Nature as Paradox (i) 12/94

Date:         Thu, 8 Dec 1994 20:21:55 CST
Sender:       DESIGN-L "Basic and applied design" (Art and Architecture)
From:         carr0023@gold.tc.umn.edu
Subject:      Nature as Paradox (i)

                                 ORIGIN


                                 *idea*
                       ARCHITECTURE<|>Science
                                ART<|>Technology
                                    |
                                   \|/
                                    |
          /->->->->->->-/->->->  "NATURE"
          |             |           |
          |             |           |
          |             |  (1596-DESCARTES-1650)------------\
          |             |           |                       |
          |          __ | __________|_____________          |
  SuBjEctiVe nAtuRe <<<| <<<<<<<<<</ \>>>>>>>>>>>>> OBJECTIVE NATURE
  ^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^^^|    |                          |^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^^
          |        |    |                          |        |
          |        |    |                          |        |
  HumAn ObsERvEr   |    o     <- - - - - - __o     |   HUMAN OBSERVED
         \o/       |   /|\                    /    |       (o}  <---o
           |        |   / \                   /|    |        &      /|\
         / \       |                               |       ! ?     /|
__________|________|_______________________________|________________________
                    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
 SUBJECTIVE NATURE  <<<<<<< O B J E C T I V E <<<<<<   LAWS OF NATURE
                    <<<<<<<    N A T U R E   <<<<<<<
  "pICTuResqUE"     <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<       PHYSICS
____________________<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<________________________
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||///////////////////////|

 
  ArcHItEcTUrE            Comprehensive Ideas              SCIENCE
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^              ^^^^^^^
    huMaN iN
     NaTuRE                                                UNIVERSE
   ____________
   |SuBjEctiVE|  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< |OBJECTIVE|
   |----------|  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< |---------|
   |ObjEcTivE |  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< |OBJECTIVE|

 
                 SCIENCE ACCOUNTS FOR EVERYTHING OBJECTIVE
                 EXCEPT FOR THE SUBJECTIVE OF ARCHITECTURE


                 Yet, ArCHiTEcturE HaS iTS OWN OBjECtiviTy
                 Supposedly Mutually Exclusive from Science...
   ____________
   |SuBjEctiVE|  <<<< <E <N <G <I <N <E <E <R <I <N <G <<<<<<<<<<<<<< |OBJECTIVE|
   |----------|  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<   E <N <G <I <N <E <E <R <I <N <G < |---------|
   |ObjEcTivE |  <<<< <E <N <G <I <N <E <E <R <I <N <G <<<<<<<<<<<<<< |OBJECTIVE|

 
                 :paradox
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>:<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
   |SuBjEctiVE>>>:<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< |OBJECTIVE|
   |---------->>>:<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< |---------|
   |ObjEcTivE >>>:>>>>>>>>>>>>>CHAOS THEORY>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |OBJECTIVE|
   <<<<<<<<<<<<<<:<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< SCI/TECH <
	____________
   |SuBjEctiVE|||>--------------------------------------> |OBJECTIVE|
   |----------|||>-------------------------------------->|---------|
    OBJECTIVE<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< |OBJECTIVE|

 
   ____________
   | hUMAnITY |||>--------------------------------------> |OBJECTIVE|
   |----------|||>--------------------------------------> |---------|
    OBJECTIVE<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< |OBJECTIVE|

 
   _____________
   |Architecture|<----------------------------------------< SCIENCE
   |------------|<---------------------------------------<
      SCIENCE^^^<<--------------------------------------< SCIENCE

 
   ______________
   |Architecture|<--------------------------------------<  ENGINEERING
   |------------|<--------------------------------------<
    ^ENGINEERING^<<-------------------------------------<< ENGINEERING

 
   _____________
   |   being    |<--------------------------------------<<  SCIENCE
   |------------|<<------------------------------------<
    ^^SCIENCE^^^<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<    SCIENCE

 
           ____________________________________________________
   HIOX    | Architecture (subject) human being  HUMAN SPIRIT |\
    --------|--------------------------------------------------| \
     HIOX    | ENGINEERING  (OBJECT)   SCIENCE    LAWS OF NATURE|\ |
           ---------------------------------------------------- \|
            \                                                  \ |
             \__________________________________________________\|

 
   If architecture were to accept Scientific nature as the real nature,
   OBJECTIVE, including the architect themselves, then they would also
   have to accept universal objectivity, such as technological objects.
   This would include accepting Engineering as the highest form of the
   Objective construction, building.

