Architecture of Words
Throughout the discussions in class, the reading level of
difficulty or density always surfaces.
Few students gravitate to read texts in the way we invest in drawing
iterations, but I am not sure if it due to the lack of desire to read, but the
type of reading. The texts this week
exemplified the dichotomy constantly seen in architectural writing. Abalos and Zaera carry a tone which separates
them from the work. Both pieces are
about the challenge and the solution, but seem to lack a personal connection to
the process in mitigation between the two.
Zumthor, on the other hand, relates to designing. This may be due to the text being drawn from
a presentation which innately has a stronger personal voice.
The voice of Peter Zumthor’s work is what draws me to him. His projects speak to a connection to the land, but this is not why I follow his work. The way he speaks about architecture in Atmospheres as well as Thinking Architecture is what brings me to look at his work.
waterlooarchitecture.com
Similarly to Alain de Bottom in
Architecture for Happiness, Zumthor speaks of architecture in an
anthropomorphic way which connects architecture back to humanity. This connection is what I am interested in
with architecture, but how is this created without writing and reading about a
project? Is it inevitable that we have
to write for work to connect to humanity?
Interesting post... I like your decision to talk about the different tones of the texts, and I agree that they are certainly different. It seems to indicate that Zumthor could be classified as removed from contemporary discussions of urban and political issues, while Zaera and Abalos are fully entrenched on those external issues that are so present in architecture today (yet less often discussed).
ReplyDeleteI think we are trained to be drawn to atmosphere and emotion. This carries over to what we prefer to read, what kinds of music we listen to, and how we carry ourselves daily. I think we all understand and acknowledge the importance of reading academic texts, but we cannot deny that we prefer more emotive texts. As a class, we have voiced our opinions about making architecture for the community (not other academics) as the right way to architect. So it is no surprise that we all gravitate towards texts that are contain less archi-speak.
ReplyDelete