Technology, Authenticity and Architectural Ideology

38 – “Involuntary Prisoners of Architecture” – F. Scott

Felicity Scott presents introduces “Exodus” project as an instance from Rem Koolhaas and Elia Zenghelis to explore the relation of architecture and politics. The “Exodus” project marks “not just a continuation of earlier political questioning, but also a theory of its endpoint” (Pg.81). This project is a strategy of changing the urban center to affect the relationship between society and economy. The most interesting thing of this project is that London was divided into two parts – a good and a bad half, with the gradient of desirability giving rise to an urban exodus. It recall me other example – the boundary between U.S and Mexico. There is a high contrast between the two sides of bounding wall. There is high density unban building in Mexico, and low density suburban building in U.S. This imagines present more politics orientation rather than an economy difference. Political strategies drive the architectural intent. The famous Berlin Walls is a symbol of Cold War represented the physical and spatial separation that reflect the confliction of social, economic and ideology. Exodus as those two examples presented “a withdrawal from present, social, economic and spatial relations, one that led to the ruination of a metropolitan capital and its institutions” (Pg. 85). The political refers to the organization of space and time that feed back to the architecture.

Questions:
1. Does Exodus project present a cold war in architectural area?
2. How do we handle with the political and social forces that will affect our design strategy?

 

 

37 – “Toward a Critique of Architectural Ideology” – M. Tafuri

In this article, the author delineates the architectural ideologies from technicality to sociality. Manfredo Tafuri outlines a transfiguration of the social rationality into the architectural layout.

Manfredo Tafuri criticizes the capitalisms affects the architecture and the social structure. “Tafuri understands the metropolis as the general form assumed by the process of technical rationalization and objectification of social relations brought about by the monetary economy” (Pg.4). He disagrees with the architecture as a process rather than an object which renovates the architect’s religion and value. His theory takes ideology as its object and all aesthetic ideologies are equivalent.
The urban plans have been influenced by various ideologies in the author’s viewpoint. “Urban naturalism, the imposition of the picturesque on the city and its architecture, and the emphasis on landscape in artistic ideology, all served to negate the now manifest dichotomy between urban and rural reality to pretend that there was no gap between the valorization of nature and the valorization of the city as a machine for producing new forms of economic accumulation” (Pg.8). This movement became the formulation of new consistent models of development from the naturalism of landscape garden to the critical philosophy.

The political tide also pushed the architectural form development. “All the historic avant-gardes, moreover, adopted the political patties’ model of action as their own” (Pg.19). The political praxis assumes all the characteristics of a social choice. The architecture as a critique of the ideology can only reflects the systematic change in citied development.
Questions:
1) Do we need an architectural autonomy as a new energy of architecture development?
2) Does the Marxism or the Capitalism substantively change the architectural form or function?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: