The Face of America
When reading Alejandro Zaera Polo’s text and his attempt
to create a connection between architecture, politics, and technology, one of
his comparisons stuck out to me:
"The building envelope is possibly the oldest and most
primitive architectural element. It materializes the separation of the inside and outside,
natural and artificial and it demarcates private property and land ownership
(one the most primitive political acts). When it becomes a façade, the envelope operates also as a
representational device in addition to its crucial environmental and
territorial roles. The building envelope forms the border, the frontier, the edge, the
enclosure and the joint: it is loaded with political content. We have focused on the
envelope as an optimal domain to explore the politicization of architecture and,
possibly, the development of a Dingpolitik. A political critique of the envelope will hopefully help
us to reconstruct the discipline as an effective link between material
organizations and politics."
The idea of
the façade as a politically charged divide is something I have never really
thought of before. The idea that architecture isn’t just something that keeps
the weather out or protects the people from the cold, but something that keeps people
that we don’t want in, out as well is new to me (I mean besides burglars).
Further thinking about this, the first thing that came to mind isn’t
architecture at all, but a really shitty wall. The wall is the one that divides
Mexico and the United States which is entirely political - a built construction
that is more symbolic than actually functional.
“Designed”
to keep drugs and criminals out of our precious motherland, the wall just deepens
the class and ethnicity distinctions and demonstrates our over-inflated egos –
we are not that great everyone! And somehow… we still have drugs and crime in
America, interesting.
The wall
just doesn’t separate people but it is a façade! It is the first thing people
see when approaching the US, and the last when leaving it, what an impression
we give off. Shouldn’t it be at least worth seeing, something that implies our supposed
grandeur, not a bunch of metal panels that reinforce the lower status of the
country that we are keeping at an arm’s length away?
Ugh. How
come every time a republican comes into office we have to go back the goddamn
wall?
I just want to say that I think you choose an excellent video to defend your argument. The wall is definitely an extremely faulty way to "separate" people and gives the wrong impression/ face/ facade to others.
ReplyDeleteI liked the example of this wall as an idea of a facade, I had never thought of it that way. We definitely have a GreatValue level of quality wall...
ReplyDeleteA+ on the video selection.
The wall (and the president) exists because a good chunk of the people want it. 52% of the white women that voted supported this guy and his ideas. In that sense the wall is functional in that it represents a reality of the country. Bipartisan politics ensures that people are inclined to support anything that their chosen party endorses, because people aren't very rational. Some people display these signs explicitly, shielded by the protection of their group. For most others, the discrimination is passive and implicit.
ReplyDelete- says the person with a wall at her studio desk
ReplyDeleteNever thought about the wall the way you describe in the post before, always think that a wall just a wall.
ReplyDelete