Hot Junk
I can't help but relate the idea of hot and cold architecture to Koolhaas' discussion of junk space. Hot-chitecture seem to simply be an aesthetic show. A visually attention grabbing object that dazes the mind. It's meant to be striking, to attract the interest of the viewer. Junkspace does the same. It's space that's meant to grab the attention of someone, get them to spend money, to spend time, to spend their life in it. Yet with little substance. It's a facade--in all meanings of that word. And so it hot architecture. A facade, a charade. Meant to show of aesthetics and leave the program as secondary and meaningless to the form. It's architecture for the sake of the form, not for the sake of substance or the human condition.
But is it wrong to pursue beauty and excellence? I would argue that form, or beauty, is also important to the human condition.
ReplyDeleteI agree that architecture made to be visually appealing can be considered junkspace. It is very difficult to balance aesthetics and functions at 50-50. Creating spaces that are max visually appealing and function perfectly are rare. Often it is a give and take, and when you give more to the appearance and take from the program, you are ultimately taking away usable space and the void that leaves can become junkspace.
ReplyDelete