thanks Michael, Steve, and Howard for sharing
your comments and ideas. I am responding with
one e-mail as the book itself has such a range of
interpretations and I sincerely hope more will be
reading it as my words are insufficient, along with
my knowledge of the issues in depth, as they are
presented in the book.
all while reading I wondered as Michael mentions,
about WWII in architecture. the book actually does
cover this aspect from an interesting angle that is
new to me, yet in a way that largely different from
the rest of 'western' modernism, in that it sounds as
if it remains utopian-- and in such a way that spans
the actual methods of construction to the instant city,
it could be an important case-study, as I think the
authors refer to, with regard to suburban cities and
the urban->rural path. also noted by the authors in
an interview with one off the architects is the many
who participate. it does not seem to be 'world class'
architecture, as much as military-town-planning in
the 20th-21st century, in the guise of domestication.
it almost seems like an architecture detached from
architects, again, as a result of client-driven designs.
it is so rich in detail, the documentation of windows
placed in such a way, what is at the center of towns,
how a pragmatism and speed of building necessitate
certain decisions, it is almost a surreal account if one
is reading yet never having actually 'seen' the places-
it is an ideology as strongly driven as that during WWII
from what is written, it is quite an amazing to consider.
i can understand Steve's observations and they may
have more to do with the case the book makes being
missing as a part of the observations made, which are
compelling to a degree that argues this is considered
a human rights violation and a breach of the Geneva
and other international treaties of occupation, that the
zone should not be occupied by civilians is an illegal
act. this is within the scope of architecture, though if
a corollary is needed to similar flouting of conventions
then nuclear weapons could also do: where a country
may not declare weapons while all others are said to
have to, versus threat of war, yet they is an exception.
it is a mirror situation with settlements and ideologies,
though within a cultural context with buildings as the
weapons instead of bombs. and bad things can result
in low-level warfare by other means, all things indicate.
it is true the PC (Politically Correct) aspect is there and
would need to be navigated around and through, yet
also there is the context of architecture, primarily, from
which observations can be discussed, rather uniquely
outside many of the more extreme realms which make
humans vantages very different and maybe without an
ability to reconcile, yet in terms of architecture, types
of building, the early role of military surveying in town
planning, to quality of life comparisons in a geography
could all be ways to ask questions-- yet also in such a
way as that it is bounded in a very rich context that is
capable of buffering pure political forces with cultural
histories, values, structures, all related in built forms.
the parts about international law were where it
would seem the 'ethics' of architecture as a profession
differ from those of housing built in a war zone with an
occupant with rifle at the ready- what architect would
build in an uninhabitable space, and for what reason?
and is this reasoning in line with that of architecture as
a discipline which seeks to protect its own inhabitants-
if so, it is curious how buildings could destroy anothers
buildings or crops in the name of 'homeland' security,
no less, to build a seemingly tranquil ideal community.
if an occupant dies as the result of a structural or
some other failing of a building, it was thought by me,
as the architect has certain liabilities over the building,
then what if the occupant is put in harm's way by some-
one who is an architect, and by architectural design?
there is thus the breaking of international law and
humanitarian issues which do not seem contestable,
and which seem to be the core of the peace process,
to revert the process and restore a place to its place,
in some compromise which can be lasting. yet there
is another dimension about building in this realm by
architects, also, and in terms of the profession as it is
assumed to exist with some codes of conduct if only
in an ideal sense of where architecture ends and the
building of military towns in a guise of suburbs begins.
one might say this is an internal issue to a state yet if
this is happening outside the borders of the state, in
a contested area, yet an area in which architects are
the operators of state policies which are, in effect, a
part of the 'root causes' contributing to other events
(such as martyrdom actions) then it may be worth an
international review by professional organizations--
in terms of legal and other means and measures--
at which point does architecture cease to serve all
people and start to oppress one person over another,
and what justifies this action-- as 'modernism' seems
to be the 'visible' answer, yet a deeply mystical and
even over-the-top religiosity and other aspects also
contribute to this, such that the authors describe a
type of holy-land-incorporated scenegraphy (and,
at that point in reading I wondered what Steve may
find in what appears to me to be a situation chock
full of religious reenactment -- hard to explain yet
it is written about in some detail in such a regard.)
I would also consider taking it outside a realm
of pure politics, even the documenting of hypocrisy
or choosing sides, and in an architectural context
wonder how it may be mediated without having to
choose sides as such as acknowledge situations,
historic in nature and intimately connected to today,
and how architecture relates, as architecture, the
world over, in some way, what it communicates, to
seek a better understanding and even appreciation
for what is gained yet also to find what is tragic in
that it is a dynamic, it is what exists and where to
go, what is possible from this moment onward in
terms of the full range of architectural ideas and
considerations and collaborations to foster better
understanding of a situation that cannot change
with bombs and explosives and bullets if what is
faced is a machinery of ideological development.
and, an ideology for an ideology, a bias for a bias,
yet what if 'architecture' can bridge the imbalance
through understanding and reasoning ideas in a
way that make sense to a larger populace, and to
other options, possibilities, beyond the political
context and into altering patterns-- this is the stuff
of the architectural studio today in universities, if
and when it is not all fictional problems that are
being studied. what if it were Israel and Palestine.
...would such an exercise even be allowed today?
my belief is that it could be if the context was clear
and boundaries for goals were set, to find common
goals and focus upon certain objectives, then to
share these ideas in some final documentation.
when Howard writes of walls it reminded me of how
little 'the wall' was a solitary event in comparison to
what may be called 'total development' of a place
along with a state of mind. there was less about the
walls than settlements themselves and the refugee
camps that are there to be compared and contrasted,
in every cultural dimension imaginable. 'the wall' is,
as Paul Virilio seemed to convey, possible in a lot of
ways, even if there is not a wall visible in the old way
of seeing. for instance, a television is a wall as it can
keep things inside and outside, viewpoints let's say.
it represents the city, the newscast, often keeps out
the grime of poverty and stuff like that. many things
can be walls (traffic lights, media, the internet as a
'digital 'divide'') yet 'wallness' has also certainly had
a big change in the last century, too. a wall does not
simply keep things in and out, and beyond 'visual'
materiality, even this boundary is breached by the
ubiquity of radio-spectrum technologies, from light
to sound to signals for wireless communications--
a person can sit on one side of a solid brick wall
and visualize on the other, via electromagnetic
waves-- thus walls can be permeable but invisibly
so. and likewise, in some hilltop settlements, the
retaining 'wall' is a wall, the landscape is a wall
without walls, through verticality, as in the slope.
so, one may as the book states, look outward and
see a tranquil landscape without walls, yet if one
is looking back, there is a landscape of a type of
invisible wall building, a series of separations in
the land, in the buildings, an environment as wall.
Previously 'walls in the mind' were written about
on list and in the context of A Civilian Occupation
the realm between an individual place and mind.
it seems that so too there could be settlements,
refugee camps, human strife, militarization, and
all in the name of the benign architect serving a
client, as is the model still being taught today as
an example to follow. Maybe the extremes it can
lead to should be part of an architect's education.
And also the goals and purposes of architecture.
From the three responses it seems likely that very
wide ranging perspectives could all be creatively
explored, to relate potentials with places, peoples.
In my view, post-book review, there seem to be a
variety of possibilities limited only by imaginations
that go into considering these situations as part of
the condition of existence, and co-existence, today.
IN a sense it is possible everything can balance out
if architectural situations are reviewed architecturally.
It is a start, not perfect, but it is a place to start. brian
(as a footnote, i admit my own hypocrisy and the rest,
in my view this is not about finding scapegoats but in
finding a way to relate across differences, as humans,
through architecture. walls are necessary. so is peace.
and concepts such as 'public' and 'private' can go the
distance in ways that 'good' and 'evil' simply cannot).
--
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
your comments and ideas. I am responding with
one e-mail as the book itself has such a range of
interpretations and I sincerely hope more will be
reading it as my words are insufficient, along with
my knowledge of the issues in depth, as they are
presented in the book.
all while reading I wondered as Michael mentions,
about WWII in architecture. the book actually does
cover this aspect from an interesting angle that is
new to me, yet in a way that largely different from
the rest of 'western' modernism, in that it sounds as
if it remains utopian-- and in such a way that spans
the actual methods of construction to the instant city,
it could be an important case-study, as I think the
authors refer to, with regard to suburban cities and
the urban->rural path. also noted by the authors in
an interview with one off the architects is the many
who participate. it does not seem to be 'world class'
architecture, as much as military-town-planning in
the 20th-21st century, in the guise of domestication.
it almost seems like an architecture detached from
architects, again, as a result of client-driven designs.
it is so rich in detail, the documentation of windows
placed in such a way, what is at the center of towns,
how a pragmatism and speed of building necessitate
certain decisions, it is almost a surreal account if one
is reading yet never having actually 'seen' the places-
it is an ideology as strongly driven as that during WWII
from what is written, it is quite an amazing to consider.
i can understand Steve's observations and they may
have more to do with the case the book makes being
missing as a part of the observations made, which are
compelling to a degree that argues this is considered
a human rights violation and a breach of the Geneva
and other international treaties of occupation, that the
zone should not be occupied by civilians is an illegal
act. this is within the scope of architecture, though if
a corollary is needed to similar flouting of conventions
then nuclear weapons could also do: where a country
may not declare weapons while all others are said to
have to, versus threat of war, yet they is an exception.
it is a mirror situation with settlements and ideologies,
though within a cultural context with buildings as the
weapons instead of bombs. and bad things can result
in low-level warfare by other means, all things indicate.
it is true the PC (Politically Correct) aspect is there and
would need to be navigated around and through, yet
also there is the context of architecture, primarily, from
which observations can be discussed, rather uniquely
outside many of the more extreme realms which make
humans vantages very different and maybe without an
ability to reconcile, yet in terms of architecture, types
of building, the early role of military surveying in town
planning, to quality of life comparisons in a geography
could all be ways to ask questions-- yet also in such a
way as that it is bounded in a very rich context that is
capable of buffering pure political forces with cultural
histories, values, structures, all related in built forms.
the parts about international law were where it
would seem the 'ethics' of architecture as a profession
differ from those of housing built in a war zone with an
occupant with rifle at the ready- what architect would
build in an uninhabitable space, and for what reason?
and is this reasoning in line with that of architecture as
a discipline which seeks to protect its own inhabitants-
if so, it is curious how buildings could destroy anothers
buildings or crops in the name of 'homeland' security,
no less, to build a seemingly tranquil ideal community.
if an occupant dies as the result of a structural or
some other failing of a building, it was thought by me,
as the architect has certain liabilities over the building,
then what if the occupant is put in harm's way by some-
one who is an architect, and by architectural design?
there is thus the breaking of international law and
humanitarian issues which do not seem contestable,
and which seem to be the core of the peace process,
to revert the process and restore a place to its place,
in some compromise which can be lasting. yet there
is another dimension about building in this realm by
architects, also, and in terms of the profession as it is
assumed to exist with some codes of conduct if only
in an ideal sense of where architecture ends and the
building of military towns in a guise of suburbs begins.
one might say this is an internal issue to a state yet if
this is happening outside the borders of the state, in
a contested area, yet an area in which architects are
the operators of state policies which are, in effect, a
part of the 'root causes' contributing to other events
(such as martyrdom actions) then it may be worth an
international review by professional organizations--
in terms of legal and other means and measures--
at which point does architecture cease to serve all
people and start to oppress one person over another,
and what justifies this action-- as 'modernism' seems
to be the 'visible' answer, yet a deeply mystical and
even over-the-top religiosity and other aspects also
contribute to this, such that the authors describe a
type of holy-land-incorporated scenegraphy (and,
at that point in reading I wondered what Steve may
find in what appears to me to be a situation chock
full of religious reenactment -- hard to explain yet
it is written about in some detail in such a regard.)
