as technical architecture, where it goes, not invention.
We question him about the possible consequences de su filosofía en la arquitectura: ¿qué supone esta actividad en el ámbito de la deconstrucción?, ¿puede haber cierta síntesis entre arquitectura y pensamiento que supere las limitaciones convencionales?, ¿existe, por expresarlo en sus propios términos, un nuevo pensamiento «arquitectónico»?
Consideremos el problema del pensamiento arquitectónico. Con ello no pretendo plantear la arquitectura como una técnica extraña al pensamiento y apta quizá, entonces, para representarlo en el espacio, para constituir casi su materialización, sino que intento exponer el problema arquitectónico como una posibilidad del pensamiento mismo... Ya que alude a una separación between theory and practice can begin by asking when did this division of labor. I think that at the time of the difference between theoria and praxis, architecture is perceived as a mere technique, thought away. However, there might be a way of thinking, yet undiscovered, that would belong to when designing the architecture, the desire, to the invention.
But if architecture is conceived as a metaphor and therefore always points to the need for materialization of the thought, how to reintroduce the architecture at the thought of a non-metaphorical? Maybe not centering in this realization, but always remaining on the road, in a maze, for example?
Then talk about the maze. Previously, I would like to outline how the philosophical tradition has used the architectural model as a metaphor for a kind of thought that, in itself, can not be architectural. In Descartes we find, for example, the metaphor of the foundations of the city, and it is assumed that such foundations are the ones who have to support themselves to the building, architectural construction, the same city. There is, therefore, a type of urban metaphor in philosophy. The Meditations and the Discourse on Method are full of these metaphors architectural also always have a political significance. When Aristotle wants to give an example of theory and practice, quotes architekton, who knows the origin of things is a theorist who also can teach and he has under his orders to workers who are unable to think independently. Thereby establishing a political hierarchy. The architectural art is defined as a system, as an art, therefore, suitable for the rational organization of the branches of knowledge in its entirety. It is clear that the reference architecture is useful for rhetoric, for language itself has not kept any architectural character. I therefore wonder how it could have been a way of thinking related to the architectural before the separation between theory and practice, between thought and architecture. If each language suggests a specialization-a disposition in a non controllable but only accessible by successive approximations, then it is possible to compare it with a kind of colonization, with the opening of a road. One way not to discover but to be created. And the architecture is not at all affected by this development. Each architectural space, all living space on this premise: that the building is on a road at a crossroads where possible be going out and return. No building no roads leading to it or to boot from it, nor is there any buildings without interior routes without hallways, stairways, corridors and doors. But if the language can not control the accessibility of these paths, those paths that reach the building and leaving it only means that language is involved in these structures, it is on track, "Road to speech [ Unterwegs zur Sprache], Heidegger said, on track to reach to himself. The road is not a method, it should be clear. The method is a technique, a method to gain control of the road and make it viable.
And what would then the way?
