Comments from a post below... don't want them to get layered over....
"I really appreciate your work and find it one of the most
provocative and inspiring. As i was reading your book and trying to get inside
your 'world' more, i was curious about something : 'Do your machines work? or
are they theoretical, urban insertions only talking about it? .
Your words
and drawings look fantastic and extraordinary to me anyway, the question is
just my curiosity.
Thanks,
Stratis"
Stratis-
Thank you for your comments and kind words.
I’ll answer this stream of thought, to keep it in the
flavor of the blog.
The short answer- yes and no.
Or to quote Bill Clinton, “It depends on what
your definition of the word ‘is’ is”…
The longer version- it really depends on
which specific project you are referring to, and as well [to reference the
Clinton quote], what your definition of “work” happens to be.
Of course, this long version is incredibly
stripped down in hopes that some will actually spend the time to read it. And
yes, I am butchering the proper quotation usage. I prefer to use quotes in a conversation,
not a manuscript. You can quote me on that.
*****
I’ll address the second part first [addressing
the first part first would be too logical and clear…].
Architecturally, I think working can reference program, function, performance, and behavior.
Certain machines/projects work on a
functional level, meaning they perform the mechanical task that each component
was engineered to do. They work. They
work like my lawnmower or coffee
maker work.. they perform a specific
chore. Certain other projects have working
parts, which are mixed in with components or rather assemblies that do not work in the sense that they are
supportive suggestions, built around or upon a working component.
Other projects work in the sense that they perform their designated architectural
program. A bathroom works as a
receptacle/refresh location… a gathering space works as a collective device… a ramp works as a vertical/horizontal translation system. They work. Additionally in this sense,
drawings work as graphic suggestions of otherness, representation,
suggestiveness, and deception. They work
as well.
I think performance is actually a better term
that could be used to describe a hybridized layer of the “working” with the “only talking about it”. One might perform a
drawing [I certainly do], and the drawing may perform other tasks of
communication. The “buildings” [I use the term loosely, as I will get into
trouble with my own intended use of that concept] perform both a mechanical and
architectural function, but additionally the function of ”talking about” larger
architectural issues. They work as
agents of change, discourse, and action. Of course, the term “architectural
issues” in its own right open that wormcan
in ways that I will not discuss here. But you get the picture. I like your term
“theoretical urban insertions”. To open up the old debate, unless a “building”
is constructed… they are ALL “theoretical… no?
But make no mistake, regardless of
functionality, all the work is
intended to talk about architecture. We once lectured at the Tulane School of
Architecture, many moons ago, when Reed Kroloff was Dean . The local AIA was
invited to the event [or were they perhaps even a co sponsor]. I remember an
AIA person asking, at the end of the lecture, something along the lines
[drawing] of “You reference your work…
the work… what exactly are you
referring to when you say ‘the work’?”.
To be honest, part of me still does not understand the scope of that question….
Looking at it literally as a collective body of … stuff… or the collected work of an author… things
produced.
But your question recalls a similarity of
focus and understanding of the devices we use to communicate ideas… both words
in that case… or my work in this
case… drawings here… buildings there… models in-between?
I suppose there is also the condition of the
collective body, probably more specific the drawings, of task inversion… of
that the projects are working us a
readers, occupants, observers, interact-ers, and users. In that sense, we
become the field of operation. We become part of the machine… we work together to achieve an output of
some type that is greater than either the work
or the observer before the level of interaction. I won’t go into the history or
philosophy of art and it’s relation to the user [mainly because that is not my
expertise], but hopefully you can see where this might go.
*****
So, the first part- specific projects. I
suppose the easy thing to do would be to graph this out and tell you which
projects fall into which categories, but that’s no fun at all. And, I feel
that, on some levels, it doesn’t really matter, not trying to be obtuse. Perhaps
there is a filter of convention that
might be placed over the entire collection [in the book anyway], which helps
the reader to discern which projects are “mechanically functional” versus which
projects “implant a discourse about machines, architecture, and performance”. I
am purposefully avoiding any historical architectural references here… you can
fill in the blanks as needed. Let’s just say, that for the projects in the
book, convention might be the container of mechanical functionality… and as one
moves from convention of forms- recognizable architectural artifacts [stairs,
ramps, elevators, guide rails, articulators, screens, festoons, handrails,
etc.]- one might move away from the mechanical crispness to which you refer in your question.
I hope that helps. The question is a good
one… and make me pause to give thought to the level of effectiveness of communication
that we achieved in the book, and more importantly to the level and type of
communication that I hope to achieve in a second book p[should anyone be
interested]. Yes, I am working
potential publishers/sponsors to help generate more of this madness.
All right, that’s enough of this... time to
go back to work.
