|
Posted by Edgar on January 24, 2008, 2:33 pm
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember the post he made one time about water?
>>>>>> Man, almost made me get all misty eyed.
>>>>>> The boy could write some stuff when he set his mind to it.
>>>>>> Only once did I ever see him step, outside the boudaries of
>>>>>> *professionalism* in his writings, the oldtimers know what I'm
>>>>>> talking about.
>>>>>> And it was but a minor consideration considering the topic of the
>>>>>> thread twist. heh
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or maybe this one?
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess I could start writing for days on the discussion....about half
>>>>> of which would be questions...so please consider this post an act of
>>>>> "thinking out loud" rather than a definitive reply. I won't try to
>>>>> make
>>>>> a tidy essay...just a series of thoughts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Sorry....I haven't read the book but certainly someone here
>>>>> has.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. My words may sound a little academic, but they are real
>>>>> thoughts of a
>>>>> practicing architect....one who only makes a living by designing real
>>>>> buildings for very real clients. I do believe, however, that we have
>>>>> the
>>>>> honor and the challenge to use thought in our work...even though
>>>>> sometimes it is no more than thought about how to get a school board
>>>>> to
>>>>> listen to its teachers. Our website has some of my papers that others
>>>>> have described as useful...and the intro talks about this...."The
>>>>> Demon
>>>>> of Consciousness". My own work occasionally manifests real
>>>>> thought...and
>>>>> I hope this will increase now that I am entering the "second half of
>>>>> life".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. I would like to question the fundamental method of dialectics
>>>>> that
>>>>> underlies Rowe's premise as you describe it. Much thought in the 20th
>>>>> century (the past, you know!) used the intellectual model of
>>>>> dialectics...positing opposites in conflict....to describe ideas,
>>>>> trends, etc. While it received its most famous push from Marx (Karl,
>>>>> not Groucho)...this approach was so universally assumed that it was
>>>>> almost invisible. However, I once heard Stanislaus Fung (a delightful
>>>>> professor from Adelaide) remind us that there are other ways to think
>>>>> about phenomena....instead of seeing things as opposites in conflict,
>>>>> we
>>>>> can see them as "poles"...two ends of the same thing. For instance,
>>>>> most plants have roots and leaves....but they are not in opposition to
>>>>> each other...they are equally necessary, although different, aspects
>>>>> of
>>>>> the same reality. It is possible that the whole notion of "the idea of
>>>>> architecture" versus "relation to nature" is simply a failure to leave
>>>>> the 20th century behind. Maybe we need a new model for thinking about
>>>>> different aspects...Fung's idea of poles...inextricably bound to each
>>>>> other but different. Sadly, I think that Rowe may be right that many
>>>>> 20th century architects fell into the trap of using dialectical
>>>>> thought,
>>>>> and therefore felt obligated to choose between "architecture" and
>>>>> "nature". Fortunately there were others, notably Alvar Aalto, who
>>>>> rejected this and gave us another model for modernism.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. I think there may be something to this idea of "architecture
>>>>> versus
>>>>> nature"...but only as a historical description of what people
>>>>> thought....not as a theoretical model for an inevitable reality. It
>>>>> was
>>>>> probably inevitable, because so much of modern thought, in all
>>>>> disciplines in the late 19th and early 20th century, involved a crisis
>>>>> of self-identity for the disciplines (the reasons can be found in any
>>>>> discussion of the dramatic social, technological, political and
>>>>> cultural
>>>>> changes that took place between about 1870 and 1918). Painters asked
>>>>> "what is painting?"...composers asked "what is music?"...physicists
>>>>> asked "what is matter?"...and architects asked "what is architecture?"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course ONE way to understand a thing is to compare it to other
>>>>> things
>>>>> and look for the differences. I think it was inevitable that some
>>>>> architects would look for the essence of architecture in its birth in
>>>>> the human mind....and to try to do this by setting up an opposition to
>>>>> some "natural" order.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. I personally think the truth is more complex and interwoven (I
>>>>> once
>>>>> presented a paper in Auckland called "Dancing on the Threshold of
>>>>> Thought" that presents a thought-model in which opposites dance with
>>>>> each other instead of shooting at each other....maybe I'll post it
>>>>> when
>>>>> we do our next website housekeeping). One example is here in San
>>>>> Antonio...very old and very solid....and I used it to make this same
>>>>> point for a group of architecture students from Mexico City. In the
>>>>> 1700s the Spanish built a system of "acequias" throughout San
>>>>> Antonio...small canals to carry water to the small farms and produce
>>>>> gardens of the inhabitants. The water came from the river, and since
>>>>> the fields were always higher than the river, they needed some way to
>>>>> bring the water to the higher level. Now in many places this was
>>>>> accomplished by physically lifting the water...but the Spanish had
>>>>> learned another less-energy-demanding approach from the Muslims who
>>>>> civilized southern Spain. Instead of raising the water....they would
>>>>> go
>>>>> upstream to a point where the water level was approximately that of
>>>>> the
>>>>> fields they wanted to irrigate...and there they would build a small
>>>>> dam,
>>>>> to raise and maintain the level of the water. Then they would cut a
>>>>> ditch ("acequia") from the newly-created pond to the fields a few
>>>>> miles
>>>>> downstream. Now..to get to my point...so I can take my wife to
>>>>> dinner...there is one place at which the man-made water course must
>>>>> cross above a natural water course. The solution is obvious...to
>>>>> build
>>>>> an aqueduct, a bridge to carry the man-made stream over the natural
>>>>> stream. But for me this 250 year old elegant little stone structure,
>>>>> in
>>>>> the south side of my hometown, is a direct manifestation of the
>>>>> duality/polarity that is architecture. It is a clear and unapologetic
>>>>> construction of an intellectually-determined line, carried across a
>>>>> natural meandering line, and the physical manifestation is made of
>>>>> stone
>>>>> and geometry. The naturalness of nature is enhanced by the presence
>>>>> of
>>>>> the human construction...and the clarity of human thought is enhanced
>>>>> by
>>>>> its juxtaposition with the natural.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 6. I think this approach I recommend can be found also in
>>>>> Heidegger's
>>>>> notion of the "world and the earth" described in "On the making of the
>>>>> work of art".....and in Lao Tsu.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Christopher
>>>>
>>>> Jeez. I regret to have never made his acquaintance.
>>>> BTW, I chafe when non-professionals presume to tell anyone what
>>>> professionalism is.
>>>> "It's so.... unprofessional!"
>>>
>>> Well, when someone *works* in a profession they get to use the word.
>>> That leaves you out.
>>> One more thing you're envious about.
>>> Get over it, quit crying like a little gurl already.
>>>
>>
>> Can we stop with this stuff for this post at the very least, please. I'm
>> asking nicely.
>> Thank you.
>
> Knock it the hell off Edgar.
> Jump on that canadian asshole if you have to get on somebody.
>
I was referring to the both of you, and every person in this NG.
Forget it, do as you wish.
--
Edgar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap