Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 12:03am
Many times, we, from the educational side of the architectural human realm see the world with a rather utopian mindset with certain predetermined/conditioned idiosyncrasies that are hard to match by the mass and or the public. Yet with these mindsets do we aim to push the whole architectural paradigm forward in reference to those that precedes us. It is quintessential that we do realize our predilection for the so called, “capital A - Architecture.”
We were taught of the ideals and how things should work but never were we really emphasized upon the fact that what we learned from our professors and other academic-based personnels do left out a massive number of factors that influence the intra-relationship between man and his architecture. Man’s relationship with his architecture takes into account not only how he uses the built-form by its physical functions, but other aspects that need-be viewed with a precedence that we perceive architecture as a living form of art/science; not a built form of supposed-permanence but that grows with its users. From such perspective, do we see the sentimentality of architecture to man; the memories that are superimposed or experienced with the architecture, the cultural synergy between the two parties and much more.
On a personal visit to the Northern regions of Thailand, specifically Chiangmai and Chiangrai, one could encounter the relevance of the architecture of functionality versus the capital A - Architecture of religious or political iconicity. The architecture of man that relates to him in his daily life as living nodes that house various activities on a personal level, while the latter proposes the vast juxtaposition of scale that superimposes his self-worth upon larger notions, as communal, to that compares him to the whole social hierarchy that surrounds him, that in turn shaped his identity and ultimately, his life. The two extremes lay the parameters by which he shall or could engage his life in the socially expected way, where one interacts with another on a venue, a space. The space here then needs to be clarified as any expanse of area or dimension on a physically employable state where man can interact. (this definition is to ultimately block out the inter-dimensional and other technological or spiritual network infrastructures that offer infinite possibilities of spatial relationships of man) With such definition, architecture’s job is then to provide a venue by which man could interact or the negative of that where architecture creates the non-space or the in-between negative spaces to become another level of useable space, what I understand as the space of the negative, landscaping and urban-scaping. This type of space are conventionally called plazas or squares.
We are familiar with architecture and these urban venues of plazas and squares, but what I personally question at this moment in time, is not the architecture nor its in-between — plazas, but the in-between of these nodes over again. These may be anywhere from urban infrastructures to transit system or whatever it is that connects people to the spaces that hold their daily live activities. I wonder how much do we as architects understand the transitional qualities of the in-between.
____
On another thought, as architects, we are taught and expected by architecture professors to educate the public of the ideal and how architecture should be a part of their lives. Yet i wonder, “who the hell are we to do so?” Yes we are capable of understanding architecture and her qualities more than others do, but is architecture only as important as what it was meant to be
----
These are just random thoughts... need to be developed.. :P
No comments:
Post a Comment