> The Spanish Steps were planned as a piece of architecture in and creating a public space. Whether 'life'
>comes to a piece of architecture cannot be planned with certainty, as many examples show, e.g. the Barbican
>Centre in London.
>
> The Sydney Opera House brings forth the space around it, allowing the harbour to be a harbour, the brilliant
>sky to be a sky, the Botanic Gardens in Farm Cove to be gardens, the city skyline to be a skyline, the Harbour
>Bridge to be a great bridge. Each work of architecture refers to the other in an interplay that creates the open
>city space in which the Sydneysiders orient their urbane lives by car, ferry, train, bus and by foot. Their
>interplay is part of the way Sydney sydneys in a mode of urbane togetherness (Mitsein).
>
> This architectural creation of worlding space is akin to the openness of aletheia within which beings can
>appear AS what they are.
this is all very well and good, only,
the Sydney Opera House as a competition proposal was thrown into the rubbish bin by the judges and saved
by the American yet Finnish born architect Eero Saarinen (Dallas Airport etc). My point being, that saying
"allowing the sky to be a sky" is not enough to be able to select architecture that is "alive" as you call it.
There must be something more. Can we get prescriptive and not just descriptive?
On the other hand, saying that a work of art must "allow" things to appear as they are, could be useful for a
theory of the theory of art, a meta-aesthetic, that is a theory of what a theory of art needs in terms of criteria to
be be more or less an acceptatble theory of art.
I suggest that Gadamer's and Heidegger's writings might be better put to use in this regard.
If people find such a project useful or a waste of time, please feel free to tell me. Especially if they know of
people who work in the area (of meta-aesthetic), whether there is a better name (ie not reminiscent of
metaphysics) or if they think that such a theory of the theories of art might in turn by necessity be a theory of
art (and if so, if there could be a solution) I would be appreciate it.
Regards
Erik Champion
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>comes to a piece of architecture cannot be planned with certainty, as many examples show, e.g. the Barbican
>Centre in London.
>
> The Sydney Opera House brings forth the space around it, allowing the harbour to be a harbour, the brilliant
>sky to be a sky, the Botanic Gardens in Farm Cove to be gardens, the city skyline to be a skyline, the Harbour
>Bridge to be a great bridge. Each work of architecture refers to the other in an interplay that creates the open
>city space in which the Sydneysiders orient their urbane lives by car, ferry, train, bus and by foot. Their
>interplay is part of the way Sydney sydneys in a mode of urbane togetherness (Mitsein).
>
> This architectural creation of worlding space is akin to the openness of aletheia within which beings can
>appear AS what they are.
this is all very well and good, only,
the Sydney Opera House as a competition proposal was thrown into the rubbish bin by the judges and saved
by the American yet Finnish born architect Eero Saarinen (Dallas Airport etc). My point being, that saying
"allowing the sky to be a sky" is not enough to be able to select architecture that is "alive" as you call it.
There must be something more. Can we get prescriptive and not just descriptive?
On the other hand, saying that a work of art must "allow" things to appear as they are, could be useful for a
theory of the theory of art, a meta-aesthetic, that is a theory of what a theory of art needs in terms of criteria to
be be more or less an acceptatble theory of art.
I suggest that Gadamer's and Heidegger's writings might be better put to use in this regard.
If people find such a project useful or a waste of time, please feel free to tell me. Especially if they know of
people who work in the area (of meta-aesthetic), whether there is a better name (ie not reminiscent of
metaphysics) or if they think that such a theory of the theories of art might in turn by necessity be a theory of
art (and if so, if there could be a solution) I would be appreciate it.
Regards
Erik Champion
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---