Monday, January 22, 2007
Beauty: Clearly, the processes of the manufacturing/modularization industries will and should infiltrate the process of architecture. The close relationship between Corbusier's predictions/aesthetics and the current potential of fabrication is evident, but I wonder if the correlation is still necessary or is it limiting. Shouldn't the era of fabrication move beyond modernity and develop a "high-art, low-cost" aesthetic of its own?
Site: The very nature of car, airplane, ship is transience, an architecture without site. Until now the very nature of architecture is permanence, sometimes to its own detriment ("temporary" low-cost structures). In order to contemplate fabrication do we than define our future as transient? can we live/learn in a constant state of change, should architecture be able to be adjustable/malleable in all cases? Will the transient or temporary propel or stifle our desire for a high-art/low-cost solution?
Site: The very nature of car, airplane, ship is transience, an architecture without site. Until now the very nature of architecture is permanence, sometimes to its own detriment ("temporary" low-cost structures). In order to contemplate fabrication do we than define our future as transient? can we live/learn in a constant state of change, should architecture be able to be adjustable/malleable in all cases? Will the transient or temporary propel or stifle our desire for a high-art/low-cost solution?
# posted by Anonymous : 9:44 AM
