the scope can be expanded ..and expanded...and expanded...till this reenactment can be pretty much applied to everything and anything...whether through a temporal vertical link..or a horizontal topical link...A potato is a reenactment of God from the scholastic/aquinas aristotelian point of view.
Everything that can be known, understood and signified..is a reenactment of other things... Whilst examples might be afforded, the case is that pretty much any example suffices. Every facet belongs to a geneology...and eventually you can link all geneologies...
so this 'reenactment' is pretty much a deliberated Foucaltian 'resemblance' (with the differing vocabularies of resemblance) with a somewhat pseudomythical tinge.
In fact, the topic has spiralled out to the extent that its actually 'too' open-ended. Eco, somewhere in Interpretation and Overinterpretation, supports such a point...
There is an interesting axis being drawn up between one-end of the resemblance spectrum...'extreme' case of cloning...to the other ...the status of uniqueness and originality ..and everything else with varying degrees of this resemblance in between.
And somewhere along the axis, some people (not all) are picking and choosing in a random brainstorming 'classroom' manner.
(This is not directed criticism per se, just a personal prejudice. It feels like a sticky hot humid cloudy day...)
Re: Helsinki: 'a strange combination of appreciation for the original, belief in it's value, and total lack of understanding for the context and reason of it's creation in the first place.'
Could not one say that in cloning one is necessarily deffering contexts rather than misinterpreting the (original) context? <<allow the usage of 'deference'..I can't think of a better way to word it. It is as much about the 'slipperiness' from one context to the other..as it is the difference in contexts (Derridaesqu..true)>> Both physically and notionally...Firstly, your conjecture contains a sanctimonious presumption regarding the psychology of the cloners/cloning and secondly, you fail to percieve that half of the cloning process is in the deference of that context (again..I would underline the notional cultural context as I would the physical) and half of the clone is the defered context. The clone is not a merely misunderstood thing...but a thing that contains its own truth..a truth, again, deferred from the original but is eventually a truth all of its own... It gives you space to make your mind up about it..the very fact that you can verbally mention it apart from the Original (as this line of discussion assumes a general category 'Clones') is enough to repudiate the simplistic accusation of the clone as a product of misunderstanding..
Now..in another galacting corner....as a brainteaser...what is the difference between the 'rebuilt Barcelona Pavilion' and the 'cloned Barcelona Pavilion' ...they're both in exactly the same plot..they are inside each other's gut..where does one start and the other end
X will now mark the place
Like the parting of the waves
Like a house falling in the sea
Into the sea
The clone is not merely a result of misunderstanding..
after all...the thing that is misunderstood, in your strain of thought, would be the original rather than the clone..then you go on to implicitly bash the clone for it
clone-basher!!!!!
-Clone Protection Agency-CPA- (currently sueing the American Institute of Chartered Public Accountants)
As you noticed, my faulty definition of the clone (in an architectural discussion) was also a description of the assumed motives of the cloners. And as such an arrogant one, but I'm keeping my opinion, and think that it is suitable for most of the known "architecture cloning cases". ok, I'm a cloner-basher...
The context deferring is something that happens "automatically" in cloning, and is an important (if not the most important) part of a neutral and accurate definition of the process of cloning. so, you heard the man... back to those details and cardboard-cutting...
Jun 19, 04 9:57 am ·
·
uneDITed wrote:
Now..in another galacting corner....as a brainteaser...what is the difference between the 'rebuilt Barcelona Pavilion' and the 'cloned Barcelona Pavilion' ...they're both in exactly the same plot..they are inside each other's gut..where does one start and the other end
Novel replies:
the 'rebuilt Barcelona Pavilion' and the 'cloned Barcelona Pavilion' are the same thing, not two different things. The original Barcelona Pavilion was destroyed, and the pavilion that exists now very closely reenacts the original.
Novel understood the question wrongly...or tactfully chose to answer in 'first base' mode. I know what happened to the original B.P and am aware of the intentions of de Sola-Morales&co's rebuilding. I thought that would have been assumed by reading my question. If I ask you what the predicted age of the solar system was...you would start telling me that our universe is not infinite? Duhuh!
The rebuilt is more or less a clone, except its been conventionalzed as not being a clone. It is a clone that has been sanctioned..through the 'approved' aims and aspirations (under the rubric of intellectual honesty) of its re-authors. One can say that it does not fall victim to the 'superficiality' (this is Helsinki's argument..I, myself, would start slapping at this superficiality accusation) of the cloning process and aims.
