Renaissance architects got excited about the language of the classical orders and harmonic proportioning systems. What do we have now? What is the language of contemporary architecture?
Well....
Structuralist and Post-Structuralist critiques of architecture have relied on the thesis that in some manner architecture was analogous to language. Mercifully, this sort of thing doesn't have much currency of late. Whenever architects start reading philosophy or semiology, what we end up with is a lot of thick books whose real relevance is ignored in favor of a new form-making system, which is inevitably labeled "deleuzian", or "levi-straussian" or "cartesian" or "foucauldian" or somesuch.
To paraphrase the great Mark Cousins:
When it comes to architects and philosophy, we find that books without pictures are frequently bought, seldom read, and never understood.
Thanks for the Charles Jencks reference... I found his essay on his website to be quite engaging, though already a bit dated in its references to "new paradigm" architecture. I guess that's what you get for trying to define a new language of architecture? There are some good tidbits in there, though.
gota admit i haven't read jenck's essay at his site, but recommend reading "Architecture of the Jumping Universe" for a slightly newer take on his older old stuff.
he is an interesting fellow, not the least for contriving to end modernism with the end of pruitt-igoe. and he is an easy read and almost makes sense. but i find him to be a bit too much like ken wilber (if you don't know him you should read just a bit of his stuff cuz he is seriously funny; he isn't trying to be, but he is)...
nah, universal truth is just too hard a sell these days. best you're gonna get is a bit of local truth for a dollar.
there's a small Venturi book about Learning from las Vegas and The Forgotten Symbolism of Architectural Form which ruled the airwaves for a couple of decades.
i don't know jack about the language of architecture, but i can totally kick the look of love. it's green
janosh.... verrry nice *but you missed lacan and saussure to round off semiology/linguistics
Language of Architecture
Renaissance architects got excited about the language of the classical orders and harmonic proportioning systems. What do we have now? What is the language of contemporary architecture?
charles jencks still thinks it is important but i think most of us are over the whole deal.
thank the small gods, the only consensus we got is that we all get to make our own language if we feel the need...
Well....
Structuralist and Post-Structuralist critiques of architecture have relied on the thesis that in some manner architecture was analogous to language. Mercifully, this sort of thing doesn't have much currency of late. Whenever architects start reading philosophy or semiology, what we end up with is a lot of thick books whose real relevance is ignored in favor of a new form-making system, which is inevitably labeled "deleuzian", or "levi-straussian" or "cartesian" or "foucauldian" or somesuch.
To paraphrase the great Mark Cousins:
When it comes to architects and philosophy, we find that books without pictures are frequently bought, seldom read, and never understood.
Here is a real edifice of language.
Thanks for the Charles Jencks reference... I found his essay on his website to be quite engaging, though already a bit dated in its references to "new paradigm" architecture. I guess that's what you get for trying to define a new language of architecture? There are some good tidbits in there, though.
Marc
Speaking of books without pictures... really diggin' Rudolph Arnheim's "Dynamics of Architectural Form"...
the diagram...
although not necessary in creating discipline and/or order behind form & space, it keeps the academics chattering amongst themselves.
Non-linear complexity! DIE!
gota admit i haven't read jenck's essay at his site, but recommend reading "Architecture of the Jumping Universe" for a slightly newer take on his older old stuff.
he is an interesting fellow, not the least for contriving to end modernism with the end of pruitt-igoe. and he is an easy read and almost makes sense. but i find him to be a bit too much like ken wilber (if you don't know him you should read just a bit of his stuff cuz he is seriously funny; he isn't trying to be, but he is)...
nah, universal truth is just too hard a sell these days. best you're gonna get is a bit of local truth for a dollar.
I just find Jencks trite and boring. Unless he's trying to be funny, in which case I just don't get it.
there's a small Venturi book about Learning from las Vegas and The Forgotten Symbolism of Architectural Form which ruled the airwaves for a couple of decades.
i don't know jack about the language of architecture, but i can totally kick the look of love. it's green
janosh.... verrry nice *but you missed lacan and saussure to round off semiology/linguistics
jencks still thinks its important cos the dude earns his bread and butter from writing on the "language" of arch.
I made the mistake of attending his one lecture titled "architecture of the Jumping universe"...it was one of the most boring evenings of my life.
Nevermore,
where was the Jencks lecture ? Intresting ....
" architecture of the jumping universe" huh ? .. has the potential to be an interesting lecture .... but trust jenks to make it boring !!
Mumbai (Bombay )..venue : Prince of wales museum.
year 1997 or 1998..
dont remember, dont care...wasnt worth it.
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.