One of the most interesting questions was posed last week - that is, what's next. I think 'subtle technologies' is the dialectics that will break the bricks of the existing paradigms of aesthetics. To think that the phenomenologicalness of life could break into aesthetics is very exciting because it can push our envelope of knowledge for further understanding materials and science itself. The uncomfortable feeling arrives in the sense that the next paradigm could also, with the current power dynamics, either sit around too long unchecked or worse get skipped over as a trend. I would likely default to an age old comparison one professor taught me, which is that representation (and form) ebbs and flows with time. Case in point, many of the ideas talked about in much of the readings are based in rediscovering early geometry, architecture, philosophies, design, etc - while they are completely complex, they offer relatively easy points of entry for scientists, architects, and other forms of higher learning and mores are grounded in the same power dynamics that enables the status quo to that the technologies become masks or a wolf dressed in subtle technologies clothing. For me I would be more interested in architecture that did more than just create new textures and aesthetics to make the new types of boxes or resupport and reinvent wheels of old.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Responsive architecture response - Baldwin
Posted by noisivelvet at 7:25 PM