"after architecture"
A quote that captured my attention from the The Irrational Exuberance of Rem Koolhaas was:
“he further claims
that the “art” of architecture is useless in the context of Bigness, and that
Bigness competes with and preempts the city itself, ultimately surrendering the
field to the scraped, tabula rasa “after-architecture.”
It reminded me of something Dustin said during our review on
Wednesday 1/23/19. We may plan out and design a building or space with
metaphoric and existential intentions (which is truly beautiful), but
regardless the user group will make that space what they want it to be and
adapt. That is not to say we design with a nonchalant attitude. I think it’s
healthy to give them guide lines through architectural moves and positions
because without a framework the user can wander into a nothingness or just
completely pass by the moment all together.
I agree with Koolhaas in that, "the 'art' of architecture is useless in the context of bigness..". Whether or not that is due to scale or execution of the 'metaphoric and existential intentions'.
ReplyDeleteI also understand those intentions to be much more critical (and poetic) to an architect; as opposed to the general public. Many things are beautiful without a complete understanding of them. The Moon for example...you don't need to understand its cosmic duty to acknowledge its innate beauty. In this same way,a s you mentioned Nich, users are going to find their own value (and purpose) in a built environment.
Maybe a cathedral wold be a more architecturally relevant example?..the same applies though.
The idea of a user group adapting and manipulating the original intent of a building makes me wonder about adaptive reuse and companies repurposing old warehouses or office buildings for new uses. I wonder if there are any examples of buildings with highly regulated intentions being reused for completely different purposes, and if it would just create an excessing amount of junkspace?
ReplyDelete