Critical Means
"The fundamental strategy of Critical Regionalism is to mediate the impact of civilization with elements derived indirectly from the peculiarities of a particular place. It is clear from the above that Critical Regionalism depends upon maintaining a high level of critical self-consciousness. It may find its governing inspiration in such things as the range and quality of the local light, or in a tectonic derived from a peculiar structural mode, or in the topography of a given site. But it is necessary, as I have already suggested, to distinguish between Critical Regionalism and simple-minded attempts to revive the hypothetical forms of a lost vernacular." Kenneth Frampton
Quality of local light, tectonics, and topography. I believe critical regionalism can be derived best by the use of only the first two. In the most broad sense possible, I believe finding inspiration in a given topography can promote regionalism, but how "critical" can we be if we are using so to say "simple-minded" attempts at gaining topographical reactions?
As Frampton explained above, his take on Critical Regionalism, in this sense, has nothing to do with the way it looks or feels, it has everything to do with the means to an end; how are you using light, how are you using tectonics, how are you using the site. The promotion of means then transitions to the production of commodity, in this case, architecture.
So, how can we interpret Critical Regionalism and get a direct explanation of its definition? I think the ideology behind it is correct, but the way in which it presents itself can be more clear: What are we really looking for? What strikes the cord of regionalism? It must be more than just the means to the end.
Quality of local light, tectonics, and topography. I believe critical regionalism can be derived best by the use of only the first two. In the most broad sense possible, I believe finding inspiration in a given topography can promote regionalism, but how "critical" can we be if we are using so to say "simple-minded" attempts at gaining topographical reactions?
As Frampton explained above, his take on Critical Regionalism, in this sense, has nothing to do with the way it looks or feels, it has everything to do with the means to an end; how are you using light, how are you using tectonics, how are you using the site. The promotion of means then transitions to the production of commodity, in this case, architecture.
So, how can we interpret Critical Regionalism and get a direct explanation of its definition? I think the ideology behind it is correct, but the way in which it presents itself can be more clear: What are we really looking for? What strikes the cord of regionalism? It must be more than just the means to the end.
The connection to place described with Critical Regionalism seems to be missing a key component in its definition: the people. Light, tectonics, and topography are great factors for creating spaces, but architecture is more than just the built form, but how it is used. Use calls into importance the role of people which need to be included in the discussion of Critical Regionalism.
ReplyDelete