Both of this week’s readings and last week’s reading discussed the relation of language and its connection to architecture. I think that the commonality between the two is interesting especially in terms of their application. In last week’s readings, Heidegger brought up the idea of language in breaking it down to its roots in order to clarify the connection between building and dwelling as the origins of each word are interconnected. Furthermore, Norberg-Schulz interprets the language of architecture itself “possesses the capacity to translate lived reality into built form”. Their interpretation of language is in this translation and understanding of space as it defines form and the connections between it and everything else.
Whereas, in looking at the reading from this week Venturi also utilizes this idea of language, but less in instilling an understanding of connections between various elements, with the building, the viewer, the landscape, etc. and more with conversation. The forms they manipulate and utilize “introduce an explicit historical reference… a cue system that helps architects and users communicate better about their intentions”. They have an understanding that their works of architecture are situated in a certain time and space, they are statements, questions, comments that are their contribution to the ever continuous conversation of architecture.
The other thing that I think was very interesting at least from our last lecture, was the idea that you need to have an understanding of architecture’s past in order to understand the comments post-modern architecture is trying to convey through their historical references. In this case, the history is the language through which we communicate, by understanding the traditional, conventional applications of elements of architecture we can make connections between that and their new application.
References
Heidegger, Martin. Building Dwelling Thinking, 1971.
Norberg-Schulz, “Genius Loci” (1976)
Venturi, Robert. 1966. Complexity and Contradiction.
Great summary, and I’m glad to read of connections between different weeks! Regarding the Postmodernist agenda (and I’m not wholly sure we can even conceive of a singular agenda), I think you summarized it quite well, however, I’d like to read more of your personal assessment of some of its ideas/approaches. Do you find them particularly relevant, useful, applicable, to your own methods?