1/10 Typically eloquent from our… by @michaelbadu

1/10 Typically eloquent from our professor of architecture @KU_Arch_Land . As ever, no one’s really responded to his request for comment, at least before me that it ;). with total disregard of the potential risks involved lets get to it. As they say. A thread of comms & Qu’s…

twitter.com/ClancyAndrew/s…

2/10 I would rather say that buildings are actually assembled with the cultural disinterest of the market..but then I doubt even that remembering the thought of Tafuri and Cacciari. What is meant by Cultural History?

3/10 M Hayes point on this appears to be focused on the needs of architect’s rather than those of the communities they(we) serve? Is it reconciliation between commodification and culture or dialectic between the two and is either really possible?..

4/10 In other words: commodification+culture (invariably)= commodification (Tafure and Cacciari again). following from that, the internal conversation of architecture has been shown (one way or another) to be rooted in extreme neoliberal socioeconomics right (Schumacher)?

5/10 doesn’t calling it the ‘Carbon Crisis’ accept uncritically the commodified terms of the issue at hand. In a way, retrofit has been a site of architectural thinking sinse Alberti right (i.e always..being provactive…)? Gathering the fragmentary and contested into….

6/10…pluralistic cohesiveness. I’ll just say that for a thinker like Cacciari, that’s a contradiction that actually works to the benefit of commodification (he might be virtually alone in thinking that. but it doesn’t mean that he’s wrong 😉 also..it’s positivist at core?

7/10 I would suggest that the Columbia-n fragments gathered in the hangar are crucially the result of the drive to understand and reaffirm the lost positivism that the crash of a space shuttle perhaps represents like nothing else.

8/10 But I think of Marvin Gaye’s lyrics from ‘Inner City Blues (Make Me Wanna Holler) “Rockets, moon shots Spend it on the have nots” the cry of those for whom culture+commodification (pretty much always) = commodification. Perhaps, following on from this, rather than L BBardi

9/10 I’d cite @NegroBuilding ” a history of building rather than a history of architecture” Criticality here to me is asking if we’re threatened (and I so feel the threat) by that sentence, why? Bachelard recalls Cacciari, but Cacciari would say…..

10/10 ..”follow the contradictions to the bitter end and be honest in admitting that there may be no synthesis”. He would say that the will to synthesis is the will to positivism and always ends up being the unwitting accomplice of commodification. Teaching, Libraries and…..

11/10 and narratives…Yes, always been there, but not ‘everyone’s’ definition of/canon for these things (and this goes right to the heart of the question of Building Or Architecture). What we (think we) know as canonical/normative was constructed here on earth, not in heaven!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *