“Notations belong to time, diagrams to space and organization” (p. 49). On the following page, the author states that “notational systems operate according to shared conventions of interpretations, while diagrams are by definition open to multiple interpretations”. On page 64, however, “notations always describe a work… open to interpretation and change in the course of future performance. “ At first, these statements seem mutually exclusive. Are they really? If not, can you elaborate on why they might not be?
Recently, I have come to appreciate the value of diagram architecture, even though it does not "produce meaning" and tends to focus more on “immediacy, simple forms, direct accommodation of program, and the pleasures of the literal. “ (p.53) What do you think about it (diagram architecture)?
“The modern city… has gone out of control… it has lost the signifying potencies and structural coherence that it once seemed to possess… can no longer be read in any coherent or predictable manner.” (p.56) We haven’t experienced that “once upon a time” period, but can taste its bittersweets character in relation to the urban insertions and modification imposed by the modern, “illegible city” and time. Personally, I see it (the “illegibility”) as a profound reorientation towards a changed world; a legible manifestation of a social, historical and political chaos that also resembles the inherent unpredictability of human nature and times that we are actually familiar with. What does it (the illegible city) mean to you?
No comments:
Post a Comment