but a storm could follow a calm, so where does that leave us?
function follows form?
and in the case of the wolves and caribou dont form and function exert a continual evolutionary preasure on eachother? the causality may not be in one direction.
I had to look up "metaphysical" because it is one of those words that while I feel like I know what it means I don't know what words I would use to explain what it means. So after a little wikipedia vocabulary lesson, I can say that at this time in my life as a designer I believe that form does not necessarily have to follow function, that beauty seduces first and hopefully function follows, that beauty can be a discreet function, and that beauty is definitely metaphysical.
if a building takes such a form that a community comes to value it, it will stay and will probably be adapted to other functions when its current one goes away.
if it is designed too specifically for its function - and this results in a form overly peculiar to that prescribed function - it might just have to be torn down when that function goes away.
one of the biggest problems with 'functionalist' architecture, modern or not.
is it not possible to design something that doesn't go out of fashion, nsm?
a problem with the 'form follows function' slogan is that it assumes a reductive use of the word 'form', whereas it's presumably meant to include all of the visual/aesthetic aspects of the thing. my intention in favoring 'form' is not necessarily an argument for formalism, which has its own baggage.
this thread points out that the slogan also assumes a reductive use of the word 'function'. function obviously can be more than an use/efficiency/program problem. oma has built a lot of their reputation on programmatic manipulations.
and yes, getting torn down is a bad thing. every time we tear down and build again we've landfilled embodied energy and expended a whole lot more to replace it. a lot of times what we tear down was better than that with which we replace it. (not always, before someone bites my head off.) much better to build something which is, as constructed, recyclable.
Steven, you are so eloquent. And I totally agree it is almost always wise to avoid tearing something down - I posted at Thread Central re: the mass of embodied material energy I saw recently in the sprawl of Phoenix.
I have a problem with trying to answer the question "is form metaphysical" because isn't really everything? It seems like one of those conversations for an altered state of mind that seems brilliant at the time but is actually freshman philosophy.
In some of my work, the form is what matters. It is serving a visual/aesthetic function, which is to appear a certain way. If it is also providing illumination or a cutting surface or a place to sit, that's great. Of course you could argue that a client has come to me to provide them illumination, or a cutting surface, or a place to sit. But the way I make it look is different from how someone else would make it look - so the function I'm providing is the form the thing takes.
As I said, freshman philosophising. What I really care about is what chetan who started this thread has to say about it. Come on man - tell me I totally missed your point.....
Mar 21, 06 9:49 am ·
·
What are some examples of buildings that are "designed too specifically for its function"?
What happens when the function still exists, but the community moves away?
Do you know how many original synagogues in Philadelphia are not synagogues anymore? Do you know how many original Roman Catholic Churches in Philadelphia are not Roman Catholic Churches anymore?
i keep thinking my first comment summed up this conversation best. freshman philosophizing, the power of architecture, et al.
opening your mind is a metaphysical function, dude.
quondam - one example which springs to mind: the old phillip morris plant here in louisville is a huge facility, something like 100,000sf of concrete structure. near downtown. sounds like a great place for adaptive reuse, esp given the current loft hysteria, right? except that the function of the place only demanded a little more than 7' floor to floor heights. there are many other issues like this, adding up to a structure that is on prime real estate and will probably be torn down.
the flip side is the 19th c warehouses in downtown louisville which are about 25' wide and 100' long and very adaptable. their shells establish the character of their neighborhood and their guts can be anything.
when communities move away: again, a close-to-home example. when the community moved away from the warehouse area described above it DIDN'T get torn down during urban renewal. that abandonment seems to have saved it and now it's thriving.
the places that were 'renewed' are now primarily surface parking lots and low block buildings of various (under-)uses.
and, no, i don't know much of anything about phila. but i'll bet those buildings found new uses, because the community cared enough to keep them.
Mar 21, 06 10:34 am ·
·
My point was that now-a-days communities are just as ephemeral as functions.
I knew factories would come up in terms of functionally specific architecture, mostly because the functional aesthetic in architecture was prety much inspired by factories.
What a "community" keeps is in large measure contingent on how a building is zoned (or rezones 'residential'). Here in Philadelphia religious buildings tend to stay religious buildings, and religious buildings "function" mostly because they are tax exempt.
Don't get me wrong though, I'm all for re-use before demolition. I mean, how else could I look at a Cambodian Buddhist Temple after I walk out of the Rite-Aid?
