have you noticed how ubiquitous it is? it seems like every new university or public office is trying to look like an airport, which all try to look like spaceships or a space-age factory which is manned by robots. it is marked by conspicuous disregard to people, function, materials, modularity, and nature, notice how the entrance of the building has no acknowledgment. but the massive random sails that don't serve any function but cost a lot. notice the monolithic appearance, imagine the place while the sun is lower in the sky, how it could roast or at least blind people walking by. why is this so popular? it feels impossible to tell the particular size of the building without people in the picture. is that why? "this building is so cool it knows who it is and it doesn't give a shit about anyone else" where is the public outcry against this obnoxious dehumanization and de-naturization they experience. concrete, steel and glass. abiotic castable materials requiring very high temperatures. I would feel more comfortable in a world where people exclusively made love to robots and only ate food with red #40 than a world that looked like this. isn't this sickening? are there any long term adverse effects to being exposed to these lifeless monsters? probably not. just like red #40 and sex with robots is probably fine too. its just gross to a small sub set of fanatic nature worshipers that can't appreciate art. I have no idea if I'm right or if this is even a falsifiable statement but I have a sense of sarcastic nihilism emoted and emitted from these buildings. if post modernism had a musical expression it would probably sound like a set of unrelated pure tones and randomly interrupted static noise. if it had a smell it would be of bleach and volatile organic compounds, and if it had a profession it would be recreational dentistry. and lord have mercy on these interior designers: so the basic design principle here is that of a small efficient slaughter house. it is as void of life as possible while still ensuring that it doesn't look like its picture was taken in black and white. so it has some culinarily meaningless bowls of fruit. this is not for people, its for avatars. maybe this is the true meaningful design principle: it is one that makes the image appear digitally generated, to fuse blue-prints and reality, so to dissolve reality or overcome fear of our own living and therefore dying physicality. I think I need to test this hypothesis in mortality salience procedure. if that was Heavens No! here is the Hell Yes!
0 Comments
one of the least publicly discussed human instinct is evaluating the environment in it's suitability for home. for millions of years we had to hone-in our intuition as to where a good place to settle would be and when we should keep going. just like the constituents of loveability in other people, we might pursue certain individuals with deep passion, without having the clue as to how to recapitulate desirable tendencies in ourselves. our homes represent both our atunement to our instincts and our sense of agency in catering to them. making space in making a space in nature I ask two questions: where am I naturally attracted to? how do I preserve that space rather than be tempted to build something there? can we make our human settlement enhance rather than diminish life around us? I suppose we have to share; share our compost, our shelter, our water, at least our grey water, and maybe break up some fights between densely copasing trees. we live 120 feet above a large man-made spring fed pond. at one point it was a large lush area and now its highly contained source of water with very minimal edge effect to support life. my pumping water up here and irrigating are we disturbing nature or are we restoring it closer to its original state? I don't know. I feel that we need to share the water more. even for purely selfish reasons. but then again, could the perception of lush health ecology ever be purely selfish? I suppose, at least in the case of the love of golf courses. between architectural anthropocentrism to nature worshiping
making a space for humans in the forest we don't want to stand out or blend in. we aren't contrasting with bright colors nor are we using camo-nets. we don't accept all the trees and terrain as they are nor do we flatten the hilltop to create exactly what we want. like the complex dynamics of two trees growing next to one another we want to take the time to grow along nature maintaining a mutually constituent relationship. an oak tree has no plan or blueprint for development; but it has certain needs, limitations, and an oaky kind of way in which it does things. (genetics). granted, nothing we would ever build could be as beautiful or artistic as an oak tree; but in a similar vein, we don't have a plan for developing the space. every thing that we do affects the appearance of the space and therefore the next step. |
Archives
September 2017
Authorwhat people say about themselves is generally less accurate and consistent than what others say about them. |