A single stake driven into the setting disturbs its continuity.
Likewise, a single wall hardens, divides, opposes and violently alters the scenario in which it is placed, thus revealing the signs of a transformation that leads to the architecture itself. At the same time, however, certain circumstances can cause a wall to blend in with its surroundings, such as the shade cast upon its surfaces by neighboring trees. Various factors can contribute to defining similar mutual relationships, but within the urban settings of modern cities, and despite the abundance of material goods by which they are characterized, such relationships are difficult to identify. In order to revitalize environments of this sort, I would recommend re-evaluating even the primary and fundamental meaning that can be assumed by a pillar or wall.
A stake driven vertically into the ground draws upon a symbolic meaning that has long been recognized in the field of architecture. The column, therefore, has a symbolic meaning and, in combination with the wall, defines a space itself. I have no intention of comparing walls or columns or of insisting on the superiority of the former; rather, I focus upon a work method that’s based on the rhetorical relationship between the wall and the column. In my work, walls serve to delineate areas that are physically and psychologically isolated from the outside world they cut out sections of the sky, of sunlight, wind and the landscape, and allow the architecture to represent this continuous display of power.
The more austere the masonry (austere to the point of seeming entirely cold), the more we interact with it. It can appear as a sharp weapon that threatens us, or else a mirror that dimly reflects the landscape and the sun’s rays. Although the light that illuminates a corner or collects within the darkness can be quite different from direct light, these sources of light blend together with the passage of time and render the space more meaningful.
Location: Hudson, NY, USA, 2006