again refers to Heidegger, who notes that the road is not so methods and that there is a path that can not be reduced to the method definition. The definition of the road as a method was interpreted by Heidegger as an epoch in the history of philosophy that began in Descartes, Leibniz and Hegel, and hiding the "being way" of the road, plunging into oblivion, while in fact , as "being way" indicates the infinity of thought: thought is always a way. Therefore, if the thought does not rise on the road or if the language of thought or thinking linguistic system are not understood as a meta on way, this means that language is a way and that, therefore, has always had some connection with habitability. And with the architecture. This continued to be on track, the habitability of the way that we do not offer a solution, we are trapped in a maze with no escape, or, more precisely, in a trap, in a deliberate artifice as the labyrinth of Daedalus the speaker Joyce . The issue of architecture is in fact the problem of the place, to take place in space. The establishment of a place that had not previously existed and that he agreed with what will happen there one day: this is a place. As Mallarmé says, ce qui a lieu, c'est lieu him. Absolutely natural. The establishment of a floor is an event. And obviously such a facility is always something technical. Invents something that did not exist, but at the same time there is a citizen, man or God, you want that place, which precedes the invention or the cause. Therefore, no one knows exactly where to place the origin of the place. Perhaps there is a maze, or natural or artificial, within the history of Greco-Western philosophy, which is where we can show the antagonism between nature and technology, and inhabit it. This opposition arises the distinction between the two labyrinths. But back to the place, the spatiality and writing. For some time it has been established something like a deconstructive procedure, an attempt to break free from the oppositions imposed by the history of philosophy, physis / techne, God / man, philosophy / architecture. That is, deconstruction and questions analyzed pairs of concepts that are widely accepted as obvious and natural, it seems as if there had been institutionalized in a moment, as if no history. Because of this naturally acquired such limited opposition thought. Now, the concept of deconstruction is comparable to an architectural metaphor. It is said often develops a negative activity. Anything has been built, a philosophical system, a tradition culture, and then comes a deconstructive and destroys the building stone by stone, analyzes the structure and melts. This often corresponds with the truth. There is a Platonic-Hegelian system, we analyze how it is built, what musical key or hold musical angle to the building, and then one is freed from the authority of the system ... However, I believe that this is not the essence of deconstruction. It is not simply the art of an architect who knows how to deconstruct what has been built, but is an investigation that relates to the technique, the authority of the architectural metaphor, and therefore staff deconstituye architectural rhetoric. Deconstruction is not just as their name would suggest, the technique of a "construction disrupted" because it is able to conceive of itself, the idea of \u200b\u200bconstruction. You could say that there is nothing more architectural and at the same time no less architectural deconstruction. Architectural thinking can only be deconstructive in this sense: as an attempt to perceive that which establishes the authority of the concatenation architectural philosophy. At this point we can return to what binds the deconstruction of writing: its spatiality, the thought of the way, that opening a path that is registering their tracks, not knowing where lead. In this light, it can be said to open a path is a script that can not be attributed either to man or God or animal, it reverts to a very broad sense that exceeds this classification: man / God / animal. Such writing is truly labyrinthine, it has no beginning and end. We are always on the road. The opposition between time and space, between the speech time and space of a temple or a house is meaningless. We live in the writing ... Writing is a way of living. I would like to mention how to write the architect. Since the inception of the orthogonal projection, plan, elevation and section have become basic means of representation of architecture, and transmit turn the principles that define it. The plans of Palladio, Bramante or Scamozzi can read the passage from a theocentric worldview to anthropocentric conception, the way opens cross into squares and rectangles platonic, to finally disintegrate completely. Modernity, meanwhile, stands to criticize the humanistic attitude. La Maison Dom-ino of Le Corbusier is paradigmatic in this regard: a type of construction made by prismatic elements with flat roofs and large windows, articulated in a rational and devoid of ornaments. Architecture, therefore, that no longer represents the man, which in itself says Peter Eisenman-like-it becomes self-referential sign ... But an architecture that explains itself provides information about what is proper. Reflects a fundamentally new relationship between man and object, between home and resident. One possibility to represent this kind of architecture is the axonometric: a guide to the reading of a building that does not presuppose its habitability. I think in this discussion of the architecture about architecture draws a deep critical perspective on the method, even philosophical, and may be related to its deconstruction. If the home that feels like "home ownership" becomes accessible to imitation and unexpectedly comes into reality, then there is a new concept the building, not realization but as a condition of thought. Would
conceivable that the theocentric worldview and anthropocentric, which is added his own "take place" from becoming a new, different network of relationships?
