Paul Virillio_The Overexposed City
Every surface is an interface between two milieus in which constant activity prevails, taking the form of an exchange between two substances placed in contact with one another…contamination is at work in the concept of surface: the surface-boundary becomes an osmotic membrane.
-Virillio
Virillio's discussion surrounding boundary, surface, interface and time is most interesting. One could certainly logically believe Virillio’s argument that the interface (a contemporary high-tech type of surface-boundary) is capable not only of creating distance and “depth of field”, but of collapsing physical space (near and far, here and there) and eliminating “time distances” forming a new technological space-time that is ubiquitous and instantaneous; a permanent present which has no relation to history/memory/future. Could there be positive possibilities and/or value in a metaphor such as architecture as interface, or architecture as surface-boundary? How would such a concept manifest itself physically? Is this a way to negotiate the relationship between architecture/urbanism and technological space-time? With regards to the concept of space-time itself, how does space-time relate to historical/chronological time? Can these two opposing ‘times’ co-exist, or has space-time ruptured historical/chronological time? Can something as seemingly enduring as historical/chronological time ever be fully destroyed?
No comments:
Post a Comment