Sie befinden Sich nicht im Netzwerk der Universität Paderborn. Der Zugriff auf elektronische Ressourcen ist gegebenenfalls nur via VPN oder Shibboleth (DFN-AAI) möglich. mehr Informationen...
Architecture and Spectacle: A Critique, 2012, p.21-52
Ort / Verlag
United Kingdom: Routledge
Erscheinungsjahr
2012
Link zum Volltext
Quelle
Alma/SFX Local Collection
Beschreibungen/Notizen
These words of Romano Guardini have not lost their allure even today at the
dawn of this new century.1 Like many other thinkers of his time, Guardini
seemingly addresses the sensitive issue of cultural heritage and the ways its
foundation should be shaken and readjusted according to the demands of the
“time.” Contemporary history is full of instances of architects’ attempts to rethink
architecture in the context of the socio-cultural and technical imperatives of
modernity. From the 1914 debate of the Werkbund, concerning architecture of
Sachlichkeit, to Peter Eisenman’s advocacy for the “Futility of Objects,”2 architecture
is relentlessly reformulating itself according to formal and contextual factors. It is
the intention of this volume to discuss the theoretical issues pertinent to the crisis
of the object, thus historicizing contemporary architectural praxis. Of interest is
the thematic shift from construction to surface, a subject central to the advocates
of the international style of architecture, but more importantly is the current
turn to “surface” in spite or because of the proliferation of media technologies.
The project’s importance has to do with the early modernist infatuation with the
machine, but also the fact that it is not the image of machine any more but the very
technique itself that determines the processes of design and perhaps the nal form
of architecture. In spite, or perhaps because of the crisis of the object, the present
state of architecture is suggestive of a return to the thematic of the disciplinary
history of architecture. Central to the objectives of this book is Gottfried Semper’s
discourse on theatricality and its theoretical potentiality in oering a dierentinterpretation of the dialogue between construction and “expression” permeating
contemporary architecture.