Architecture is an incessant spectrum of ideas that defy or delineate the preceding or concurrent idea. Whether it is from modern(ism) to postmodern(ism), classical (style) to gothic (style), or eccentric curios(ity) to corporate predictabil(ity), Architecture has gone through flux to diverse ends of extremes throughout history. The existing architecture serves as a catalog of evolution of architectural ideas and intentions to learn from. How does one go about deciding what their architecture is? The struggle to choose only creates limits restrictions and boundaries to which is followed. Instead of selecting one over the other, Architecture should embrace contradictions and overlaps that allows for unlimited possibilities of physical, tectonic manifestations. Architecture ought to be socially, economically, and environmentally a sensible concept of intention.
Kevin, I found the above post very thought provoking. nice. It made me wonder why we categorize and at least attempt to categorize architecture the way that we do. Its almost as though we can look at a building, maybe just from a photo, a drawing, or even just the name of the architect, then slot it into its appropriate categories, and then finally pass judgement on it based on pre-existing bias for or against certain "isms" or styles.
ReplyDeleteOne reason I can think of is that in my opinion architecture is very reactionary to itself.
Often particular styles cannot be understood without the context of the dominant style that directly preceded it. Why is that? I think there may be clues in looking into how architecture is of its time in terms of being a reflection of a societies values, or at least an expression of the dominant mode of thought, thereby ruling out contradictions.