Constructions (Writing Architecture) [John Rajchman, Paul Virilio] on Amazon. com. *FREE* Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App. Rajchman, John. Constructions. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press, (ch “ Grounds”) pp “Ground” is a word like “foundation,” with uses in both. Deleuze takes up the arrow in turn, launching it in a new direction. To actualize the virtual, he says, is not the same as to realize the possible, and it is crucial not .
|Language:||English, Spanish, Hindi|
|Genre:||Fiction & Literature|
|ePub File Size:||20.66 MB|
|PDF File Size:||11.27 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
John Rajchman Constructions - Download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online. Essays exploring he intersection of architecture and Deleuze. Editor), Roger McKeon, John Rajchman (Secretary), Michel Rosenfeld. .. Nietzsche et la philosophie, P.D.F., ; Difference et repetition, P.D.F., ; and Charles: You started from the rhythmic structures that were supposed to. Read story John Rajchman Constructions Pdf Download 2 by canutiri with 1 reads. download. John Rajchman Constructions Pdf Download 2 DOWNLOAD.
Brebbia downloads Views 8MB Size Report This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below! Visit our website for the current list of titles. The WIT electronic-library provides the international scientific community with immediate and permanent access to individual papers presented at WIT conferences. Ali University of Seoul, Korea C.
The increase in change and superficiality also means a weakening of architecture as a form of domination, power, and authority, as it historically has been in the last six thousand years.
Since the Renaissance, architectural theory has always distinguished between structure and ornament, and has set forth the hierarchy between them. But what does this hierarchy mean today, when the structure often remains the same -- an endlessly repetitive and neutralized grid?
In the majority of construction in this country today, structural practice is rigorously similar in concept: a basic frame of wood, steel, or concrete. As noted earlier, the decision whether to construct the frame from any of these materials is often left to the engineers and economists rather than to the architect. The architect is not meant to question structure. The structure must stand firm.
After all, what would happen to insurance premiums and to reputations if the building collapsed? The result is too often a refusal to question structure. The structure must be stable, otherwise the edifice collapses -- the edifice, that is, both the building and the entire edifice of thought. For in comparison to science or philosophy, architecture rarely questions its foundations.
Social critics regularly question the image, yet rarely question the apparatus, the frame. Still, for over a century, and especially in the past twenty years, we have seen the beginning of such questioning. Contemporary philosophy has touched upon this relationship between frame and image -- here the frame is seen as the structure, the armature, and the image as the ornament.
Jacques Derrida's Parergon turns such questioning between frame and image into a theme. From the beginning, the polemics of deconstruction, together with much of post-structuralist thought, interested a small number of architects because it seemed to question the very principles of geborgenheit that the postmodernist mainstream was trying to promote. After all, deconstruction is anti-form, anti-hierarchy, anti-structure, the opposite of all that architecture stands for.
As years went by, the multiple interpretations that multiple architects gave to deconstruction became more multiple than deconstruction's theory of multiple readings could ever have hoped.
For one architect it had to do with dissimulation, for another, with fragmentation; for yet another, with displacement. Any interest in post-structuralist thought and deconstruction stemmed from the fact that they challenged the idea of a single unified set of images, the idea of certainty, and of course, the idea of an identifiable language.
Theoretical architects -- as they were called -- wanted to confront the binary oppostions of traditional architecture: namely form versus function, or abstraction versus figuration. Superimposition became a key device. This can be seen in my own work. In The Manhattan Transcripts or The Screenplays , the devices used in the first episodes were borrowed from film theory and the nouveau roman.
In the Transcripts the distinction between structure or frame , form or space , event or function , body or movement , and fiction or narrative was systematically blurred through superimposition, collision, distortion, fragmentation, and so forth. We find superimposition used quite remarkably in Peter Eisenman's work, where the overlays for his Romeo and Juliet project pushed literary and philosophical parallels to extremes. Much of this work benefited from the environment of the universities and the art scene -- its galleries and publications -- where the crossover among different fields allowed architects to blur the distinctions between genres, constantly questioning the discipline of architecture and its hierarchies of form.
Yet if I was to examine both my own work of this time and that of my colleagues, I would say that both grew out of a critique of architecture, of the nature of architecture.
It dismantled concepts and became a remarkable conceptual tool, but it could not address the one thing that makes the work of architects ultimately different from the work of philosophers: materiality. Just as there is a logic of words or of drawings, there is a logic of materials, and they are not the same. And however much they are subverted, something ultimately resists.
Ceci n'est pas une pipe. A word is not a concrete block. The concept of dog does not bark. Sheetrock columns that do not touch the ground are not structural, they are ornament. Yes, fiction and narrative fascinated many architects, perhaps because, our enemies might say, we knew more about books than about buildings.
Although both stemmed from early interests in linguistics and semiology, the first group saw fiction and narrative as part of the realm of metaphors, of a new architecture parlante, of form, while the second group saw fiction and scenarios as analogues for programs and function. I would like to concentrate on that second view.
Rather than manipulating the formal properties of architecture, we might look into what really happens inside buildings and cities: the function, the program, the properly historical dimension of architecture. Roland Barthes' Structural Analysis of Narratives was fascinating in this respect, for it could be directly transposed both in spatial and programmatic sequence. The same could be said of much of Sergei Eisenstein's theory of film montage.
The Columbia University Rotunda has been a library, it has been used as a banquet hall, it is often the site of university lectures; someday it could fulfill the needs for an athletic facility at the University. What a wonderful swimming pool the Rotunda would be! You may think I'm being facetious, but in today's world where railway stations become museums and churches become nightclubs, a point is being made: the complete interchangeability of form and function, the loss of traditional, canonic cause-and-effect relationships as sanctified by modernism.
Function does not follow form, form does not follow function -- or fiction for that matter -- however, they certainly interact. Diving into this great blue Rotonda pool -- a part of the shock.
If shock can no longer be produced by the succession and juxtaposition of facades and lobbies, maybe it can be produced by the juxtaposition of events that take place behind these facades in these spaces. If architecture is both concept and experience, space and use, structure and superficial image -- non-hierarchically -- then architecture should cease to separate these categories and instead merge them into unprecedented combinations of programs and spaces.
Architecture was seen as the combination of spaces, events, and movements without any hierarchy or precedence among these concepts.
Hence, in works like The Manhattan Transcripts, the definition of architecture could not be form or walls, but had to be the combination of heterogeneous and incompatible terms.
Erecting a barricade function in a Paris street form is not quite equivalent to being a flaneur function in that same street form. Dining function in the Rotunda form is not quite equivalent to reading or swimming in it.
Here all hierarchical relationships between form and function cease to exist. Of course, pragmatism is itself another theory as is the call for no theory at all. But despite its philosophical origins, pragmatism, with its various emphases on experimentation and experience, holds the promise of practical application, of action, of tangible product.
Another signal event, interpreted by some as a death knell for architectural theory, occurred in the year In April, the architectural periodical Assemblage ceased publication with its forty-first issue. Founded fourteen years earlier by editors K.
Perhaps this is best reflected in the text Hays and Kennedy published in the final Assemblage issue: One point needs to be emphatically made one last time.
The end of Assemblage has nothing to do with the end of theory, neither as an editorial intention nor, in our minds, as a historical symptom. Rather, the transitional moment means that theoretical activity achieves a new excitement and urgency.
We hear the antitheoretical rants to be sure, and, oddly enough, coming from deep within the theoretical camp But all this, too, is a problem for theory. A peculiar characteristic of theory is that it must constantly historicize itself.