Let me start this new post, assuming that Mies Baukunst und Zeitwille! writes: "Architecture is always the will of an epoch (Zeitwille) translated into space." He introduces two key elements: the will and the space, defining the latter as a result of the will of an era, indeed. The living space varies depending on the era, with the company, representing the vision, the mental space. For millennia architectural space was based on an idea archetypal, with variable elements in the surface but not in substance, well defined, elements such as doors, windows, walls and even the same type of architecture, as we found in classroom in the implementation of the chart. Thus, the identification of an architecture whose form typology was established a priori and is characterized by continuity and closure (in a symbiotic relationship between building and city that followed the famous formula 'the organization of the city must reflect that of the house ', and vice versa) expresses very well what Mies van der Rohe as indicated Zeitwille . The industrial architecture already put these classic types respond in a crisis, an antithetical, with the strength of the new architecture. Even today, computer architecture, although it is still in its infancy, has already produced significant changes, found chiefly in the projects of the avant-garde architects.
When Peter Eisenman, who besides being an architect "builder" is also an architect, "theoretical," says that "windows, doors, beams and columns are a way to inscribe the space," he continues explaining this conception, "they make the architecture an obvious fact, strengthening the vision. Since there are not inscribed spaces, we can not look to a window without putting it in connection with the idea of \u200b\u200bthe window." In his description of how to organize the space, Eisenman combines the one that probably could be defined as the "window" with the information denoted by the window. But, what happens to this information - the "window" for instance - in our era, the era of information revolution, in which information is born in a world which by its nature is computerized? It is certainly a paradigm shift, well played, moreover, by Zaha Hadid when a need to operate by subtracting "those family information that otherwise would allow residents to fall in the usual behavior," or of using them a whole new convection compared to the data which have hitherto assumed value archetype.
To clarify this point a brief excerpt Digital Hadid by Patrik Schumacher, who, on pg. 19, writes:
" The new techniques lead to a new conception of space (space of the magnetic field, particle space, space distorted) and suggest a new orientation, navigation and providing new housing. Dwellers an environment so conceived is not horizontal through the primary forms: Axes, boundaries and clearly defined spaces. Rather, the destribuzione densities, the polarization direction, the distribution of the texture scale, the gradient vector processing are the new ontology that defines what it means to live a space. "
Within these few lines, then it happens a real architectural revolution, which, starting from the use of powerful new tool, developed an unusual architecture.
After all it is perhaps true theory Charles Winick of the City University of New York, that man has a relationship with the television-like a drug addict or alcohol, or who have very serious consequences: in addition to bringing the viewer to a specific point of view, it leads, even to accept the image they are looking at in its entirety. The environment and the objects displayed have been selected by others, the viewer is led to a passive perception. This attitude harmful, probably corresponds to what has been the pre-industrial architecture, which took on a unique point of view, and escapes to the idea of \u200b\u200barchitecture in the last few 50-60 years, an architecture that is - especially digital - in where the means of representation themselves can no longer be the usual ones, but they must be renewed. But as a very clear perhaps not be possible, because this new architecture is knowable only through its being covered, or through living in a space that already Bruno Zevi called "temporalized.
image: bethel, the design of Zaha Hadid for the museum of contemporary art and Mediterranean Nuragic
0 comments:
Post a Comment