questions the ability of contemporary architecture to create new social relations and communications from the dwelling. Opposes the imposition of an architectural program as a regulator and sentencing of biopolitical activities. Questions the complicity of large institutions (private or public) and the Architects, that covered economically in these operate subject to their controlling interest, suggestion and manipulation of the population. Lebbeus Woods
Architecture bets on a game based on knowledge, an open architecture, where functions and activities and even the formation of the space is defined and modified by the autonomous inhabitant. In this sense and from a philosophical level, the work of Lebbeus is directed towards the decoding of conceptions and concretions, rather than the playback and encoding what is already established.
understandable though not excusable roda: 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 of the architects, give all spaces designed a form designed for a "program" of human use.
This, of course, is absurd. Architects often design lumens vo rectilinear space, 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 abs traction more faithful to a mathematical system to any "function" human . While the architects talk about design spaces that meet human needs, in fact it is these that are designed to meet e! e designed space! 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 to control e! human behavior and maintain this control in the future. The architect is an official 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" that actually are insrrucciones people about 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 e! space has good acoustics, perfect to sing, then the public obedient listeners, oe! speaker, and even the police if e! offender does not stop, push the offender to street. 0, to cite one example, less conspicuous, if one of the audience asks a question (during the question and answer session that usually follow the conference) too long, e! obedient public questions try to silence the offending behavior prescribed! Space in question. In some cases, ask a question with an ideological tendency "wrong" proscribed and desconttolada not produce the same result. In extreme cases, that the police will intervene.
The justification for the removal of those who violate e! prescribed behavior 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 part is free to conform to social norms). Think of the poor lecturer, who no doubt has something interesting to say, interrupted by e! singer, the guy who asks questions too long, which actually seeks to usurp e! pape! the speaker, by the thinker, whose heretical opinions disturb e! carefully balance
Poor architects, of course, are hardly aware of these conditions. Isolated on a specialized task, praised by higher authorities (clients, jury awards and agencies social of all types), for his talent in the manipulation of abstract qualities of space and defining forms, and at the same time, to meet the needs of the people (reinforcing the way prescribed behavior), 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 will discuss surilezas proportions of space, lighting, use of materials, the lines of sight between the audience and the stage. Can re ferirse their acoustic characteristics referring to their "functions", but never questions the premises of the "program" for space: the term "conference".
A great architect Mies van der Rohe is able to bring this 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 as religion. His concept of "universal space", which resulted in some of the best modern buildings (yours) 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. "People come and go, lifestyle change, but the architecture remains, idealization of living. The architectural thinking of the past twenty years but has been much talk of social context, including history, local conditions and others, has changed very little speech. " Even an architecture that plays with changing fashions and fads change is putting the environment above the message. On the other hand, one can not complain too much. This would be but a repetition of past disasters to make the architecture historical social conditions or, even worse, social theories of any kind. Anyone who has visited modern cities were transformed by an architectural and urban planning dictated by a particular ideology will understand what may be one-dimensional these landscapes. The architects who remember the movements 'design methodology' "and gives defense planning" that dominated the teaching of architecture in the late sixties and early seventies also understand how the best intentions can go social terribly wrong. On behalf of the principles of equality, we tried to apply directly to the architectural design process sociological techniques such as statistical analysis, but with results that rival the most vulgar socialist architecture of Eastern Bloc countries in the soft psychologically oppressive. Architecture, after all, nor is a branch of social science or a mere instrument of specific public policy, nor an expression primarily aesthetic. At the same time, it is only a combination of these issues considered important to the practice and production. The question posed by the space design architecture carries a very different direction, one that, until now, could remain safe, hidden behind appeals, historically approved, science and art.
(...)
So far, the main task of architecture is to analyze social institutions, making them symbols of urban hierarchy of authority. Today, though, necessarily, hierarchies remain, a new type of order is booming, an order without symbols heterarchy. L to heterarchy is an automated order structure, composed of individuals self inventors and self-sufficient, whose structure is constantly changing according to changing needs and conditions. In theory, forms of government tend to represent the hierarchy, as is the case of free-market economic system, yet both now find themselves seriously compromised by rudimentary hierarchies. Freedom of thought and action is the basis of any heterarchical system and guarantees the autonomy of individuals and the variability and fluidity of the system. Heterarchical urban forms of culture acrual invented in response to the growing emphasis on the concept of 'individual', and thanks to recent technological developments as personal computers and telecommunications systems that undermine the established hierarchies. Hieros : sacred. Heteros: the other. The hierarchy is a system of order based on the authority of the whole, which is vested in a "one", a leader, an elite ideology. Hierarchies produce monologues, statements that arise from a single source and radiating around a system, dominating. Heterarchy is based on the authority of many. Differs from the so-called collective authority that only "a>, exercises the authority at any time and assumes full responsibility not only of himself but of all others. (For a more extensive liability. At another point, "other" can exercise authority and take responsibility. And so on. The hererarquia includes the hierarchy. However, it becomes a landscape of ever-changing authority. So So heterarchy always dialogic. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment