if you can find a place nearby...]
bc
imagined in terms of architectural understanding. my main reaction over
the years has been, like your mentioning of place, that it is happening
'here' also, as opposed to just 'over there', elsewhere, beyond our reach
or intellect. sometimes this admittedly seems stupid or ignorant, but like
someone in my class said about Form-Z, 'i am taking this class, not because
i know what is going on - but because i think i need to know and i am not
going to limit myself to doing only things i know how to do or am good at'.
that is why, given the complexity of the topic, i am willing to make a
sometimes ignorant stab at understanding, in hopes that it will open up
a seam or fissure into or out of which new/old ideas/discourses emerge.
i think that is the beauty of the list, and also of your participation.
for example, Anand writes:
'As regards architects making meaning, they will have to agree on as to
what constitutes the stable units of meaning in architecture first.'
from my recent readings, this was where the discourse left off, and in
Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture, Kate Nesbitt, this same point
was where discussion ended. now, in 15 years, maybe things have advanced
well beyond this point, but for me, it hasn't, and so i like to think
about it, what it might be. who knows, together, like parallel computers,
we may be greater than any one of us at working through conceptual ideas
and problem statements.
now, i am skeptical about most any architectural theory, in the old sense,
if only from the viewpoint of the nature of limits. it may be comparable
to the idea of a 'Grand Unifying Theory' in physics. i don't think there
is going to be "one" theory that encompasses the entirety of architectural
discourse any time soon, but rather, architectures (ie. architexturez)
that explore the boundary condition of the field/discipline. ideas, a
big bowl of ideas from which to talk about the built environment. a both-
and and neither-nor architecture, rather than simply this or that.
as per the local/locale being of significance, i highly agree and think
we may share a similar belief system about knowing/understanding from a
first person perspective. that's another reason why, even if seemingly
foolish, i will try to understand semiotecture, because i think there
are these same issues in the everyday environment, and think that these
theoretical/conceptual issues are not that far off of the interpretive
scale of inquiry. i have learned a lot in these recent posting about
the basic, if partial, question at hand.
i think this is a solid philosophy Steve...
>personally, i like to
>look at just about anything out there, and i don't care what qualifiers
>others put on things, good, bad or indifferent -- i like to make up my own
>mind, and almost always tursting my own instincts positions me the best. for
>me, all reality is the same thing anyway (i.e., a wavelength) and i either
>sync with something or i don't. and in terms of all the architectural
>theories out there, i especially like to look at and learn from all the
>things that (other's say) are not worth or supposed to be looked at, and
>that's actually where i learn the most as well as gain more and more
>convidence in my own convictions.
>
>my advise, go out and make your own judgements, write them down, and then go
>out and look some more, and then write down some more. above all have
>confidence in your own instincts (because what you've demonstrated on the
>list since i've been here is that you have a very good eye and a very good
>mind) and use that confidence to make convictions. be yourself first.
..
>western culture and western ideas regarding architecture has so many cracks,
>and i feel confident that those cracks are only getting wider. (as a kid, i
>used to love going down to Tacony Creek in the dead of winter just to crack
>the ice.)
i grew up by the Minnehaha Creek in Minneapolis. it has had a huge impact
on my sense of place. i miss the creek and parkway. it's a magical place.
[dangerous, but if you ever get a chance, right at spring thaw jump up
and down on the ice until it breaks in big chunks and then ride/surf on
the ice down the creek].
>practically all of my recent thoughts and ideas regarding the built
>environment stem from the fact that i have lived in exactly the same place
>for over forty years (all but the first two of my life). my neighborhood is
>not at all what you would call the architectural mainstream, and not at all
>suburban (actually not too far from urban blite). i love it here more and
>more as each year goes by, and i relish the thought of staying exactly here
>my whole life. i've actually come to the conclusion that precisely because
>practically everyone else on this planet moves around so much, they (you
>all) have lost the means of discovering what "place" (or environment) is
>really all about. believe me, different places on this planet have their own
>inert tempo, beat, spirit, what ever you want to call it, and the longer you
>stay in the same place the more it actually becomes a part of you. no school
>and no text can give you that.
[actually, i think it does stay with you Steve, at least with me, but i can
understand losing some of its impact over time.. fading memories/connections.
what i learned from my natural/artificial environment was aesthetic, about
what is harmonious design and beauty. "the place", the crik and parkway and
lakes and Mississippi River and surrounding buildings, all had something in
harmony with one another. there was what i think could be called something
'sacred' about the design of things. if hallucinating/seeing-things, i think
it could be called a magical place, with ghosts, witches, demons, fairies,
little green men, talking animals, human frogs, walking dead, gods and, of
course, goddesses, plus a zeitgeistian architecture to go along with the
fantasy/fantastic-magical-place. for me, i see the same thing in a bench
for sitting, with a firepit, surrounded by a hundred year forest, and a
dirt path, part mud, part rock, with a shallow creek running by, on a
long journey to the river, with a WPA building and stories of the Native
Americans living on this ground, along some of these same paths.. and now,
a natural disneyland, a place of respite from the chaos of artifice, in a
place of retreat.. an isolated but full place connected with nature... i
miss local places like this. but at the same time, they are most everywhere
in America. the park systems and architecture/aesthetic is, i think, one of
continuity and beauty, true visionary design, the bridges, the buildings,
the experience is similiar, if you can find a place nearby...]
bc