The vocalizations of the Icelandic band Sigur Ros are called
Vonlenska which the band has used as not a natural or constructed language
used for human communicant, but instead a string of meaningless syllables to express emotion and musical rhythm. There is no grammatical relation among syllables, nor are they accompanied by word boundaries. Vonlenska emphasizes the phonological and emotive qualities of human vocalizations without the conceptual content of language. To this extent the music is relatable to all and becomes a universal language of sound and emotion.
If architectural language is abstracted to the point that it
cannot be attached to any known language, does it then become universal and and open to interpretation by all?
Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, Peter Eisenman
City of Culture of Galicia, Eisenman Architects
I really enjoy their songs in the 'Hopelandic' language. Stripping the music from meaningful words I think emphasizes the universality of the music even more. Meaning is then given by the listener to the music. This is very powerful if the we can all agree what the music is trying to tell us!
ReplyDeleteI think architecture that invites the perceiver to become an active participant (in giving meaning to it) is both powerful and liberating.
I think that by abstracting architecture to the point where it has no attachment to a known language, Eisenman makes his architecture inaccessible and confusing. Eisenman himself says that "I have lost faith that language could be somehow an analogous model for architecture. I thought I had to find what I was doing within architecture rather than without architecture". I feel like he misses the point that architecture, especially public architecture is for people- not just a way for him to express himself. By creating a new language, devoid of meaning, I think its more for him and theorists that than for everyone. It's interesting as a philosophical idea, but not so much in built form.
ReplyDeleteThe notion that the abstraction allows the viewer to attach their own meaning is quite poetic and effective. This is great for very public projects with little prescribed program. However, in the case of purely autonomous projects that still have programs needing to fit inside them, I feel the architect should take that into consideration when designing the form.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to note, how just music devoid of words can appeal to a larger audience. But at the same time, our ability to like, listen, comprehend the music depends on who we are too, as individuals. This is based on the society and culture we get introduced to. Does that not then, disvalidate autonomy?
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you bringing up music, it has made me think about the topic in a new way.
DeleteI would argue, however, that autonomous architecture's dependence on personal experience is one of its greatest strengths. Devoid of connection and context, truly autonomous architecture would rely upon the "self" of its users, meaning each user would have a uniquely personal experience.
I agree with what Lauren commented and I like the projects you referenced. Although it doesn't seem like much, I really enjoyed visiting Eisenman's Holocaust Memorial in Berlin. In hindsight it seems that the autonomy of it and lack of directive on how to use the space leaves it open to the visitor's interpretation. However, while it may leave some inspired, I feel that it could leave others disenchanted. In this case, Eisenman's self expression won me over, but what happens when the expression is not successful for the people it is intended for?
ReplyDelete