It seems to me that we are in agreement on one point: full scale, full scale direct experience of a synaesthetic moment in our projects.
The current discussion is , in a nut shell, a semantic one. regarding the question of what should it be: an actual (what ever that means) "part" of the whole final project,functional/programatic "part" of the whole functional project, a "cube" or "joint". The words "the cube" or the "joint" are the most abstract terms used in the first year of training architecture students to mean intended to mean the "smalest unit of analysis of architectural experience". They differ in emphasis in that the first "the cube" stresses space and the second , the "joint" emphasises the way of construction. Ofcourse both are fluid semantically. The word "joint" cant be a moment of construction, but it also can mean a moment in the program, such as a waiting room, a joint beteween movement by car to train, boat or plane. Any terminal is a joint on a transportation diagram. So, Brian part of program or part of construction or part of a spatial sequence on a journay on a landscape or within a building, a "joint" is a "loint" is a "joint".
As long a it containes a synaesthetic experience, the full scale "art/architectural" instalation that does the job is Ok by me whatever you call it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Yes, I agree Dan.
Post a Comment