Situationists vs Retroactive Manifestos?
One of the major takeaways from this week's reading was the idea that BIG architecture can be so BIG that is loses its relationship to the context and just becomes a massive platform (but actually multiple platforms) where all kinds of "things" can take place. This is a good thing in most of the examples presented such as The Downtown Athletic Club and Coney Island, where anything can be built and anything can happen. This process of experimentation, learning and then executing in the urban context is referred to as retroactive manifesto. But the idea of an unprogrammed structure where anything can happen is also visible in the work of the Situationists such as Cedric Price and Yona Friedmann. They created many theoretical projects in which the driver of the project was a massive structure and the mystery is what would take place within the structures. So with this in mind, where is the difference? What makes these two schools of thought different?
From the little knowledge I have re: the Situationists, I see the two trains of thought as being different due to the reference point in which they practiced. The Retroactive Manifestos came in as a form of retaliation against the Modernist movement framing their work directly against the previous thoughts. Situationists seem to be exploring the issue of un-programmed building within a different context.
ReplyDelete