Advocacy of anomalously meaningless space and programmless place is a raging debate among mockitectural thinkers. American ideaologies and current contextual practicionalities consume every inch of our space and make it do something. This is really an extension of a society constricted by programming every minute of the day. Mockitects must fight this growing trend by programming meaningless spaces. Meaningless as meaning accomplishes two goals:
1,,,wHY mUST eVERYTHING bE aSSIGNED A tRIVIAL aND kITSCH mEANING tHAT nO oNE gETS?
Is there something to be said for meaninglessness as a philosophical stance? Some of the foremost philosophers of our time are "wandering the streets of the East Village, [spending] so much time contemplating the meaningless of existence. I sometimes felt like a ghost." Are we chasing our tails trying to assign meaning to everything, when really a critical breakdown of space is in order?
2,,, mEANINGLESS sPACE iS oPEN tO iNTERPRETATION AND cUSTOMIZATION.
These are the new Piazzas. Renzo Piano got angry, which is out of his character, when a meaningless space was ruined with benches at the High Museum in Atlanta. We may find ourselves enjoying an open field or balcony more than a cafe or "study area" Could meainglessness create new places? When people are free to hang out in a place with no meaning attached to it, they will assign thier own meanings, and have their own experiences/opinions of the space. Would this make the space more of a place if they can interpret it as they want, individually? This would bring me back to another point? Is the entire process of public place making futile and pointless? Does placelessness foster people to make their own places? A blank Canvas, perhaps?
No comments:
Post a Comment