Singular Objects, Architecture and Philosophy
Jean Baudrillard and Jean Nouvel Ed
Fondo de Cultura Economica, Buenos Aires 2001
Metamorphosis
architecture Jean Nouvel:
The architecture is a fairly easy thing and I can explain. One of the key things for me is to consider that there was a complete change of direction of architecture in this century, to the extent that the architecture was to initial goal to build the artificial world in which they lived. All this was done quite simply: there was a self-knowing, of course, had recipes. The Vitruvian is a cookbook which tells you exactly how you construct a building, the number of columns, proportions, and the academic is to improve a bit the use of ingredients. It also said how to make the cities we were serving in various kinds, recipes were provided to urban art. And then, suddenly, people left the land, know well that were lost, everyone came to the cities, the cities exploded, we tried to maintain a number of rules generally based on planning. They exploded in turn, one after another.
We live in a big-bang kind of urban, and we have the inability to use the previous recipes. What is the order of the previous recipes, put another way, the architecture, it becomes absolutely stupid. From the moment you integrate a structural model in this system, it becomes absurd. So in that sense I am against all that is about architecture. That means that from that moment one enters another strategy, which is bound to be a little smarter, if possible, forced to make a diagnosis at a time, forced to consider that architecture is no longer inventing a world, it exists merely in relation to a bed on the planet geology applied to all cities ...
architecture can have no other purpose than to transform the changes to this matter that has been accumulated. For some this is intolerable; imagine that is a resignation From the moment you hold this speech would be against some ancient culture, which would take one side, in a nutshell, one could have a positive attitude in this framework reflection.
Others go further: they think they are facing a generic city, that goes well and there is nothing to do. I suspect you're pretty much agree with this type of approach, which I can understand. But I still have a remnant of optimism ...
I believe that through small touches, you can have the ethics to return the situation more positive after each intervention. You can try to find every time a kind of pleasure of the place, taking into account things that were not previously considered, which are often the order of chance, and devise strategies for recovery, a poetic situations, assess completely random elements and declaring that it is geography: "It's beautiful. And I'm going to reveal ...".
is an aesthetic revelation, a way of taking a part of the world and say: "I so appropriated and toast to be seen otherwise. "architecture in this century is faced with dimensions that are incommensurable metaphysical. A priori can do nothing against it, is in the same situation as philosophy or science, is in adulthood. We need to invent other strategies. At that moment, in fact, must take into account the size fatal, the diversion
that are going to do, to evaluate a number of possibilities in terms of scenarios, and say that what is going to make is a promise to future not known ... It is the opposite of architecture as it is still taught in schools in nine out of ten. This may seem a contrary attitude to architecture but it is false ... like when you set out a priori that sentence a little harsh: "I support everything that is against the culture."
Jean Baudrillard and Jean Nouvel Ed
Fondo de Cultura Economica, Buenos Aires 2001
Metamorphosis
architecture Jean Nouvel:
The architecture is a fairly easy thing and I can explain. One of the key things for me is to consider that there was a complete change of direction of architecture in this century, to the extent that the architecture was to initial goal to build the artificial world in which they lived. All this was done quite simply: there was a self-knowing, of course, had recipes. The Vitruvian is a cookbook which tells you exactly how you construct a building, the number of columns, proportions, and the academic is to improve a bit the use of ingredients. It also said how to make the cities we were serving in various kinds, recipes were provided to urban art. And then, suddenly, people left the land, know well that were lost, everyone came to the cities, the cities exploded, we tried to maintain a number of rules generally based on planning. They exploded in turn, one after another.
We live in a big-bang kind of urban, and we have the inability to use the previous recipes. What is the order of the previous recipes, put another way, the architecture, it becomes absolutely stupid. From the moment you integrate a structural model in this system, it becomes absurd. So in that sense I am against all that is about architecture. That means that from that moment one enters another strategy, which is bound to be a little smarter, if possible, forced to make a diagnosis at a time, forced to consider that architecture is no longer inventing a world, it exists merely in relation to a bed on the planet geology applied to all cities ...
architecture can have no other purpose than to transform the changes to this matter that has been accumulated. For some this is intolerable; imagine that is a resignation From the moment you hold this speech would be against some ancient culture, which would take one side, in a nutshell, one could have a positive attitude in this framework reflection.
Others go further: they think they are facing a generic city, that goes well and there is nothing to do. I suspect you're pretty much agree with this type of approach, which I can understand. But I still have a remnant of optimism ...
I believe that through small touches, you can have the ethics to return the situation more positive after each intervention. You can try to find every time a kind of pleasure of the place, taking into account things that were not previously considered, which are often the order of chance, and devise strategies for recovery, a poetic situations, assess completely random elements and declaring that it is geography: "It's beautiful. And I'm going to reveal ...".
is an aesthetic revelation, a way of taking a part of the world and say: "I so appropriated and toast to be seen otherwise. "architecture in this century is faced with dimensions that are incommensurable metaphysical. A priori can do nothing against it, is in the same situation as philosophy or science, is in adulthood. We need to invent other strategies. At that moment, in fact, must take into account the size fatal, the diversion
that are going to do, to evaluate a number of possibilities in terms of scenarios, and say that what is going to make is a promise to future not known ... It is the opposite of architecture as it is still taught in schools in nine out of ten. This may seem a contrary attitude to architecture but it is false ... like when you set out a priori that sentence a little harsh: "I support everything that is against the culture."
0 comments:
Post a Comment