Gotta go, a friend just called and invited me to (belated birthday) lunch at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. I was also told that part of the Liberty Bell Pavilion is going to Australia. Now there's a building worth studying the form-and-function-of relative to the "community".
When I think of function I think of the activities within a given (physical) space, when many spaces intertwine together these functions take on a unique character depending on their organization or processional assembly of the creator (metaphysical). As Le Corb often said “you employ stone, wood and concrete, and with these materials you build houses and palaces. That is construction. Ingenuity is at work†(this will fulfill the physical requirements of any space).
“…..But suddenly you touch my heart you do me good, I am happy and I say: this is beautiful. That is Architecture, art enters in†this part to me is the metaphysical component which is the poetic repose to the given functional assembly as it’s nurture from idea to reality, I think you have to have both for any built work to be successful.
Or as Viollet-Le –Duc has said “Construction is a science; it’s also an Art. What it means is meant by saying it’s an art, is that the builder must have not just knowledge and experience but also a “feel†for building, Builders are born not madeâ€.
The form is the function, and vice versa, the function is the form.
Form and function are always dependent on each other, as tschumi would say, form and function always interact, you can't have the one without the other, ones the signifier, the other the signified, it is structuralism in design terms. So what is important to realize is that there is a relationship but that relationship can be defined differently, it can have a 'loose fit.' Therefore the metaphysical does have a functional component, it has a body, a signifier, an object, extended in space that allows its message to be communicated or signified, that is implicit, what is not implicit is the nature of that relationship. This is what distingishes the post-mod architects like OMA or Bernard Tschumi, they realized that there can be a 'loose fit' relationship, and they use it, as steven ward has said, as a tool of manipulation. When Mies first used it he did not mean loose fit, but tight fit, that is the difference between modernity and post modernity, modernity was about a tight, rigid relationship in the form and function relationship and post modernism was realizing that the relationship can be looser, more playful. It is determinacy or indeterminacy.
The modern definition emphasizes the determinacy of the relationship and post modernism emphasizes the indeterminacy of the relationship. It is a relationship that can be either a science or an art, eternal or ephemeral. How you use the relationship depends on context or the totalility of factors affecting a situation.
It is relatively easy to concretise the demands of a building programme, and architects are skilled in coping with these questions and translate them into form. This kind of respect for functional needs can be called "hard functionalism". Correspondingly, the term "soft functionalism"can be introduced. Soft functionalism is defined as follows: spaces, elements, details in questions are architecturally well defined but can be used and occupied in several different ways. Such spaces, elements and details play an important role in relation to school buildings, because they can be interpreted and used in different ways. This means they challenge the user - the pupils will have to make strategies for a use and eventually negotiate with others before use.
To exemplify this one might compare a swing with a sandbox - in the first case the use is defined beforehand, in the second the possibilities are open.
Or a school divided into special subject rooms compared with a school with integrated handicraft workshops and lab-scapes. In the first case the space clearly communicates one way of using them. In the second the possible use is more ambiguous and asks for more initiative of the user.
purpose can either be physical or metaphysical. However, physcial functions can be tested and verified, whereas metaphyiscal functions cannot, or at least, can't be objectively agreed upon [unless the occupiers have a mutually-agreed upon metaphysical coda].
The purpose of some religious buildings is that they embody or enable direct communuion with a higher being. This is their function, and most of the occupants would agree that it serves this function well.
If this building was to change function to a set of apartments, would the higher being also vacate the premises upon seeing the renovation plans, or would the new occupant be sharing his bathroom with the almighty? Would one of the flock of the previous church buy an apartment here on the top floor in order to be closer to god?
So one could say that regardless of whether the function is of a physical or metaphysical origin, the occupiers have to agree to and react to the function implied.
I visited a buddhist temple yesterday. I am not buddhist. Due to my professional standing, we were invited for a tour of the yet to be completed temple. I felt myself becoming calm and suppliant. Was it the space making me do this [physiological aesthetics], or was it a social contract implicit in the building design [sociological aesthetics], or was it the divine buddha in me waking up and affecting me [religious experience]? Or was it the lotus flower tea?
I dont believe in a structuralist approach, nor one where flexibility is built in. A building should be built for its purpose.
The pompidou centre deosnt lookmlike an art museum, but it functions well. The tate modern started as a power station, but has ended up being a trememdously successful museum. It might not neccesarily be about everybody agreeing that a duck is a duck, but that unless you are designing an ebola research facility, buildings are more similar to each other than they are different.
