if then so

Mar 19, 2008 12:44

If magic is about the life of objects (think Mary Poppins and her talking umbrella, the toys coming to life in the nursery, etc.) then we view the wild as magic. Trees are objects to us but they are also living - animals are objects and are living - there is a two-fold life [and still life] of the animate and inanimate. The wild is enchanting. Magic is enchanting.

Then architecture has come to destroy nature. It is the domain and dominance of the purely inanimate. The first response we have to the issue is a technological one - we need interactive architecture. We need walls that flutter and change color with the changing sounds of urbanity. We need beds that conform to bodies of our absent loved ones hundreds of miles away. We need the inanimate to come animate. But it's not wild - these things are programmed on binary logic, for heaven's sake. One or zero. And though numbers are infinite this architecture is far from the possibilities of the infinite universe.

So we've had a backlash against the "love affair with the synthetic," as my mentor put it. Let's stick lawn on our roofs and call ourselves green. This toxic mimicry of the market (whole foods), the toxic mimicry of the wild (the urban?), and that of social interaction (the internet).

I can't wait for the internet to go green.
 

uncohered thoughts, urbanism, architecture, research

Previous post Next post
Up