third november essay
Ordering, Meaning, and Distinction
architecture topics
The issue of architectural order is overlaid by the more general issues of created significance. Formal configuration, like any ordering, is a product of conscious action; effecting the intelligible perception of, and affected by the intelligible potential of, the material world. Any attempt to penetrate the nature of order is equally an attempt to reach the foundations by which that structure is a reflection of our understanding of reality. Immediately we find ourselves facing the question of the grounding of our sensual-mental experience, and the problem of its reference - that which our understanding directs us to, directly or by implication.
The discipline of architecture, its geometrical and formal dimensions, rests secure in the belief that its existence is justified by being a fundamental derivative of human nature. But this security is not an a priori condition. It is necessary for architecture to forever earn it through an ongoing effort of self-questioning and self-definition. Architecture cannot take itself for granted but must continuously defend itself against the forces of an everchanging situation. As an independent participant in the general culture it faces the same consuming forces as all of the arts. Its prosaic aspect places it in a more precarious position vis-a-vis any powers actively working to reduce its significance. The topic of order is a subset of the more general human desire for meaning and orientation within the threatening chaos and otherness within which we live.[1]
A primary question which needs to be asked of any discipline is whether it is responsible for the creation of its own significance, or is it dependent on another body of understanding for this. A discipline which relies on outward authority for its meaning does not possess the integration necessary to stand as a fundamental means of exploring and relating to the world. Such a reliance effectively reduces the discipline and its output becomes dominated by a mercantilized character. As articles produced under extrinsic constraints, its products possess a relatively weak value in and of themselves. Instead, they are valued as objects of utility, as currency for trade, as sites of economic investment and speculation, and so on. Just as they obtain their guarantee from an external source, they are chiefly valued for reasons outside of their inherent character. In such a situation, they cannot constitute the material part of a living project. Nor can the discipline of their production be constituted by the processes implicit in its own subject matter and their interaction with the ever changing world which comprises its context.
If architecture is to assert its position as a fundamental human activity, it must understand itself as a body of knowledge in its own right. It must resist its own reduction by other forces; whether these forces are seemingly friend or enemy. The increasing domination of architecture by the mercantile, the utilitarian, the economic, and the technical is no more threatening than its confusion with writing, painting, sociology, psychology and other such bodies. This is not to say that architecture does not share much with all of these. In its operation and theoretical awareness, it deals with similar issues in parallel ways. Even the language it uses parallels that of many other disciplines. But this is not surprising. All human endeavour shares the human condition, and all thought begins in the same place.
Thought, no less than architecture, requires an order, a structure of interrelations which informs itself and is what we term 'meaning.' Fundamental concepts operate across all disciplines and philosophical questions concerning metaphysics, ontology and epistemology impact every mode of understanding and expression. But this does not mean that architecture is equal to any other mode of understanding or expression. Rather, it exists as a process which parallels the efforts of writing, poetry, philosophy, mathematics, physics, sociology, and other such bodies. When it looks to any of these external discourses to explain or justify its theory, its operation, or its designs, then it becomes removed from the inherent set of issues which ground them all. It becomes removed from the condition of life and suffers a profound loss of integrity.
[1] It is important to note that this chaos and otherness is not fully constituted by the natural world, but is equally represented by the creations of human culture; be they objects, concepts, systems, or institutions.
architecture topics
The issue of architectural order is overlaid by the more general issues of created significance. Formal configuration, like any ordering, is a product of conscious action; effecting the intelligible perception of, and affected by the intelligible potential of, the material world. Any attempt to penetrate the nature of order is equally an attempt to reach the foundations by which that structure is a reflection of our understanding of reality. Immediately we find ourselves facing the question of the grounding of our sensual-mental experience, and the problem of its reference - that which our understanding directs us to, directly or by implication.
The discipline of architecture, its geometrical and formal dimensions, rests secure in the belief that its existence is justified by being a fundamental derivative of human nature. But this security is not an a priori condition. It is necessary for architecture to forever earn it through an ongoing effort of self-questioning and self-definition. Architecture cannot take itself for granted but must continuously defend itself against the forces of an everchanging situation. As an independent participant in the general culture it faces the same consuming forces as all of the arts. Its prosaic aspect places it in a more precarious position vis-a-vis any powers actively working to reduce its significance. The topic of order is a subset of the more general human desire for meaning and orientation within the threatening chaos and otherness within which we live.[1]
A primary question which needs to be asked of any discipline is whether it is responsible for the creation of its own significance, or is it dependent on another body of understanding for this. A discipline which relies on outward authority for its meaning does not possess the integration necessary to stand as a fundamental means of exploring and relating to the world. Such a reliance effectively reduces the discipline and its output becomes dominated by a mercantilized character. As articles produced under extrinsic constraints, its products possess a relatively weak value in and of themselves. Instead, they are valued as objects of utility, as currency for trade, as sites of economic investment and speculation, and so on. Just as they obtain their guarantee from an external source, they are chiefly valued for reasons outside of their inherent character. In such a situation, they cannot constitute the material part of a living project. Nor can the discipline of their production be constituted by the processes implicit in its own subject matter and their interaction with the ever changing world which comprises its context.
If architecture is to assert its position as a fundamental human activity, it must understand itself as a body of knowledge in its own right. It must resist its own reduction by other forces; whether these forces are seemingly friend or enemy. The increasing domination of architecture by the mercantile, the utilitarian, the economic, and the technical is no more threatening than its confusion with writing, painting, sociology, psychology and other such bodies. This is not to say that architecture does not share much with all of these. In its operation and theoretical awareness, it deals with similar issues in parallel ways. Even the language it uses parallels that of many other disciplines. But this is not surprising. All human endeavour shares the human condition, and all thought begins in the same place.
Thought, no less than architecture, requires an order, a structure of interrelations which informs itself and is what we term 'meaning.' Fundamental concepts operate across all disciplines and philosophical questions concerning metaphysics, ontology and epistemology impact every mode of understanding and expression. But this does not mean that architecture is equal to any other mode of understanding or expression. Rather, it exists as a process which parallels the efforts of writing, poetry, philosophy, mathematics, physics, sociology, and other such bodies. When it looks to any of these external discourses to explain or justify its theory, its operation, or its designs, then it becomes removed from the inherent set of issues which ground them all. It becomes removed from the condition of life and suffers a profound loss of integrity.
[1] It is important to note that this chaos and otherness is not fully constituted by the natural world, but is equally represented by the creations of human culture; be they objects, concepts, systems, or institutions.
posted by haro d' aires at 12:15 a.m.
1 Comments:
Your article reveals the marginalization architecture has suffered at the hands of such outward authorities as mentioned. But there may be yet another, specifically psychological dimension, which permits or inhibits the experience and production of architecture as a body of knowledge in its own right. The disassociation of the biologic nature of the human organism from that of cultural production retards the necessary growth and maturation required for an orientation that is not merely a product of the machinations of the extrinsic authorites, but rather a development of fundamental insights into the operation of the universe and our role in its unfolding.
Post a Comment
<< Home