1- The cloning is not merely of the dismantled original, but also of the ideals and effects...that, in fact, the authors of the new 'BP' could achieve technologically what Mies couldn't with regards to the roof construction for instance. Their is a sincere depth of understanding in the cloning (again..versus Helsinki's reductive accusation)
2- The cloning is sophisticated to the point of citing materials from the same quarry as that of the original. (Tinian marble and African Atlas onyx)
3-The context is exactly the same.
It might appear that this is not a clone in the same manner that the chinese ronchamp is. But what really is that difference that would enscribe cloning within one, and deem the other an 'original' that requires an intellectually plausible suspension of disbelief? Is a clone a clone only by the explicit significations drawn from,through and by a recognized and reputable elite? What would the reading of this remaking had it been authored by a multimillion retail corporation as a stunt..or by Helsinki's rich cousin? With exactly the same re-building finale?
As for context, a clone is nonchalant with regards to a 'designed-into' phenomenology of place and setting....setting is incidental..it can be wherever..including the original context ..its is only only a somewhat fortuitous accident...
The point is not that because it is a clone ergo (again, Helsinki) it should be dismissed..but rather, through being a clone..it affords its own truth. (both canonic simulacra and the questions that follow (such as those that have surfaced in this discussion group) and the actual experiential physicality).
I'm also positevely sure that the Chinese Ronchamp holds its own truths..whether settled local associations or through worldly cross-referntial observations.
As for reenactment, I dropped it back on the sidewalk. I personally find it utterly useless as a precise term (as explained b4) and Rita seems to treasure it enough to patent it as her own intellectual 'enactment'. :)
Pedalling through
The dark currents
I find
An accurate copy
A blueprint
Of the pleasure
In me
Jun 19, 04 2:25 pm ·
·
Yes uneDITed, everything is a reenactment, especially everything you've written here. And all the reenacting of "eyes which choose not to see" plus ultra.
dear, I never said that what I had said hasn't been said before. I have far too much a sense of the cynic to really care about being original. In fact, I find it quite difficult to design because I suspect in every urge of 'originality'/'creativity'...it takes a measure of naivete to design anything I say.
So this rather cheapening 'especially' , dear, being your version of textual guttering, is yours alone.
Now...my question is...the subcontinent refers to India, Pakistan and so on. If used in a pejorative manner in the vein of 'how subcontinental' does that lead to believing that the user of such an expression is either racist or someone who spews words idiotically?
tip toe,dear ...your html coyness does not add intrigue or shelters of ambiguity.
Jun 19, 04 3:50 pm ·
·
I like how how the Sub-Continent and the quondam Ceylon reenact the African Continent and the quondam(?) Madagascar. Reenactment is very Sub-Continental.
So, I have the feeling that I've missed out on some kind of philosophical discussion. I do have an example, though!
Centennial Park in Nashville has a replica of the Parthenon (or, at least what they thought the Parthenon looked like at the time they built it in the late 1800s). From the standpoint of an architect - this is absurd! The terrain is flat in the replica, and the original version interacts with the site in a much different way. Plus, all the other things that are wrong with sticking an ancient Greek building in the middle of a mid-sized Southern city.
However, in their own way, I think they've made it work - it may take on the original form of the building, but they've used it in a completely different context. The building is more like a lawn ornament or a sculpture than an attempt to replicate the experience of the original, and I don't actually draw a connection between the two in my head.
Okay, I totally missed that the Parthenon in Nashville was included in the OP. However, I did think of a second question!
How is this different from any generic fast-food restaurant, which is designed to be replicated as closely as possible irrespective of geography? The goal is to ensure a consistent experience.
It may not be Architecture architecture, but it still has a definite impact on the built environment - you can sit in the same room and eat the same hamburger basically anywhere in the US.
cloning architecture - a global search
the scope can be expanded ..and expanded...and expanded...till this reenactment can be pretty much applied to everything and anything...whether through a temporal vertical link..or a horizontal topical link...A potato is a reenactment of God from the scholastic/aquinas aristotelian point of view.
Everything that can be known, understood and signified..is a reenactment of other things... Whilst examples might be afforded, the case is that pretty much any example suffices. Every facet belongs to a geneology...and eventually you can link all geneologies...
so this 'reenactment' is pretty much a deliberated Foucaltian 'resemblance' (with the differing vocabularies of resemblance) with a somewhat pseudomythical tinge.