I would also consider taking it outside a realm
of pure politics, even the documenting of hypocrisy
or choosing sides, and in an architectural context
wonder how it may be mediated without having to
choose sides as such as acknowledge situations,
historic in nature and intimately connected to today,
and how architecture relates, as architecture, the
world over, in some way, what it communicates, to
seek a better understanding and even appreciation
for what is gained yet also to find what is tragic in
that it is a dynamic, it is what exists and where to
go, what is possible from this moment onward in
terms of the full range of architectural ideas and
considerations and collaborations to foster better
understanding of a situation that cannot change
with bombs and explosives and bullets if what is
faced is a machinery of ideological development.
and, an ideology for an ideology, a bias for a bias,
yet what if 'architecture' can bridge the imbalance
through understanding and reasoning ideas in a
way that make sense to a larger populace, and to
other options, possibilities, beyond the political
context and into altering patterns-- this is the stuff
of the architectural studio today in universities, if
and when it is not all fictional problems that are
being studied. what if it were Israel and Palestine.
...would such an exercise even be allowed today?
my belief is that it could be if the context was clear
and boundaries for goals were set, to find common
goals and focus upon certain objectives, then to
share these ideas in some final documentation.
when Howard writes of walls it reminded me of how
little 'the wall' was a solitary event in comparison to
what may be called 'total development' of a place
along with a state of mind. there was less about the
walls than settlements themselves and the refugee
camps that are there to be compared and contrasted,
in every cultural dimension imaginable. 'the wall' is,
as Paul Virilio seemed to convey, possible in a lot of
ways, even if there is not a wall visible in the old way
of seeing. for instance, a television is a wall as it can
keep things inside and outside, viewpoints let's say.
it represents the city, the newscast, often keeps out
the grime of poverty and stuff like that. many things
can be walls (traffic lights, media, the internet as a
'digital 'divide'') yet 'wallness' has also certainly had
a big change in the last century, too. a wall does not
simply keep things in and out, and beyond 'visual'
materiality, even this boundary is breached by the
ubiquity of radio-spectrum technologies, from light
to sound to signals for wireless communications--
a person can sit on one side of a solid brick wall
and visualize on the other, via electromagnetic
waves-- thus walls can be permeable but invisibly
so. and likewise, in some hilltop settlements, the
retaining 'wall' is a wall, the landscape is a wall
without walls, through verticality, as in the slope.
so, one may as the book states, look outward and
see a tranquil landscape without walls, yet if one
is looking back, there is a landscape of a type of
invisible wall building, a series of separations in
the land, in the buildings, an environment as wall.
Previously 'walls in the mind' were written about
on list and in the context of A Civilian Occupation
the realm between an individual place and mind.
it seems that so too there could be settlements,
refugee camps, human strife, militarization, and
all in the name of the benign architect serving a
client, as is the model still being taught today as
an example to follow. Maybe the extremes it can
lead to should be part of an architect's education.
And also the goals and purposes of architecture.
From the three responses it seems likely that very
wide ranging perspectives could all be creatively
explored, to relate potentials with places, peoples.
In my view, post-book review, there seem to be a
variety of possibilities limited only by imaginations
that go into considering these situations as part of
the condition of existence, and co-existence, today.
IN a sense it is possible everything can balance out
if architectural situations are reviewed architecturally.
It is a start, not perfect, but it is a place to start. brian
(as a footnote, i admit my own hypocrisy and the rest,
in my view this is not about finding scapegoats but in
finding a way to relate across differences, as humans,
through architecture. walls are necessary. so is peace.
and concepts such as 'public' and 'private' can go the
distance in ways that 'good' and 'evil' simply cannot).
--
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