THEORY OF UGLY AND ORDINARY (133)
vention over physiognomy in our understanding of the meaning of form.
Colquhoun argues against the proposition of Modern architecture that form should by the result of the result of the application of physical or mathematical laws rather than of previous association or aesthetic ideologies. Not only are these laws themselves human constructs, but in the real world, even the world of advanced technology, they are not totally determining; there are areas of free choice. If "in a world of pure technology this area is invariably dealt with by adapting previous," then even more will this be the case in architecture where laws and facts are still less capable of leading directly to form. He grants that systems of representation are not altogether independent of the facts of the objective world, and indeed "the modern movement in architecture was an attempt to modify the representational systems which had been inherited from the pre-industrial past, and which had no longer seemed operable within the context of a rapidly changing technology."13
The viewing of physical laws and empirical facts as the fundamental source of form in Modern architectural theory Colquhoun calls "biotechnical determinism":
"And it is from this theory that the current belief in the supreme importance of scientific methods of analysis and classification derives. The essence of the functional doctrine of modern movement was not that beauty or order or meaning were unnecessary, bus that it could no longer be found in the deliberate search for final form, and the path by which the artifact affected the observer aesthetically was seen as short-circuiting the process of formalization. Form was merely the result of a logical process by which the operational needs and the operational techniques were brought together. Ultimately these would fuse in a kind of biological extension of life, and function and technology would become totally transparent."14
The limitations inherent in this approach, even for technical engineering problems, were acknowledged obliquely in Modern theory. But they were to be overcome through the integrating magic of intuition and without reference to historical models. That form results from intention as well as deterministic process was acknowledged in the writings of Le Corbusier, Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, and other leaders of the Modern movement in their descriptions of the "intuition, " "imagination," "inventiveness," and "free and innumerable plastic events" that regulate architectural design. What resulted, Colquhoun says, was a "tension of two apparently contradictory ideas biological determinism on one hand, and free expression on the other," within the doctrine of the
13.Ibid.
14Ibid.
THEORY OF UGLY AND ORDINARY (133)vention over physiognomy in our understanding of the meaning of form.Colquhoun argues against the proposition of Modern architecture that form should by the result of the result of the application of physical or mathematical laws rather than of previous association or aesthetic ideologies. Not only are these laws themselves human constructs, but in the real world, even the world of advanced technology, they are not totally determining; there are areas of free choice. If "in a world of pure technology this area is invariably dealt with by adapting previous," then even more will this be the case in architecture where laws and facts are still less capable of leading directly to form. He grants that systems of representation are not altogether independent of the facts of the objective world, and indeed "the modern movement in architecture was an attempt to modify the representational systems which had been inherited from the pre-industrial past, and which had no longer seemed operable within the context of a rapidly changing technology."13The viewing of physical laws and empirical facts as the fundamental source of form in Modern architectural theory Colquhoun calls "biotechnical determinism":"And it is from this theory that the current belief in the supreme importance of scientific methods of analysis and classification derives. The essence of the functional doctrine of modern movement was not that beauty or order or meaning were unnecessary, bus that it could no longer be found in the deliberate search for final form, and the path by which the artifact affected the observer aesthetically was seen as short-circuiting the process of formalization. Form was merely the result of a logical process by which the operational needs and the operational techniques were brought together. Ultimately these would fuse in a kind of biological extension of life, and function and technology would become totally transparent."14The limitations inherent in this approach, even for technical engineering problems, were acknowledged obliquely in Modern theory. But they were to be overcome through the integrating magic of intuition and without reference to historical models. That form results from intention as well as deterministic process was acknowledged in the writings of Le Corbusier, Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, and other leaders of the Modern movement in their descriptions of the "intuition, " "imagination," "inventiveness," and "free and innumerable plastic events" that regulate architectural design. What resulted, Colquhoun says, was a "tension of two apparently contradictory ideas biological determinism on one hand, and free expression on the other," within the doctrine of the
13.Ibid.
14Ibid.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/98aba/98abadb1435b0cfbe63f2dabdddc22693678da81" alt=""