In fact, the topic has spiralled out to the extent that its actually 'too' open-ended. Eco, somewhere in Interpretation and Overinterpretation, supports such a point...
There is an interesting axis being drawn up between one-end of the resemblance spectrum...'extreme' case of cloning...to the other ...the status of uniqueness and originality ..and everything else with varying degrees of this resemblance in between.
And somewhere along the axis, some people (not all) are picking and choosing in a random brainstorming 'classroom' manner.
(This is not directed criticism per se, just a personal prejudice. It feels like a sticky hot humid cloudy day...)
Re: Helsinki: 'a strange combination of appreciation for the original, belief in it's value, and total lack of understanding for the context and reason of it's creation in the first place.'
Could not one say that in cloning one is necessarily deffering contexts rather than misinterpreting the (original) context? <<allow the usage of 'deference'..I can't think of a better way to word it. It is as much about the 'slipperiness' from one context to the other..as it is the difference in contexts (Derridaesqu..true)>> Both physically and notionally...Firstly, your conjecture contains a sanctimonious presumption regarding the psychology of the cloners/cloning and secondly, you fail to percieve that half of the cloning process is in the deference of that context (again..I would underline the notional cultural context as I would the physical) and half of the clone is the defered context. The clone is not a merely misunderstood thing...but a thing that contains its own truth..a truth, again, deferred from the original but is eventually a truth all of its own... It gives you space to make your mind up about it..the very fact that you can verbally mention it apart from the Original (as this line of discussion assumes a general category 'Clones') is enough to repudiate the simplistic accusation of the clone as a product of misunderstanding..
Now..in another galacting corner....as a brainteaser...what is the difference between the 'rebuilt Barcelona Pavilion' and the 'cloned Barcelona Pavilion' ...they're both in exactly the same plot..they are inside each other's gut..where does one start and the other end
X will now mark the place
Like the parting of the waves
Like a house falling in the sea
Into the sea
correction:
The clone is not a merely misunderstood thing...
to
The clone is not merely a result of misunderstanding..
after all...the thing that is misunderstood, in your strain of thought, would be the original rather than the clone..then you go on to implicitly bash the clone for it
clone-basher!!!!!
-Clone Protection Agency-CPA- (currently sueing the American Institute of Chartered Public Accountants)
hey you guys, instead of talking about high-brow european philosophy, go back to your CAD screens and get that curtain wall details done !!!!
your boss
As you noticed, my faulty definition of the clone (in an architectural discussion) was also a description of the assumed motives of the cloners. And as such an arrogant one, but I'm keeping my opinion, and think that it is suitable for most of the known "architecture cloning cases". ok, I'm a cloner-basher...
The context deferring is something that happens "automatically" in cloning, and is an important (if not the most important) part of a neutral and accurate definition of the process of cloning. so, you heard the man... back to those details and cardboard-cutting...
uneDITed wrote:
Now..in another galacting corner....as a brainteaser...what is the difference between the 'rebuilt Barcelona Pavilion' and the 'cloned Barcelona Pavilion' ...they're both in exactly the same plot..they are inside each other's gut..where does one start and the other end
Novel replies:
the 'rebuilt Barcelona Pavilion' and the 'cloned Barcelona Pavilion' are the same thing, not two different things. The original Barcelona Pavilion was destroyed, and the pavilion that exists now very closely reenacts the original.
Subject: from soup d'jour to deja vu:
http://www.museumpeace.com/03/0260.htm
Novel understood the question wrongly...or tactfully chose to answer in 'first base' mode. I know what happened to the original B.P and am aware of the intentions of de Sola-Morales&co's rebuilding. I thought that would have been assumed by reading my question. If I ask you what the predicted age of the solar system was...you would start telling me that our universe is not infinite? Duhuh!
The rebuilt is more or less a clone, except its been conventionalzed as not being a clone. It is a clone that has been sanctioned..through the 'approved' aims and aspirations (under the rubric of intellectual honesty) of its re-authors. One can say that it does not fall victim to the 'superficiality' (this is Helsinki's argument..I, myself, would start slapping at this superficiality accusation) of the cloning process and aims.
