In
modernity there can be no such thing as an integrated identity; reason cannot
guarantee an actual balance of inner and outer being. Architecture should be like a tree, which, although it
has its own internal growth mechanisms, is shaped and formed by the context of
available light, space, nutrients and airflow.
Modern architecture can embody enlightened social policy, or
practically demonstrated that it can provide physical comfort, even in a harsh
natural environment. Architecture expresses
quotidian reality; it must provide comfort, reassure its inhabitants, and
satisfy their vision of the world or at least that part of the world they call
home. The model of designing seems not one of adoption of
the freedom of technology but one of resistance, of finding the inner animal
through constraint.
While succumbing to ordered life imposed by the rationalist grid,
freedom is experienced in the boundless jungle of communications technologies. Ornament masks the authenticity
and integrity of materials; in the modern world, their naked beauty should
suffice.
--
Bell, D. “The irritation of architecture”, Journal of architectural education 64,
no. 2, (2011): 113 – 126.
Jakovich, J. Ito, T. “The animal inside us: freedom and restraint clash, twist and form anew when Toyo Ito sketches for Joanne Jakovich”, Architecture Australia 98, no. 3, (2009): 21 - 23.
Mellins, T. “Up top: Scandinavian modernist architectural identity is not so monolithic”, Architectural record 189, no. 7, (2001): 77 – 80.
Articles found via Avery Index of Architecture Periodicals
No comments:
Post a Comment