Reimagining architectural audiences
You might be thinking then; what does it mean to reimagine the audiences of architecture?
My first feeling is that there is a consumerist logic to it. Meaning, there is a product, and an audience for it. Instead I would like to think of the audience as the inhabiting body, that circulates within. We are still in a problematic relationship, since the audience might not be experiencing an architecture, a space or a structure. We have to conclude that audience sits very close to spectatorship, and therefore eyes consume an architecture, space or a structure visually. It is roughly speaking, a consumption of data for the creation of new sensibilities, or expansion of awareness. Your environment is in fact designed, regulated and administered, which might not sound like a novelty, but the fact that you might be able to intervene opens new avenues of action, and creativity.
This act of opening up is what addresses the idea of imagination, and is subsequent reimagination. For so we need a present situation (now) and a projected (near) future. It is a projective activity that reworks the existing critically...and ups! I have accidentally dropped the word critical. I will define this word as the ability of the analysis of the existing (performed by individual(s) to perform changes that are perceived and thought to be for the better. This I cannot further explain here, so I will continue with architecture.
Architecture meaning, the inhabitation or use of space and the implications steaming from this use. This again I cannot explain further here.
There is one primordial factor missing here, which underlays my thinking and the posing of this question. (1) Is that this audience has the potential of becoming a participant in the creation and the establishing of this sensitivity. (2) Is that these transformations, when I talk audience, imply a sense of collectivity. I would love to delve into the differences between a Collective and a Multitude. But I would set for Collective for now. (3) Is that this permutating mode of sensitivity, means that it gets altered by the collective action of its components (i.e. individuals). This permutation of the self through collective means is what I would call subjectivation, which is by no means my thinking (refer to Deleuze or Virno or any writer that deals with psychoanalysis). (4) Last but not least, the implementation of a space that allows for these readings to evolve, means that if the location of this space manages to gather people from different backgrounds, and perspectives, the space widening its user base, the audience would not be only the architect, the scholar, the historian, but rather the pedestrian. What would happen then if these subjects face each other, for the creation of new discursive modes, or paths of exploration, on a collective mode?
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario