Martha Rosler_In the Place of the Public; Observations of a Traveler
Bigness is where architecture becomes most and least architectural…Bigness implies a web of umbilical cords to other disciplines whose performance is as critical as the architect’s…the makers of Bigness are a team. Beyond signature, Bigness means surrender to technologies; to engineers, contractors, manufacturers; to politics; to others. It promises a kind of post-heroic status-realignment with neutrality.
-Koolhaas
Rosler makes an interesting comment/observation within her text regarding the supposed difference between ‘architected’ and ‘engineered’ space. She writes, “except for a few high-profile terminals, the airport may not be usefully described in terms of ‘architecture.’ Airports reflect the thinking of engineers. The airport…is useful to elide the distinction between architected and engineered space.” What is this difference that Rosler speaks of? What are the definitive differences between architected and engineered space? Are such distinctions understood as present within our profession/discipline or are they distinctions which those people exterior to the profession/discipline (observers and the general public) construct for themselves? If such distinctions do exist are they useful any longer? Beyond the obvious answers, why did such distinctions arise in the first place and from where? Should not all ‘building,’ whatever typology, be considered to be within the realm of architecture? As we produce ever larger and more programmatically rich mega-structures (such as airports), is it not important/imperative for us to collapse, at least for ourselves, any and all supposed distinctions/separations between those parties involved, especially architects and engineers? Should we not embrace a mindset/strategy towards mega-architecture similar to that as outlined by Koolhaas in the above citation?
No comments:
Post a Comment