Architecture and domination. (Lebbeus Woods)
In the social sciences, space is often discussed in terms of man's presence there. In architecture, however, are the abstract qualities of space which highlights, for one reason understandable but not entirely forgivable: the architects are specialists in the formation of these qualities. One of the clichés associated with this approach is that the space is designed to be functional, which means, in the jargon architects, giving rough spaces designed a form designed for a "program" for human use.
This, of course, is absurd. Architects often design volumes of space straight, following the rules of Cartesian geometry, and anyone can see that such spaces are no more suitable for use as offices for a bedroom or a butcher. A space designed is in fact pure abstraction, more faithful to a mathematical system that any "function" of mankind. While the architects talk about design spaces that meet human needs, in fact it is these that are designed to meet space designed and the abstract system of thought and organization that is based design. In the case of Cartesian space, these systems include not only the mind-body dualism of Descartes, but also cause-effect determinism of Newton, the laws of logic of Aristotle and other theoretical constructs required by social and political powers of the moment . The design is a way of controlling human behavior and to maintain this control in the future. The architect is an officer in a chain of command whose most important task (from the point of view of institutions) is to describe spaces that otherwise would be abstract and "absurd" to "functions" are actually instructed people on how they behave in certain places and times. The plot of designed spaces, the city is an intricate plan of conduct that prohibits any kind of social interactions and therefore excluded, thoughts, and, where possible, the feelings of individuals.
A rectilinear volume of space called "conference room" requires that persons who occupy that space behave as a speaker or as audience. If someone violates these behaviors, for example, deciding to sing during the performance required to give or listen to a conference because the room has good acoustics, perfect for singing, then the public obedient listener, or speaker, and even the police if the offender does not stop, push the offender to street. Or, to cite a less conspicuous example, if one of the audience asks a question (during the question and answer session that usually follow the conference) too long, the public will try to silence the questioners compliant offender behavior in space requirements question. In some cases, ask a question with an ideological tendency "wrong" not banned and uncontrolled produce the same result. In extreme cases, that the police will intervene.
The justification for the removal of those who violate the behavior required for the occupation of designed space is quite clear. The social order must be maintained so that it can protect individual freedom (which for the most Parra is free to conform to social norms). Think of the poor lecturer, who no doubt has something interesting to say, interrupted by the singer, the guy who asks questions too long, which actually seeks to usurp the role of the speaker, by the thinker whose views heretical disrupt the balance carefully controlled and listen to the conference. The argument goes, if it violates the "feature space" and if such violation is tolerated, it could set a precedent, disseminated and threaten the whole mechanism of society. Anarchy. Chaos. Can not afford.
Poor architects, of course, are hardly aware of these conditions. Isolated on a specialized task, praised by higher authorities (clients, jury awards and social agencies of all types), for his talent in the manipulation of abstract qualities of space and forms of finidoras, and at the same time, meet people's needs (step reinforcing the behavior prescribed), architects can live with the illusion that they are the primary and most important artists that shape the space and its qualities for an appreciative audience (compliant) users. Consequently, in thought and speech of the architects, the formal qualities of space predominate over its human content, which is simply taken for granted. In the case of the conference hall, the architects discussed the subtleties of the proportions of space, lighting, use of materials, the lines of sight between the audience and the stage. They may relate to acoustic characteristics referring to his "duties", but never questions the premises of the "program" for space: the concept of "conference."
A great architect Mies van der Rohe, is able to raise the prevalence to the level of philosophical principle. He liked to say that the main architectural works of history were the temples of the ancient world, whose interior was not, or hardly human function. It was pure architecture, architecture and religion. His concept of "universal space", which resulted in some of the best modern buildings (their own) and also the worst (those of his imitators), also contained religious overtones. The architecture was something beyond life, or at least beyond the confusion of the lives led inside.
The issue of space.
Lebbeus Woods. In Technoscience and cyberculture, VVAA Ed.Paidos.1998
Witzeclau Retrieved 
0 comments:
Post a Comment