On architecture...
I have a dilemma.
Some artists advocate the elimination of the subject and the individual in their art, claiming to be completely objective. Asking for a more anthropocentric art. (The elimination of the author, the inclusion of the user)
In the realm of architecture this translates to the detachment of the authors from their work, creating impersonal, non-experiential, non-sensual pieces of work, that somehow neglect the senses and the creation of and atmosphere when using culturally charged strategies (such as pink for feminine, or concrete for masculinity).
We can argue that this treatment of architecture, at first, as an object, and secondly as a piece to be experienced, stands on the side of materialism. On the other hand, simplification and clarity produce a generic architecture, as any universally-intended discourse, all-applicable discourse, regardless of the context and the specific situation does. Still, it seems to be valid to say that denies materiality, shifting the attention from the architectural object, to the capability of the users to interact.
In this case, if the focus is on human interaction, collaboration and the sharing of information, we only need an architecture of conditions and triggers, that allow all this social relationships to be staged, forgetting about the material qualities of the surroundings and focusing on the structure of the enabling platforms.
In an architecture of activities and programmatic anarchy, building flexible systems that accommodate all this activities, if there are any, seems problematic. The more the architect defines the space, the more it limits it multiplicity. If the architects role is to put order, how can we create a flexible architecture that can accommodate human imagination, within this established(designed) structures?
Energy and the supply of the basic commodities also becomes a problem, as everything needs to become available but non obtrusive.
Its sounds very much like functional-slum like-organically generated-amateurish-like-architecture. Its sounds like anarchy, with a changing aesthetic. Something uncontrollable. And probably the aesthetic experience its not a concern , but a mere consequence of the process of creation.
It also sounds incredibly public, undermining privacy and intimacy, highlighting theatricality and the supremacy of the public being(the one different from the private one, if there is something as such).
So if the shift is from the specific aesthetic experience, to the purely human action, what is the place for contemplation, and the nature of things? Which is the place for intimacy? Could we call this anthropobsessive? The constant prise of individuality?
30 de marzo de 2013
25 de marzo de 2013
It feels like we've been forced into the internet, as we have lost any kind of quality public space.
The difference is that now our words are recorded, and we no longer own our own speech.
The privatization of space, is the privatization of space, but not the ownership of our actions, whereas the internet it is.
In this polite stealing of content-life-time, i feel less and less compelled to write anything here. Anymore. I don't own it anymore, I never have.
It's literally crazy, it's as if someone placed a recorder in front of your mouth and then sold the tapes to the passers by.
I feel I am being digitally raped.
I am considering to stop posting. Or find an alternative where I can start posting my soul-mind, and it remains so.
~
The difference is that now our words are recorded, and we no longer own our own speech.
The privatization of space, is the privatization of space, but not the ownership of our actions, whereas the internet it is.
In this polite stealing of content-life-time, i feel less and less compelled to write anything here. Anymore. I don't own it anymore, I never have.
It's literally crazy, it's as if someone placed a recorder in front of your mouth and then sold the tapes to the passers by.
I feel I am being digitally raped.
I am considering to stop posting. Or find an alternative where I can start posting my soul-mind, and it remains so.
~
24 de marzo de 2013
19 de marzo de 2013
Today my second dinner menu IS so lavish that I am going to share it with u all:
As a starter I had 100g of dried mango slices, straight from Peru.
For the main course I had 150g of £1 discounted hand cooked Smoky Barbecue Kettle chips with reduced fat sweet chilli houmous, caramelised onion humous and sunblushed tomato houmous.
And for my greedy soul, for dessert I am getting ready to have 200g of m&m's sugary excitement.
As a starter I had 100g of dried mango slices, straight from Peru.
For the main course I had 150g of £1 discounted hand cooked Smoky Barbecue Kettle chips with reduced fat sweet chilli houmous, caramelised onion humous and sunblushed tomato houmous.
And for my greedy soul, for dessert I am getting ready to have 200g of m&m's sugary excitement.
17 de marzo de 2013
Today I was in the library and there was this book called, What is Beauty?
I don't have an idea of what Beauty is, but I think I have experienced it. And because we could say we've experienced more than one moment of beauty, and every single moment is a unrepeatable set of circumstances, we could state that theres more than one type of beauty.
I wondered if clarity or transparency could have been a moment of beauty. I remember looking at the eyes of Mads and having this feeling of a dotted line rapidly spanning across a contained void. As if there was nothing left to read. Like complete honesty or sincerity.
Clarity, to me, is also a moment of understanding. In the library, when I put books in order in one shelf and they all look ordered, in line, following their alphanumeric order, theres a moment of harmony as well. And they show that me (the shelveeeeer) understands the sequence. Also the spatiality of the shelve, all books go at the front of it, following a straight line. All similar books are grouped together, for the shake of clarity. And I hope that when someone looks for a book, visually they should be able to have a moment of clarity and understanding, and have no need and to be encouraged to be non-disruptive with that stablished order. Basically, not messing up the whole shelve that has taken me so fucking long to put in order.
Yo may say that the shelve example is over-thought, but I truly believe it is an example of clarity, and perhaps beauty. But again I like the idea of talking about specific cases, instead of taking about Beauty, as a universal, definable concept.
I don't have an idea of what Beauty is, but I think I have experienced it. And because we could say we've experienced more than one moment of beauty, and every single moment is a unrepeatable set of circumstances, we could state that theres more than one type of beauty.
I wondered if clarity or transparency could have been a moment of beauty. I remember looking at the eyes of Mads and having this feeling of a dotted line rapidly spanning across a contained void. As if there was nothing left to read. Like complete honesty or sincerity.
Clarity, to me, is also a moment of understanding. In the library, when I put books in order in one shelf and they all look ordered, in line, following their alphanumeric order, theres a moment of harmony as well. And they show that me (the shelveeeeer) understands the sequence. Also the spatiality of the shelve, all books go at the front of it, following a straight line. All similar books are grouped together, for the shake of clarity. And I hope that when someone looks for a book, visually they should be able to have a moment of clarity and understanding, and have no need and to be encouraged to be non-disruptive with that stablished order. Basically, not messing up the whole shelve that has taken me so fucking long to put in order.
Yo may say that the shelve example is over-thought, but I truly believe it is an example of clarity, and perhaps beauty. But again I like the idea of talking about specific cases, instead of taking about Beauty, as a universal, definable concept.
