quondam @ archinect/79/7915l.htm
Koolhaas versus the Actor
aml 2005.05.09 00:26
rita, i'm very interested in this discussion but i won't be able to reply until later in the week...
yes let's not get derrailed with my post implying prejudice towards the web and favoring the published press.. i still beilieve though that the published press [although flawed and not automatically reliable] grants more access to academic discussion, whereas in the web -although we're disproving my argument in this very discussion- academic discussion is not automatic.
i'm having to reread peter eisenman's notes on conceptual architecture right now [for a class really] but that's probably where my counterargument will be coming from... the shift from le corbusier's 'semantic' reenactment of architecture, similar to previous reenactments in classical, neoclassical, etc, towards eisenman's syntactical experiments that end up being an unconscious semantic exercise with deliberately void or emptied signs.
but i'll elaborate later on...
Koolhaas versus the Actor
Rita Novel 2005.05.09 09:45
aml, I too am interested in this discussion. In fact, you're the first person to discuss Tafuri vis-a-vis the Campo Marzio with me online, and I appreciate your knowledge of the subject.
For the sake of clarity, I wish to restate my argument(s).
1. Manfredo Tafuri is no authority when it comes to Piranesi's Ichnographia Campus Martius.
2. Tafuri no where demonstrates an understanding of reenactment as it relates to the generation and history of architectural design.
3. It is many times more valuable to reenact architectures than it is to reenact architectural critics/historians.
=====
Yesterday, I re-read Eisenman's "The Wicked Critic" (in ANY 26, February 2000), and as far as Piranesi's Campo Marzio is concerned, Eisenman only continues to reiterate Tafuri's mistakes. Eisenman does, however, mention that Piranesi moved some building locations within the Campo Marzio plan, and up to that point I/Quondam are the only published sources of that type of information, so Eisenman is not altogether disclosing of where he gets some of his information. This relates to the issue of texts/data published online in that such publications should rightly be referenced (at least footnoted).
David R. Marshall in "Piranesi, Javarra, and the Triumphal Bridge Tradition" (The Art Bulletin, June 2003) also relates information regarding the Campo Marzio plan, that prior was only available at Quondam, without giving the reference a proper citing.
Hani Rashid is likewise guilty of the same inaction.
As far as I'm concerned, architectural academia isn't necessarily all that trustworthy.
|