What emerges in this study can be understood as the opening of the architecture, as the beginning of an architecture is not representative. In this context it might be interesting to recall that, in the beginning, the architecture was an art of representation, while painting, drawing and sculpture can always imitate something whose existence is a part. I would remind back to Heidegger, and especially "The origin of the artwork [in Holzwege], where reference is made to Riß (stroke, depression). Is this an IDS to be considered in the original sense, regardless of certain changes as Grundrisse (flat floor), Aufriß (sum) or Skizze (esquicio, sketch). In the architecture is an imitation of Riß, engraving, creasing action. This has to associate with writing. This gives rise to the attempt by modern and postmodern architecture to create a different way of life, which departs from the old conventions, where the project does not seek domination and control of communications, economics and transport etc. Is emerging a whole new relationship between flat-drawing-and-space architecture. The problem of the relationship has always been central. To speak of the impossibility of absolute objectivity, let's go from the maze to the tower of Babel. There also must conquer the sky in an act of eponymous act which remains inextricably tied to language. One race, the Semites, whose name means a name, a race, then called a name [Sem, his eponymous] - wants to build a tower to reach heaven, "it is written," achieving a name ' . This conquest of the skies, that achievement of an observation point [rosh: head, chief, top] means giving a name, and with this greatness, the greatness the name of the superiority of a metalanguage, aims to dominate the other strains, the other languages: colonize. But God descends from heaven and destroys the company saying a word: Babel. And that word is a name similar to a voice that means confusion [of balal, confused], and it condemns men to the multiplicity of languages. They must give up a draft domain with a universal language. The fact that intervention in the architecture, construction, and it also implies a deconstruction represents the failure or limitation in a universal language to disrupt the plan of a political and linguistic domination of the world, reports including the inability to master the multiplicity of languages. It is impossible the existence of a universal translation. It also means that construction will always be labyrinthine architecture. It is not surrender a point of view in favor of another, which would be the one and all, but considering the multiplicity of possible viewpoints. If the tower of Babel had been completed, there would be no architecture. Only the inability to finish made it possible for the architecture and many other languages \u200b\u200bhave a history. This story should always be understood in relation to a divine being is finite. Perhaps one of the characteristics of postmodern power is taken into account this failure. If modernism is characterized by striving for total control, the postmodern movement could be the realization or experience of its end, the end of the project of domination. Then the postmodern movement could develop a new relationship with the divine, no longer would be manifest in traditional forms of Greek deities, Christian or other, but still indicate the conditions for architectural thinking. Perhaps there is no architectural thinking, but if I had to have one, can only be expressed with the dimensions of the high, the supreme and the sublime. Seen thus, the architecture is not a question of space, but the ultimate experience would not be superior but somewhat older than the space and, therefore, is a spatialization of time.
Could this specialization conceived as a postmodern conception of a process that involves the subject in their machines so that no longer recognize it? How can this be understood as if it involves technical and conquest, domination?
Everything we've discussed thus far calls attention to the issue of doctrine, and it can only be in a political context. For example, how is it possible to develop a new inventive faculty to allow the architect to use the possibilities of the new technology, therefore, aim at a uniformity, without attempting to develop models for everybody, how can a capacity for invention architectural difference, that is, capable of generating a new type of multiplicity, with other limits, with different heterogeneities, without being reduced to a technique bakery? At the College International de Philosophie has become a seminar in which we work together philosophers and architects, as it seems evident that the programming must also be an architect. The College can not find your site if not find a place, an appropriate architectural form that wants to be thought. The College must be habitable in a way that distinguishes it significantly from the university. So far there is no building for the College. It takes a space here, a room there, but as architecture, the College does not yet exist and perhaps never existed. There is a desire to report in other ways. The desire for a new place, a few galleries, some runners, a new way of living and thinking. This is a promise. And if I said that the College does not yet exist as architecture, this means that there may not even necessary to achieve community, and for that reason not set the place. A community must take the pledge and strive to achieve an architectural thinking. Draw a new relationship between the singular and multiple, between the original and the copy. Consider, for example in China and Japan where the temples are built of wood, and are completely renewed periodically without the originality is lost, and that his corporeal remains sensitive but very different. This is also Babel: the multiplicity of the architectural relationships between one culture and another. Knowing that there is room for a promise, but then does not arise in its visible form. Places where the desire to recognize itself in which to live. Jacques Derrida
February 1986
0 comments:
Post a Comment