...'books' entitled A Parallel History of Architecture v. ####.
...'books' entitled The History of Architecture v. ####.
"What excites me as a reader, and as a writer, is the prospect of a book that has forgone the obligation to mean anything at all. Not "getting it" is a fairly accurate description of my relationship with art and life, and perhaps explains why I get my kicks from books I can make neither heads or tails of. I'm thinking here of texts by Ingeborg Bachmann, Leonora Carrington, Anna Kavan, and Clarice Lispector, among others. Here is a subterranean sort of life writing that was not created in order to be gotten. That's not to say that one can't or won't connect with these writer's excavations. It just means these authors ruffle an unfamiliar and probably dormant aspect of the psyche, where the personal is also surreal, irrational, and unnerving."
The notion of fliping the plan up to become the elevation or section (and vice versa) is mentioned within "Aqueous Humor."
I now remember what it was that reminded me of OMA's NATO HQ--it was in "Aqueous Humor." "The same kinetics of flow are found in the roofed complex of the United Nations project where a heavy and compressive space frame is canopied above suspended ceilings and a "bubbled" assemblage of assorted theaters, offices and ancillary volumes. These are dispersed in plan so as to appear as islands in a sea of circulation that flows between them." (p. 42)
I thought the new heading could be "reterritorialization" and would basically comprise a re-start/start-over explainng the whole intention from my own personal perspective.
eventual cities as part of /future
trend spotting as part of /future
flipping plans into sections (and vise-versa) as part of /future
...the notion of Quondam being a museum (of architecture) where it is fundamentally possible to see architectur[al history/future] differently. Does any other museum have [that] as an objective, [i.e.,] to enable and/or facilitate the preception of its subject(s) as other than the norm. Is that what Quondam has in large measure been doing all along? Does Quondam indeed present the possibility to see architecture differently? Present history differently; present the future differently; present Piranesi, Le Corbusier, Schinkel, Hejduk, etc. differently. Deterritorialize and (reterritorialize) everything.
notes from Six Canonial Projects...
p. 193: "montage and creative history" -- exploit the notion of creative history in a museum of architecture.
p. 194: "montage . . . allows the film director to join the material together in a new, unexpected order to create different meanings."
p. 196: "Using the method of montage, that is, what he calls the systematic hybridizations, proximities, overlaps, and superpositions, Koolhaas reinterprets the armature of modernism and thereby produces a creative history--analagous to creative geography in film making--in the discourse of his projects."
p. 192: :The strategy of collage and montage never entirely supresses the otherness of the parts reunited in a momentary composition, but instead it selects certain elements from given works and integrates them into a whole."
...relate the ending of Collage City to /atemporal and to Pantheon Paradigm:
83. To summarize: it is here proposed that, rather than hoping and waiting for the withering away of the object (while, simultaneously manufacturing versions of it in profusion unparalleled), it might be judicious, in most case, to allow and encourage the object to become digested in a prevalent texture or matrix. It is further suggested that neither object nor space fixation are, in themselves, any longer representative of valuable attitudes. The one may, indeed, characterize the "new" city and the other the old; but, if these are situations which must be transcended rather than emulated, the situation to be hoped for should be recognized as one in which both buildings and spaces exist in an equality of sustained debate. A debate in which victory consists in each component emerging undefeated, the imagined condition is a type of solid-void dialectic which might allow for the joint existence of the overtly planned and the genuinely unplanned, of the set-piece and the accident, of the public and the private, of the state and the individual. It is a condition of alerted equilibrium which is envisaged; and it is in order to illuminate the potential of such a contest that we have introduced a rudimentary variety of possible strategies. Cross-breeding, assimilation, distortion, challenge, response, imposition, superimposition, conciliation: these might be given any number of names and, surely, neither can nor should be too closely specified; but if the burden of the present discussion has rested upon the city's morphology, upon the physical and inanimate, neither 'people' nor 'politics' are assumed to have been excluded. Indeed, both 'politics' and 'people' are, by now, clamouring for attention; but, if their scrutiny can barely be deferred, yet one more morphological stipulation may still be in order.
Ultimately, and in terms of figure-ground, the debate which is here postulated between solid and void is a debate between two models and, succinctly, these may be typified as acropolis and forum.
144-5. It is suggested that a collage approach, an approach in which objects are conscripted or seduced from out of their context, is - at the present day - the only way of dealing with the ultimate problems of, either or both, utopia and tradition; and the provenance of the architectural objects introduced into the social collage need not be of great consequence. It relates to taste and conviction. The objects can be aristocratic or they can be 'folkish', academic or popular. Whether they originate in Pergamom or Dahomey, in Detroit or Dubrovnik, whether their implications are of the twentieth or the fifteenth century, is no great matter. Societies and persons assemble themselves according to their own interpretations of absolute reference and traditional value; and, up to a point, collage accommodates both hybrid display and the requirements of self-determination.
But up to a point: for if the city of collage may be more hospitable than the city of modern architecture, it cannot more than any human institution pretend to be completely hospitable...
147-8. The open field and the closed field: we have already suggested the value of the one as a political necessity, of the other as an instrument of negotiation, identity, perception: but, if the conceptual functions of both of them should not require to be emphasized, it might still be noticed that the predicament of the open spatial field and the closed temporal field must, of necessity, be as absurd as that of its opposite. It was the lavish perspectives of cultural time, the historical depths and profundities of Europe (or wherever else culture was presumed to be located) as against the exotic insignificance of 'the rest', which most furnished the architecture of previous ages; and it has been the opposite condition which has distinguished that of our own day--a willingness to abolish almost all the taboos of physical distance, the barriers of space, and then, alongside this, a corresponding determination to erect the most relentless of temporal frontiers. One thinks of that chronological iron curtain which, in the minds of the devout, quarantines modern architecture from all the infections of free-wheeling temporal association; but. while we recognize its former justification (identity, incubation, the hot house), the reasons for artificially maintaining such a temperature of enthusiasm can now only begin to seem very remote.
149. We think of Hadrian. We think of the “private” and diverse scene at Tivoli. At the same time we think of the Mausoleum (Castel Sant’Angelo) and the Pantheon in their metropolitan locations. And particularly we think of the Pantheon, of its oculus. Which may lead one to contemplate the publicity of necessarily singular intention (keeper of Empire) and the privacy of elaborate personal interests—a situation which is not at all like that of ville radieuse versus the Villa Stein at Garches.
Habitually utopia, whether platonic or Marxian, has been conceived of as axis mundi or as axis istoriae; but, if in this way it has operated like all totemic, traditionalist and uncriticized aggregations of ideas, if its existence has been poetically necessary and politically deplorable, then this is only to assert the idea that a collage technique, by accommodating a whole range of axes mundi (all of them vest pocket utopias - Swiss canton, New England village, Dome of the Rock, Place Vendome, Campidoglio, etc., might be a means of permitting us the enjoyment of utopian poetics without our being obliged to suffer the embarrassment of utopian politics. Which is to say that, because collage is a method deriving its virtue from its irony, because it seems to be a technique for using things and simultaneously disbelieving in them, it is also a strategy which can allow utopia to be dealt with as image, to be dealt with in fragments without our having to accept it in toto, which is further to suggest that collage could even be a strategy which, by supporting the utopian illusion of changelessness and finality, might even fuel a reality of change, motion, action and history.
Break down Palace of Ottopia into smaller segments and develop each as an independent house; get more familiar with the relative scale comparison of Palace of Ottopia and other examples of domestic architecture.
Fill the footprint of the Palace of Versailles with as many domestic architecture plans that fit.
...place a lot (if not all) of the museums within Versailles Park.
pandelusional houses @ /surfaces