1- The cloning is not merely of the dismantled original, but also of the ideals and effects...that, in fact, the authors of the new 'BP' could achieve technologically what Mies couldn't with regards to the roof construction for instance. Their is a sincere depth of understanding in the cloning (again..versus Helsinki's reductive accusation)
2- The cloning is sophisticated to the point of citing materials from the same quarry as that of the original. (Tinian marble and African Atlas onyx)
3-The context is exactly the same.
It might appear that this is not a clone in the same manner that the chinese ronchamp is. But what really is that difference that would enscribe cloning within one, and deem the other an 'original' that requires an intellectually plausible suspension of disbelief? Is a clone a clone only by the explicit significations drawn from,through and by a recognized and reputable elite? What would the reading of this remaking had it been authored by a multimillion retail corporation as a stunt..or by Helsinki's rich cousin? With exactly the same re-building finale?
As for context, a clone is nonchalant with regards to a 'designed-into' phenomenology of place and setting....setting is incidental..it can be wherever..including the original context ..its is only only a somewhat fortuitous accident...
The point is not that because it is a clone ergo (again, Helsinki) it should be dismissed..but rather, through being a clone..it affords its own truth. (both canonic simulacra and the questions that follow (such as those that have surfaced in this discussion group) and the actual experiential physicality).
I'm also positevely sure that the Chinese Ronchamp holds its own truths..whether settled local associations or through worldly cross-referntial observations.
As for reenactment, I dropped it back on the sidewalk. I personally find it utterly useless as a precise term (as explained b4) and Rita seems to treasure it enough to patent it as her own intellectual 'enactment'. :)
Pedalling through
The dark currents
I find
An accurate copy
A blueprint
Of the pleasure
In me
Yes uneDITed, everything is a reenactment, especially everything you've written here. And all the reenacting of "eyes which choose not to see" plus ultra.
afterlife goes on:
http://lists1.cac.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0406&L=design-l&T=0&O=D&P=12534
dear, I never said that what I had said hasn't been said before. I have far too much a sense of the cynic to really care about being original. In fact, I find it quite difficult to design because I suspect in every urge of 'originality'/'creativity'...it takes a measure of naivete to design anything I say.
So this rather cheapening 'especially' , dear, being your version of textual guttering, is yours alone.
Now...my question is...the subcontinent refers to India, Pakistan and so on. If used in a pejorative manner in the vein of 'how subcontinental' does that lead to believing that the user of such an expression is either racist or someone who spews words idiotically?
tip toe,dear ...your html coyness does not add intrigue or shelters of ambiguity.
I like how how the Sub-Continent and the quondam Ceylon reenact the African Continent and the quondam(?) Madagascar. Reenactment is very Sub-Continental.
and speaking of racism:
http://lists1.cac.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0406&L=design-l&T=0&O=D&P=12227
pics at
http://www.quondam.com/00/o0001.htm
hmm... maybe we should start to search for the (possible) value of the original, instead of the intellectual beauty of the clone.
Lovely Rita, a/k/a Stephen Lauf a/k/a the Terre Thaemlitz of anarchiecture:
"Du spichst fortan in Rätseln". (riddle)
So sophisticated posts, yet so confusing , deriving links you post. Is the quondam museum crumbling like the Fortress of Suram?!?
MUSEUM OF SCULPTURE by MACA
Maribor Art Gallery by Stan Allen Architect
somewhat related to this very interesting thread;
http://archinect.com/news/article/29024088/post-card-ideological-icons
So, I have the feeling that I've missed out on some kind of philosophical discussion. I do have an example, though!
Centennial Park in Nashville has a replica of the Parthenon (or, at least what they thought the Parthenon looked like at the time they built it in the late 1800s). From the standpoint of an architect - this is absurd! The terrain is flat in the replica, and the original version interacts with the site in a much different way. Plus, all the other things that are wrong with sticking an ancient Greek building in the middle of a mid-sized Southern city.
However, in their own way, I think they've made it work - it may take on the original form of the building, but they've used it in a completely different context. The building is more like a lawn ornament or a sculpture than an attempt to replicate the experience of the original, and I don't actually draw a connection between the two in my head.
Okay, I totally missed that the Parthenon in Nashville was included in the OP. However, I did think of a second question!
How is this different from any generic fast-food restaurant, which is designed to be replicated as closely as possible irrespective of geography? The goal is to ensure a consistent experience.
It may not be Architecture architecture, but it still has a definite impact on the built environment - you can sit in the same room and eat the same hamburger basically anywhere in the US.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.