Or it could be that most people will agree with what you say something is, particularly if you back it up with a building.
...functions...can't be objectively agreed upon [unless the occupiers have a mutually-agreed upon metaphysical coda]...the Tate Modern has ended up being a tremendously successful museum...
The success of the Tate Modern depends upon the phenomenon that we as a culture have collectively agreed that former industrial facilites are an appropriate setting in which to view contemporary art.
When I was younger there were five different funeral homes in my immediate neighborhood, close enough that I could walk to any one of them within a few minutes. All these funeral homes were first houses--three were large single homes and two were the the corner houses at the end of a row of homes. Only one of the funeral homes still exists as a funeral home today, one is now Triumphal something something church, one is a Lutheran Family center, and the two row homes are now just row homes again.
And when I was very young, some dead neighbors on my block were laid out in their living rooms. In the 1980s I used to joke that I wanted to be buried under my basement.
Ah, their house is a museum when people come to see 'em.
Form and function follow imagination, and imagination follows human physiology.
Interesting comment, LB. Perhaps adaptive reuse can only be a one-way street sometimes due to the function- I'm thinking specifically of banks. We see them converted into retail all the time, but rarely (and I can't even think of one that I've seen, although I'm sure its happened) has a building been adapted into a bank (and I'm not counting the minibanks next to the starbuck in every single supermarket). Perhaps its the wish for a bank to communicate the idea of stability and permanence.
A kmart closed downtown where I live and its been empty for 4 years now. Hard to find another business that can occupy a big box, and the ones that can usually come with their own corporate identity, of which architecture is a component.
neither. strictly defined it transcends the plain physical as it deals with how we utilize the physical to serve our sensual needs, which for humans extends beyond pure biological necessities into more abstract needs such as aesthetics, community, freedom, spirituality, symbolism, etc.
that said it automatically falls short of the metaphysical, which is defined as transcending reality perceptible by the senses. the moment function falls out of perception (and thus stops serving our senses) it becomes metaphysical and nonfunctional to its original servant.
you could make the argument that function becomes or changes into the metaphysical when it dies or when its original purpose is forgotten and no recycling or reuse happens. it then dissapates into the physical world.
you either consider the function's dissapation or waste product as purely physical (believing that all reaches of humanity are physical) or you see it as some kind of latent symbolism ready to inspire or influence future creators, who themselves are striving for the metaphysical - each generation passing the buck in hope of one day transcending our physical nature (hopes for evolution, higher dimensional understandings, connections with other worlds, etc.)
We're given just enough capacity for the metaphysical that one can't help but believe in some mystical metaphysical reality or future...but the metaphysical can't be functional to us, because once we understand it, categorize it, define it, it's suddenly functional to us and therefore not metaphysical. the two can't coexist - only flip back and forth.
fashion/design/art/architecture movements may begin with metaphysical inspiration or motives, but they inevitably get caught in the same old terrestrial processes (or abuses depending on your viewpoint): commodification/reification, maximization, etc.
but those leading the movements aren't and shouldn't focus on the inevitable trail of garbage left behind them by imitaton, appropriation, and bad faith (because it will be left anyway). instead they stay optimistic and hope to bring civilization up a few notches, even if that isn't much.
It would be interesting to see the effects of planned obsolescence in architecture - not just the building products - but gradually the function actively fades away and is replaced with something new. We all now obselesence is inevitable, but few plan for it.
barbara hanged herself in cornish wilderness. i sometimes wonder how she chose her tree. Whether she asked herself was her choice metaphysical, or was she able to execute herself exactly because,at that point, her idea of the metaphysical was nonexistent , or was it so extreme it anaesthetized her.
diabase, it's tough to think of examples of what you're talking about, but i'm very interested in it.
it's more art than anything else, especially architecture, which I'm increasingly growing bored with. it's difficult to think of ideas that also have a 'useful' aspect to them. maybe something tied in with sustainability/regeneration? it's hard not to be useful in today's anti-spiritual science-based society.
Mar 22, 06 7:07 pm ·
·
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.
FUNCTION - physical or metaphysical
"FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION"
Is function physical or metaphysica?????
Ponder.....
yes.
Form follows function:
As wolves follow caribou?
As a motorcade follows motorcycles?
As prostitutes follow armies?
