Surface Architecture. (More Than Skin Deep).By David Leatherbarrow and Mohsen Mostafavi Mohsen Mostafavi, an Iranian architect and educator, is currently the Dean of the College of Architecture, Art and Planning at Cornell University, and the Arthur L. and Isabel B. Wiesenberger professor of architecture. . London: MIT MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2002. [pounds sterling]26.50 Leatherbarrow and Mostafavi's Surface Architecture takes as its premise the contemporary conflict between architectural production methods and representation or, taken to its extreme, modernity and tradition. They ask: 'How can design utilise the opportunities of current industrial production so that the practice of architectural representation is neither independent of nor subjugated sub·ju·gate tr.v. sub·ju·gat·ed, sub·ju·gat·ing, sub·ju·gates 1. To bring under control; conquer. See Synonyms at defeat. 2. To make subservient; enslave. to the domination of technology?" To answer this question they trace a fascinating path through architectural history Please help recruit one or [ improve this article] yourself. See the talk page for details. , concentrating on the progression from symbolic load-bearing massive edifices to the conceptual and physical separation of skin and structure in modern architecture, The tension between the latter has in recent years been focused on the building's surface, which has become a canvas for stylistic extremes, generating vacuous and anonymous city office blocks and redundant historical pastiche pastiche (păstēsh`, pä–), work of art that combines themes and styles from various sources in such a way as to appear obviously derivative. . In contrast to these extremes, however, Leatherbarrow and Mostafavi present a wealth of architectural examples which explore the potential inherent in the resolution of the apparent incompatibility of mass production technology and architectural expression, and which offer possibilities for a future architecture of material and surface richness, and of meaning. The final Postscript situates the debate within a philosophical, mythological and ecological context, contemplating what can be achieved through the appropriation of technological potential into the realm of human praxis and its specific conditions. This kind of reciprocal arrangement is shown as essential in giving architecture its relevance to the continually evolving process of human existence. Most refreshing is the attention given to previously marginalized architects and buildings, for example George Howe
|
|
||||||||||||||||||

Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion