_architecture depends on the orthogonality of lines, but even the orthogonality of intention, creativity, and intuition…
This is a very interesting statement which I would like to here some other opinions on. I feel that we are not bound by linearity in our creative thought process but more it is how we are trained to think from a young age, and how we are further trained in architecture schooling. It everything lines up, it will look better! Again, thinking out of this linearly composed ‘box’ is not normal and requires lots of training and rigorous study in alternative methods of thinking.
_pure geometrical ideality is “released from all sensible or imaginative intuitiveness.” Imagination is responsible for the “pure morphological type” and it “can transform sensible shapes only into other sensible shapes.”
I feel that this way of thinking is very much instilled in the minds of architects, and for that matter, everyone in our human society because of things like maps, gps, and our ability to schedule out every minute of every day. We attach to this idea of geometrical ideality and when combined with Cartesian intellectualism, we gravitate to know where, and when we are at any given time.
_pure geometry as an intellectual act…Once pure geometry becomes possible it is accessible only to the understanding of Cartesian intellectualism…
Refer to above statement…
_how can our understanding of the line and the idea of a line shift, if we are constantly bound by its nature of linearity…we cannot understand it because as soon as we try to veer off the path of the line, we return back to its natural linearity.
This was one of those confusing sections that took a while to grasp and still poses one of those great rhetorical statements that brings about endless thoughts and conversation and will eventually lead no where. Still though, it is very compelling.
_“...cicatrize (la) has multiple associations with the imposing of human pattern upon the disorder of nature: chunks of wood, the human face, and the forest are all ‘opened’ like the human eye, allowing the inner quality of the substance to shine forth.”
This was a great quote and provided a great visual to associate with this section of the reading. How would our society be different if we expressed our linearity by carving into our faces to express our methods of linearity.
_child using architectural prop to be suspended in space to see themselves in a mirror…
This is an interesting idea and one that could be used to tectonically explain structural expressiveness in architecture…we always feel the need to see the supporting elements, or at least have some idea of how something is held up…this may be why we feel uneasy with some modern examples when things like brick are hovering over glass, etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
In reference to the comment on architectural education and its influence on linear thought..
Not all architectural education system are in fact based on linear thinking. Two of the most fundamental types of architectural education systems are the traditional Besux Art school and the more contemporary Balhaus school. Although linearity in education is but relatively descriptive, there still lies fundamental differences between different approaches to architectural education.
Our interpretation of the education that we have received is (unfortunately) substantiated by the specific education itself. We become either receptive or not.
The Ecole de Beaux Arts I believe did have underlying principles of linearity. There goal was to create such a legible plan, that one could progress through it without even thinking. Although the plans were rarely actually linear, ideas of progression remain. This innate ability of the architecture to imply movement through the use of these architectural elements has always fascinated me.
Post a Comment