As hippies follow Phish?
As a calm follows a storm?
as hangover follows booze?
but a storm could follow a calm, so where does that leave us?
function follows form?
and in the case of the wolves and caribou dont form and function exert a continual evolutionary preasure on eachother? the causality may not be in one direction.
what excatly is a metaphisical function?
metafunction
I saw them in the loo during a phish show
opening your mind is a metaphysical function, dude.
I had to look up "metaphysical" because it is one of those words that while I feel like I know what it means I don't know what words I would use to explain what it means. So after a little wikipedia vocabulary lesson, I can say that at this time in my life as a designer I believe that form does not necessarily have to follow function, that beauty seduces first and hopefully function follows, that beauty can be a discreet function, and that beauty is definitely metaphysical.
I think.
Oh and this: "Conjunction Junction, what's your metaphysical function?"
if a building takes such a form that a community comes to value it, it will stay and will probably be adapted to other functions when its current one goes away.
if it is designed too specifically for its function - and this results in a form overly peculiar to that prescribed function - it might just have to be torn down when that function goes away.
one of the biggest problems with 'functionalist' architecture, modern or not.
whereas formalist architecture doesn't get torn down untill it goes out of fashion?
getting torn down is a bad thing?
I thought we dumped metaphysics a while back.
is it not possible to design something that doesn't go out of fashion, nsm?
a problem with the 'form follows function' slogan is that it assumes a reductive use of the word 'form', whereas it's presumably meant to include all of the visual/aesthetic aspects of the thing. my intention in favoring 'form' is not necessarily an argument for formalism, which has its own baggage.
this thread points out that the slogan also assumes a reductive use of the word 'function'. function obviously can be more than an use/efficiency/program problem. oma has built a lot of their reputation on programmatic manipulations.
and yes, getting torn down is a bad thing. every time we tear down and build again we've landfilled embodied energy and expended a whole lot more to replace it. a lot of times what we tear down was better than that with which we replace it. (not always, before someone bites my head off.) much better to build something which is, as constructed, recyclable.
chetan...
The key word in your premise is 'IS'
The noun form of the verb " to be "
But does function "be" constant that we can give it a fixed definition like "physical" or metaphysical....... ?
(like when function changes over time....e.g the same form of a museum turned into a primary school or a garage turned into a laboratory ?)......
thats when we entertain the thoughts of the nature of 'being'.....the gateway to all metaphysics !
does function exist at all..
Steven, you are so eloquent. And I totally agree it is almost always wise to avoid tearing something down - I posted at Thread Central re: the mass of embodied material energy I saw recently in the sprawl of Phoenix.
I have a problem with trying to answer the question "is form metaphysical" because isn't really everything? It seems like one of those conversations for an altered state of mind that seems brilliant at the time but is actually freshman philosophy.
In some of my work, the form is what matters. It is serving a visual/aesthetic function, which is to appear a certain way. If it is also providing illumination or a cutting surface or a place to sit, that's great. Of course you could argue that a client has come to me to provide them illumination, or a cutting surface, or a place to sit. But the way I make it look is different from how someone else would make it look - so the function I'm providing is the form the thing takes.
As I said, freshman philosophising. What I really care about is what chetan who started this thread has to say about it. Come on man - tell me I totally missed your point.....
What are some examples of buildings that are "designed too specifically for its function"?
What happens when the function still exists, but the community moves away?
Do you know how many original synagogues in Philadelphia are not synagogues anymore? Do you know how many original Roman Catholic Churches in Philadelphia are not Roman Catholic Churches anymore?
i keep thinking my first comment summed up this conversation best. freshman philosophizing, the power of architecture, et al.
opening your mind is a metaphysical function, dude.
quondam - one example which springs to mind: the old phillip morris plant here in louisville is a huge facility, something like 100,000sf of concrete structure. near downtown. sounds like a great place for adaptive reuse, esp given the current loft hysteria, right? except that the function of the place only demanded a little more than 7' floor to floor heights. there are many other issues like this, adding up to a structure that is on prime real estate and will probably be torn down.
the flip side is the 19th c warehouses in downtown louisville which are about 25' wide and 100' long and very adaptable. their shells establish the character of their neighborhood and their guts can be anything.
when communities move away: again, a close-to-home example. when the community moved away from the warehouse area described above it DIDN'T get torn down during urban renewal. that abandonment seems to have saved it and now it's thriving.
the places that were 'renewed' are now primarily surface parking lots and low block buildings of various (under-)uses.
and, no, i don't know much of anything about phila. but i'll bet those buildings found new uses, because the community cared enough to keep them.
My point was that now-a-days communities are just as ephemeral as functions.
I knew factories would come up in terms of functionally specific architecture, mostly because the functional aesthetic in architecture was prety much inspired by factories.
What a "community" keeps is in large measure contingent on how a building is zoned (or rezones 'residential'). Here in Philadelphia religious buildings tend to stay religious buildings, and religious buildings "function" mostly because they are tax exempt.
Don't get me wrong though, I'm all for re-use before demolition. I mean, how else could I look at a Cambodian Buddhist Temple after I walk out of the Rite-Aid?
Gotta go, a friend just called and invited me to (belated birthday) lunch at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. I was also told that part of the Liberty Bell Pavilion is going to Australia. Now there's a building worth studying the form-and-function-of relative to the "community".
When I think of function I think of the activities within a given (physical) space, when many spaces intertwine together these functions take on a unique character depending on their organization or processional assembly of the creator (metaphysical). As Le Corb often said “you employ stone, wood and concrete, and with these materials you build houses and palaces. That is construction. Ingenuity is at work†(this will fulfill the physical requirements of any space).
“…..But suddenly you touch my heart you do me good, I am happy and I say: this is beautiful. That is Architecture, art enters in†this part to me is the metaphysical component which is the poetic repose to the given functional assembly as it’s nurture from idea to reality, I think you have to have both for any built work to be successful.
Or as Viollet-Le –Duc has said “Construction is a science; it’s also an Art. What it means is meant by saying it’s an art, is that the builder must have not just knowledge and experience but also a “feel†for building, Builders are born not madeâ€.
The form is the function, and vice versa, the function is the form.
Form and function are always dependent on each other, as tschumi would say, form and function always interact, you can't have the one without the other, ones the signifier, the other the signified, it is structuralism in design terms. So what is important to realize is that there is a relationship but that relationship can be defined differently, it can have a 'loose fit.' Therefore the metaphysical does have a functional component, it has a body, a signifier, an object, extended in space that allows its message to be communicated or signified, that is implicit, what is not implicit is the nature of that relationship. This is what distingishes the post-mod architects like OMA or Bernard Tschumi, they realized that there can be a 'loose fit' relationship, and they use it, as steven ward has said, as a tool of manipulation. When Mies first used it he did not mean loose fit, but tight fit, that is the difference between modernity and post modernity, modernity was about a tight, rigid relationship in the form and function relationship and post modernism was realizing that the relationship can be looser, more playful. It is determinacy or indeterminacy.
The modern definition emphasizes the determinacy of the relationship and post modernism emphasizes the indeterminacy of the relationship. It is a relationship that can be either a science or an art, eternal or ephemeral. How you use the relationship depends on context or the totalility of factors affecting a situation.
To exemplify this one might compare a swing with a sandbox - in the first case the use is defined beforehand, in the second the possibilities are open.
Or a school divided into special subject rooms compared with a school with integrated handicraft workshops and lab-scapes. In the first case the space clearly communicates one way of using them. In the second the possible use is more ambiguous and asks for more initiative of the user.
From Does a school building have its own curriculum? by Inge Mette Kirkeby
function = purpose
purpose can either be physical or metaphysical. However, physcial functions can be tested and verified, whereas metaphyiscal functions cannot, or at least, can't be objectively agreed upon [unless the occupiers have a mutually-agreed upon metaphysical coda].
The purpose of some religious buildings is that they embody or enable direct communuion with a higher being. This is their function, and most of the occupants would agree that it serves this function well.
If this building was to change function to a set of apartments, would the higher being also vacate the premises upon seeing the renovation plans, or would the new occupant be sharing his bathroom with the almighty? Would one of the flock of the previous church buy an apartment here on the top floor in order to be closer to god?
So one could say that regardless of whether the function is of a physical or metaphysical origin, the occupiers have to agree to and react to the function implied.
I visited a buddhist temple yesterday. I am not buddhist. Due to my professional standing, we were invited for a tour of the yet to be completed temple. I felt myself becoming calm and suppliant. Was it the space making me do this [physiological aesthetics], or was it a social contract implicit in the building design [sociological aesthetics], or was it the divine buddha in me waking up and affecting me [religious experience]? Or was it the lotus flower tea?
I dont believe in a structuralist approach, nor one where flexibility is built in. A building should be built for its purpose.
The pompidou centre deosnt lookmlike an art museum, but it functions well. The tate modern started as a power station, but has ended up being a trememdously successful museum. It might not neccesarily be about everybody agreeing that a duck is a duck, but that unless you are designing an ebola research facility, buildings are more similar to each other than they are different.
Or it could be that most people will agree with what you say something is, particularly if you back it up with a building.
The success of the Tate Modern depends upon the phenomenon that we as a culture have collectively agreed that former industrial facilites are an appropriate setting in which to view contemporary art.
Will a culture 1,000 years in the future agree?
form swallows function...
When I was younger there were five different funeral homes in my immediate neighborhood, close enough that I could walk to any one of them within a few minutes. All these funeral homes were first houses--three were large single homes and two were the the corner houses at the end of a row of homes. Only one of the funeral homes still exists as a funeral home today, one is now Triumphal something something church, one is a Lutheran Family center, and the two row homes are now just row homes again.
And when I was very young, some dead neighbors on my block were laid out in their living rooms. In the 1980s I used to joke that I wanted to be buried under my basement.
Ah, their house is a museum when people come to see 'em.
Form and function follow imagination, and imagination follows human physiology.
Interesting comment, LB. Perhaps adaptive reuse can only be a one-way street sometimes due to the function- I'm thinking specifically of banks. We see them converted into retail all the time, but rarely (and I can't even think of one that I've seen, although I'm sure its happened) has a building been adapted into a bank (and I'm not counting the minibanks next to the starbuck in every single supermarket). Perhaps its the wish for a bank to communicate the idea of stability and permanence.
A kmart closed downtown where I live and its been empty for 4 years now. Hard to find another business that can occupy a big box, and the ones that can usually come with their own corporate identity, of which architecture is a component.
neither. strictly defined it transcends the plain physical as it deals with how we utilize the physical to serve our sensual needs, which for humans extends beyond pure biological necessities into more abstract needs such as aesthetics, community, freedom, spirituality, symbolism, etc.
that said it automatically falls short of the metaphysical, which is defined as transcending reality perceptible by the senses. the moment function falls out of perception (and thus stops serving our senses) it becomes metaphysical and nonfunctional to its original servant.
you could make the argument that function becomes or changes into the metaphysical when it dies or when its original purpose is forgotten and no recycling or reuse happens. it then dissapates into the physical world.
you either consider the function's dissapation or waste product as purely physical (believing that all reaches of humanity are physical) or you see it as some kind of latent symbolism ready to inspire or influence future creators, who themselves are striving for the metaphysical - each generation passing the buck in hope of one day transcending our physical nature (hopes for evolution, higher dimensional understandings, connections with other worlds, etc.)
We're given just enough capacity for the metaphysical that one can't help but believe in some mystical metaphysical reality or future...but the metaphysical can't be functional to us, because once we understand it, categorize it, define it, it's suddenly functional to us and therefore not metaphysical. the two can't coexist - only flip back and forth.
fashion/design/art/architecture movements may begin with metaphysical inspiration or motives, but they inevitably get caught in the same old terrestrial processes (or abuses depending on your viewpoint): commodification/reification, maximization, etc.
but those leading the movements aren't and shouldn't focus on the inevitable trail of garbage left behind them by imitaton, appropriation, and bad faith (because it will be left anyway). instead they stay optimistic and hope to bring civilization up a few notches, even if that isn't much.
Even function, like form, decays....
It would be interesting to see the effects of planned obsolescence in architecture - not just the building products - but gradually the function actively fades away and is replaced with something new. We all now obselesence is inevitable, but few plan for it.
barbara hanged herself in cornish wilderness. i sometimes wonder how she chose her tree. Whether she asked herself was her choice metaphysical, or was she able to execute herself exactly because,at that point, her idea of the metaphysical was nonexistent , or was it so extreme it anaesthetized her.
What year did barbara head into the cornish wilderness?
diabase, it's tough to think of examples of what you're talking about, but i'm very interested in it.
it's more art than anything else, especially architecture, which I'm increasingly growing bored with. it's difficult to think of ideas that also have a 'useful' aspect to them. maybe something tied in with sustainability/regeneration? it's hard not to be useful in today's anti-spiritual science-based society.
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.