 
   Thus, the sUBjEctIvE/oBjECtivE of architecture would change relations to
   be sUBjEcTivE/OBJECTIVE (universal objectivity of scientific nature).

 
   Thus, all architecture is left with the sUBjEcTivE idea of constructing.
   Architecture could UTILIZE the UNIVERSAL OBJECTivity OF SCIENCE to
   ground its subjectivity in the real questions of the past and present.

 
   As Mies realized:

   "Architecture is the real battleground of the spirit.
   Architecture wrote the history of the epochs and gave them their names.
   It is the crystallization of its inner structure, the slow unfolding of
   its form.  That is the reason why technology and architecture are so
   closely related.  Our real hope is that they will grow together, that
   some day the one will be the expression of the other.  Only then will
   we have an architecture worthy of its name:

 
                architecture as a true symbol of our time.              "

 
   Engineering takes the cake on this one, eh?  Is it time for architects
   to realize the "Nature of Science" as the Objectivity of architecture?
   This would allow the rationalization of technology in design, new space
   and time experiences, computer networks as spatial constructions, and
   even some history about the real economic/political/social world.
   Is this right?

 
   Oh, btw, anyone interested in the electrical (aesthetic/rational) of
   the wooden poles and metal towers, I have found the book.  Haven't got
   it yet, but i saw it, and looked through it.  It is called Lineman's ..
   something or other.  Any Lineman's school, tradeschool should have it,
   that is, if you're interested.

 
   I think the above proof trys to show that architecture is completely
   ~subjective (based on its view of history, and nature) and in this way
   even its ~objectivity is not objective in any rational sense, but only
   in a subjective sense.  Thus, possibly any objective design after the
   infamous form-follows-function would only be objective in a subjective
   sense.  Make sense?  There can be no objective proof in architecture,
   only subjective, in keeping with the continuation of this history.

 
 This oughta get someone to comment, or are we subservient to our history?
                  .___.____________.__.___________.
                  |___|____________|__|___________|
                  |the|architecture|of|electricity|


                    }{____________}{__}{___}{______}{
                   }{____________}{__}{___}{______}{
                the/\architecture/\of/\the/\United/\Nations

 

 
      pqpqpqcqpqpq pqpqpcpqpqpq pqpqpcpqpqpq pqpqpqcqpqpq pqpqpqcqpqpq
      bdbdbdcdbdbd bdbdbcbdbdbd bdbdbcbdbdbd bdbdbdcdbdbd bdbdbdcdbdbd
      pqpqpqcqpqpq pqpqpcpqpqpq pqpqpcpqpqpq pqpqpqcqpqpq pqpqpqcqpqpq
      bdbdbdcdbdbd bdbdbcbdbdbd bdbdbcbdbdbd bdbdbdcdbdbd bdbdbdcdbdbd
      pqpqpqcqpqpq pqpqpcpqpqpq HHIIOXXOIIHH pqpqpqcqpqpq pqpqpqcqpqpq
      bdbdbdcdbdbd bdbdbcbdbdbd HHIIOXXOIIHH bdbdbdcdbdbd bdbdbdcdbdbd
      pqpqpqcqpqpq pqpqpcpqpqpq pqpqpcpqpqpq pqpqpqcqpqpq pqpqpqcqpqpq
      bdbdbdcdbdbd bdbdbcbdbdbd bdbdbcbdbdbd bdbdbdcdbdbd bdbdbdcdbdbd
      pqpqpqcqpqpq pqpqpcpqpqpq pqpqpcpqpqpq pqpqpqcqpqpq pqpqpqcqpqpq
      bdbdbdcdbdbd bdbdbcbdbdbd bdbdbcbdbdbd bdbdbdcdbdbd bdbdbdcdbdbd