Talking about territories i felt the need to move on slightly and try and make it a little more expicitly relevant to architecture even though with each explaination i feel like it is loosing the essence of what it could mean. it is about people not buildings.
Territories are a product of consciousness. Of our own absurd existance. We become aware that we live in a world, where we have no consequence whatsoever. that we are heading nonchalantly towards death, with no meaning and no purpose.
Now this is either an infinate resource to draw upon or it is a crushing acceptance of death, which in turn calls us to choose between hope or suicide.
Throughout history we have chosen to give ourselves hope by choosing to transcend this life on the premise of eternal life.
We create god in the image of ourselves who in turn creates man. and it is from this point of perceptual saliency (that man is above all other things) that we move forward.
We confine and order space by means of territorialisation to provide meaning for our existence.
architecture can and has become the embodiment of this state of stability, order and permanence as a product of our cultured'perception of the world around us. it becomes the ultimate absurdity.
i'm not saying the world is shit, i am asking just as before we could not accept our absurd existence.... i am asking can we live in a world so limited?
"A SUDDEN SHIFT IN THOUGHT BRINGS BACK INTO THE WORLD A SORT OF FRAGMENTARY IMMANENCE WHICH RESTORES TO THE UNIVERSE ITS DEPTH". (CAMUS)
I'm asking should we question the role of culture in architecture and vice versa? should architecture take a more collaborative approach to culture rather than being a product of it?
No comments:
Post a Comment