| |
2002.02.01 11:19
Re: (another) map
I am not opposed to your introduction here of the word/concept appose. Certain definitional phrases in Webster's Third International Dictionary (1969) for appose and apposition provide the solidity of your case:
apply (one thing) to another
deposition of successive layers upon those already present (as in cell walls)
When Nero reenacted the Triumphal Way, he did it with much apposition, probably even controversial apposition (but I doubt anyone opposed). He changed the traditional route, had elephants breaking down part of the city wall, you know, the basic kinds of stuff that Nero is (in)famous for.
The concept of appropriation is very much utilized by artists, and perhaps even more by art historians when they analyze a lot of contemporary art. I don't recall having previously read about the concept of apposition relative to art, and to the activity of artists, till your letters here. As far as I'm concerned, you may have introduced something original, or you may have introduced the concept by actually utilizing the concept itself via your introduction, meaning you may have apposed someone else's prior introduction of the concept of apposition relative to art. In either case, what you write has a refreshing truth to it.
appose 1 archaic : to place opposite or before : apply (one thing) to another 2 : to place in juxtaposition or proximity
apposition 2 a archaic : the application of one thing to another b : the placing of things in juxtaposition or proximity; specif : deposition of successive layers upon those already present
| |
2002.02.03
appositional art
...much of my theory/methodology is best described as appositional. ...the art has been the manifestation of apposing forces...
Appositional architecture is not all that plentiful[?]...
Is something like “Piranesi in Color” an example of “appositions”?
2002.03.14 Palace of Knowledge
2002.04.03 09:37
[art] being/appositional [to architecture]
Is it correct to think of art as being largely appositional to architecture?
I'm not only thinking of how painting and/or sculpture and/or electronic display screens, etc. are added layers to architecture, which in turn manifest a 'new' entity, but I'm also thinking/wondering about the 'art of architecture' also being appositional to architecture itself.
This leads to now wonder if electricity (and other utilities) might also be (rightly) considered as appositional to architecture.
Conversely, is it (ever) possibly for architecture to be appositional to art? Or is it (ever) possible for architecture to be appositional to electricity?
| |
2002.04.03 11:01
Re: [art] being/appositional [to architecture]
My line questioning was not directed so much to the usage of the common word, rather to the notion of successive layers relative to the makeup of art vis-a-vis architecture, a reality that exists no matter what word is used to descibe it. [And if anyone can offer a better word that applies to this reality, then please do.]
2002.04.03 11:15
Re: [art] being/appositional [to architecture]
In Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1969) you will find the following definitions:
apposition beach : one of a series of beaches successively formed on the seaward side of an older beach
apposition eye : a compound eye that is characteristic of diurnal insects and in which entering light reaches the retina of each ommatidium as a single spot and the image is a composite of all the spots
2002.04.03 11:31
Re: [art] being/appositional [to architecture]
Probably my favorite "Venturi appliqué" is the (now derelict) Best Showroom.
| |
2002.04.04 10:49
Re: [art] being/appositional [architecture]
Beyond that, the questions I raised here yesterday involve the notion that architecture (over the ages) has largely been apposed with other art forms or with other engineering forms. I thought it would be interesting to openly discuss what those 'other' yet directly near applications are or are not, and how the appositions change or don't change the 'original' layer. For that matter, identifying what the original layer is may also evoke interesting positives and negatives.
2002.04.04 16:48
Re: [art] being/appositional [architecture]
Do you think there might also be such things (in design) as "difficult appositions"?
If so, any "good" examples? And/or is coming to grips with "difficult appositions" something designers should be aware of or be willing and/or able to deal with?
2002.04.11 17:27
Re: being/critical
Palimpsest is not exactly apposition because an erasure occurs before something new is applied.
Apposition occurs within palimpsest when traces of the erasure begin to be seen again.
|
2002 Palace of Knowledge
2002 NATO Headquarters OMA