http://archnet.org/forum/view.tcl?message_id=19984
First, I would like to note that this discussion is by no means political. It only paves the road for discussing some assumptions about the history of architecture! Some ArchNet members might see it a controversial issue. The intention is to apporach it scientifically, not politically.
The history of architecture shows us how to design and erect buildings; it tells us how specific cultures lived, expressed their identity, and mediated their environment. However, if we blindly and slavishly followed its basic assumptions, there would be such a huge number of temples, mosques, churches, houses, and all types of buildings that it would be almost impossible to find a place for one more building on earth after millions of years of building buildings and of accumulation of civilizations.
There is an assumption that history of architecture should involve the destruction of buildings as it involves the building of buildings. Some argue that building requires a preceding incident of destruction, a spatial void without which it would not be possible to build new buildings. It would appear that very few studies discussed the history of the destruction of architecture. Some literature discusses specific incidents. Are there any documented studies on the history of the destruction of art and architecture in a specific region or in a specific era.
-- Ashraf Salama, August 26, 2003
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html
First, I would like to note that this discussion is by no means political. It only paves the road for discussing some assumptions about the history of architecture! Some ArchNet members might see it a controversial issue. The intention is to apporach it scientifically, not politically.
The history of architecture shows us how to design and erect buildings; it tells us how specific cultures lived, expressed their identity, and mediated their environment. However, if we blindly and slavishly followed its basic assumptions, there would be such a huge number of temples, mosques, churches, houses, and all types of buildings that it would be almost impossible to find a place for one more building on earth after millions of years of building buildings and of accumulation of civilizations.
There is an assumption that history of architecture should involve the destruction of buildings as it involves the building of buildings. Some argue that building requires a preceding incident of destruction, a spatial void without which it would not be possible to build new buildings. It would appear that very few studies discussed the history of the destruction of architecture. Some literature discusses specific incidents. Are there any documented studies on the history of the destruction of art and architecture in a specific region or in a specific era.
-- Ashraf Salama, August 26, 2003
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html