ARCHITECTURAL "DISCOURSE OR DISCO"?
After reading "insert papers & video here" in tandem with corresponding blog posts, I've become keenly aware of contemporary criticisms that fail to address the context of "insert papers & video here" in any meaningful way. Responses seem to behave as a firing squad without first assessing the circumstances and era that created the ideology. Using the doppler effect as a metaphor, writers are justifying claims of "danger" or "indignance" of a speeding ambulance passing. The ambulance in this case is an architectural theory or methodology in practice. We know, due to the passage of time, these ideas often survive the ride to the hospital but usually die sometime shortly after. Acolytes of contemporary ideas seem to believe that these architectural theories or methodologies of practice do not deserve the dignity of an ambulance ride full stop. Without realizing it, responders have the benefit of hindsight and access to all historical data extracted through these theories and modes of practice. Responders also do not have the benefit of having experienced the era of life in which these ideas and theories are created, yet they benefit from the information. While this is neither agreement nor condemnation of ideas posited in the past or in contemporary culture, it is clear the latitude for context when it comes to history and theory in architecture needs to be much wider and more in-depth. Superficial analysis delivers tautological prose but usually fails to describe enough context to properly assess the quality of an idea.
TL:DR
Analysis of History/Theory needs more context to discern the quality of the ideas put forth in the past.
Hindsight is always 20/20 until it isn't.
Everyone deserves the dignity of an ambulance ride to the hospital and the benefit of discourse surrounding their circumstances that created hospitalization, even if their ideas are controversial.
Vincent - I enjoyed the ambulance analogy, and the importance of historical context.
ReplyDeleteAs per usual, where most of us have failed to see the bigger picture, you not only have but have also deconstructed it with such eloquence. While your points on the benefit of hindsight are unerring, to me it is most particularly interesting how you considered the dignity of ideas. To objectify them as things with their own intrinsic value that deserve the dignity of an ambulance ride is so human. As artists, our work can be seen as an extension of ourselves. As such, we deem it worthy of the dignity of an ambulance ride even if we know it could die along the way or shortly after.
ReplyDelete