Subversion

And then comes the end-of-project subversion.

Patrick picks up one of my models, fascinated with it, and showed me how it was connected back to the narrative. I wondered if that move was a bit loose, but it seems that the narrative is better for a spatial idea, just a blink of a starting point, rather than a resource to be referenced at every point of a project.

Second point, and maybe more importantly: Subtlety of expression. We talked about grand gestures, dramatic architecture (soap opera architecture?), epictecture, iconic architecture, whatever you might call it, and how these are all and great in themselves, but they are singular instances: they don't talk about repeatability, appropriatability (not a word), the ability for architecture to act not as an autonomous object, but rather as a prototype for future architecture. Precedence, perhaps. Isn't this what modern architecture has always been about? Setting precedence? Selling lifestyles? This is like MoMA propaganda which has happened (and still is) during the 20th century.

Repetition: This word makes me think about columns, windows, beams, levels, rooms, houses, grids. The effects of repetition include affirmation, a reinforcement of the idea that "this is what x thing is". Other effects may include inducing an idea of line, or run in multiple axes, a grid of sorts, or perhaps a banality of an element, where that element, becoming common, falls into the backdrop and becomes ground. Repetition reduces in the sense that it removes meaning from the object, allowing the meaning of the collection to be expressed.

Uniqueness: This word makes me think about objects, symbols, identities, the self, individuality, autonomy, statements with a period, punchline/headline, the ego. A unique object is the figure that stands out against the ground. It is meant to be understood. We talked about ethics, what role do these objects play in culture. Are they to be repeated? Are they to be used as models to be projected into the future? As architects we have to ask these questions. What happens in a culture without points of interest?

One train of thought comes in the words of Umberto Eco, from Places to Non-Places. These points marginalize everything around them by transforming the spaces in between these unique identities into circulation space: roads and sidewalks, not fit for rest, without pause.

Thus it is the responsibility of architecture to understand it's own desires of fame and fortune, the ascent from man-being into god-form, and that this ego may not be in the spirit of the community. The architecture exists first for itself, and second for the people it houses. It presupposes its own value over the value of those which it is built for.

This raises the question of Benin: what is the ethical responsibility of this school? Is this place being built to fulfill my own desires? Or is this place in the background to something. Architecture, as Tschumi stated, is the ground to the figure of living. Therefore, we should be thinking about what we need for living, and let those forms happen of their own accord.

That sounds nice.