The more territorialised we become, the fewer options we have, a car will not give way to a pedestrian on a road "this is a road, it is for cars", so if something were to have multiple uses; be less territorialised there are more possibilities (at every scale) it is as simple as that?
Below is a video of a shared space sceme in ashford kent, which does this.
Showing posts with label territory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label territory. Show all posts
Monday, 19 October 2009
Territories
Hey Guys,
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?
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?
Thursday, 8 October 2009
Peacock
This video i thought shows what i am getting at; This is how we exist in the world as individuals, suspended in fictionalisations or territories. what is interesting (i think) is what happens when we begin to remove (de-territorialise) each feather one at a time? where does this leave us with eugenics? after all it is strictly speaking re-territorialisation could we begin to mutate?
Territories
This is an extract from my note book, i've been reading Capitalism and schizophrenia, it sounds stupid but it is life changing stuff. i'm not sleeping.
Territorialisation
The above picture is by Agnes Martin, who described her paintings as being beyond form and void, i got slightly obsessed by them in first year. I think attracted me to them was VOID though, they made me feel somewhat protected by their regularity and repetition (Habit, Habitat). Like i was getting at with territories, territorialised in the chaos of the world, but it gets to a point where this becomes limiting abit like the images superstudio used to produce: THIS IS A VOID
The structure of language (anyone interested i have some links), culture, society, religion and the physical city controls the amount possibilities and type of (statistically i guess is a good way of putting it)of self identity we offer ourselves and to the rest of the world... physical movement... (i remember our first project in the first year and see much more relevence to it now, what clothes we wear, the watch, the shoes, the colours, the music the tv programs; they all props to help fictionalise ourselves) things are not interelated but categorised, easily quantified/ falsified and graded according to the orders needs. its an implicit relationship with a man made machine (there is no alternative...).
De-territorialisation
The above picture is by Brice Marden and as with the other pictures i am using it as a tool to explain my point.
Interrelating territories (Chaos); physical space (parkour, flash mobs, journey as destination) and conceptual space (death of god, virtual realms, mobile communication). Ungrammatical Language (something William Burroughs used to harp on about intend to BLOG on that later), maybe if technology could become conscious we could approach this type of structure... i know it is romantic to think about communicating with plants... but actually why not? this is what this type of structure alludes to? would man made conscious machines only achive human consciousness? (that would be abit pointless?)
Territorialisation
The above picture is by Agnes Martin, who described her paintings as being beyond form and void, i got slightly obsessed by them in first year. I think attracted me to them was VOID though, they made me feel somewhat protected by their regularity and repetition (Habit, Habitat). Like i was getting at with territories, territorialised in the chaos of the world, but it gets to a point where this becomes limiting abit like the images superstudio used to produce: THIS IS A VOID
The structure of language (anyone interested i have some links), culture, society, religion and the physical city controls the amount possibilities and type of (statistically i guess is a good way of putting it)of self identity we offer ourselves and to the rest of the world... physical movement... (i remember our first project in the first year and see much more relevence to it now, what clothes we wear, the watch, the shoes, the colours, the music the tv programs; they all props to help fictionalise ourselves) things are not interelated but categorised, easily quantified/ falsified and graded according to the orders needs. its an implicit relationship with a man made machine (there is no alternative...).
De-territorialisation
The above picture is by Brice Marden and as with the other pictures i am using it as a tool to explain my point.
Interrelating territories (Chaos); physical space (parkour, flash mobs, journey as destination) and conceptual space (death of god, virtual realms, mobile communication). Ungrammatical Language (something William Burroughs used to harp on about intend to BLOG on that later), maybe if technology could become conscious we could approach this type of structure... i know it is romantic to think about communicating with plants... but actually why not? this is what this type of structure alludes to? would man made conscious machines only achive human consciousness? (that would be abit pointless?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)