To Heck With Context! ... Really?

     To start off I would like to recognize my biases against autonomous architecture. I believe a successful building belongs deeply to its context and culture and we grow from our history and surroundings. As I write this I realize that I am currently learning from autonomous architecture, however I believe its the opposite of what the architecture masters intended. In an effort to stay organized I would like to break down each person we covered and my thoughts as we discussed. 

Manfredo Tafuri - 

    As David said in his lecture Tafuri is seen as the giant pessimist of his time and I totally see it. Seeing what was around him during the time and the architecture that was being produced I completely get it. The writings of Tafuri are very pessimistic and have taken the stance of inevitable doom. While he reflected on where architecture is headed he influenced many new architects including Peter Eisenman that I will touch on soon. I like Tafuri. I think that he had enough of the architecture that he was seeing and decided to do something about it. Thus, influencing (for better or worse) a large group of architects that move away from modernism. 

Colin Rowe- 

    Pragmatic to his core, and through his examination of architecture through time somewhat proves / counterpoints autonomous architecture. Through studying the mathematical standards that both Palladio and Corbusier used to create the structure and layout of their villas, he discovered the mathematical standard that made these architects similar. I like that approach. He doesn't understand something so he dives deep until he does understand. Then he reaches back and pulls the rest of the world along with him. 

Peter Eisenman-

    There are many things that I appreciate about him. The main ones being that he brought together contrasting theorists in a group that was both global in their location and ideals. The other is the indexical diagrammatic approach to explaining a building. I did not know that he created this approach of diagrams and I use these types of diagrams in almost every project I have done since I discovered them. However, there are a lot of things that I am not well read enough to understand about Eisenman. Including his built architecture and the details in the above built work. The way that the metal frame approaches the window and the transition in materials all seem like a mishap and that it was done with poor planning rather than a perfectly executed design.  

Rem Koolhaas-

    Unfortunately we didn't get into much of Koolhaas' theory but it was promised for Thursday! I'm excited to hear the theory behind his work since I have often admired his work and used the built projects and approaches as inspiration for some of my own projects.