I noticed on my comparison of camera types someone had asked, in so many words, how it related to architecture. While I understand the author's point of view (that, as a publication of the CAED, every piece should make some stance on Architecture), I do not agree with it.
Does every one of our articles have to explicitly refer to architecture? Similarly, does every image we produce have to include some sort of architectural construction? If not, why do we impose different rules on images as we do on text? It seems as though, if we are permitted some level of ambiguity in our images, we imply a similar ambiguity for our words.
"__________ is architecture, because..." seems an unreasonable path to follow, all the time. If we are explicit in talking about a particular subject's relationship to the built environment, that is fine; however, is there no room to allow a viewer of the book to draw their own conclusions?
7 comments:
can you please post the original comment?
in response to your interpretation, it seems to me you are posing an extreme reaction to something that was very likely a harmless note.
although i cannot speak for everyone, i do not believe it has been anyone's intention to take a "stance on Architecture." in fact, such a thing would be near-impossible considering the breadth of the field.
as far as i understand, it is our intention to pose a commentary on how seemingly peripheral topics can relate metaphorically (and, at times literally) to various sectors within the title-head of "architecture."
re: images and text; we apply different rules because they are different things. because text is our primary form of communication--we are publishing in a specific language, whereas images can be interpreted by anyone--we must be mindful of the ideas we are conveying through written language. if both our words and our images were ambiguous, we would be left with a book full of incoherent babble and unrelated images.
it is important to note that the publication group has been endorsed (and allowed) by the CAED. and while we are not bound to creating any specific type of publication, i do think we have an obligation to create something that relates to architecture. were we to divert from that path, our publication could feasibly have been published by any college within the university.
that said, suggesting that "________ is architecture, because..." is or ever has been our philosophy is, in my opinion, an unfounded conjecture. i agree that we do not have to be brutally explicit, but on the same note, we should not be so implicit that the reader is left without direction or understanding.
i would hardly say my reaction was extreme, but more of a general question. i also thought it was a harmless comment; i was trying to better understand under what parameters the book is functioning.
next, i think you are exaggerating my use of the term 'ambiguous,' to say the least. i am really not sure how to reply to your comment that ambiguity leads to "incoherent babble." [the phrase "extreme reaction" comes to mind.]
i do not see how images and text are that different. we use both to express meaning and purpose. both are open to interpretation.
finally, i did not, in fact, state that no pieces should relate to architecture, as it seems that you understand me to have said that. rather, i asked whether every article had to relate explicitly to architecture. i was simply posting a question as a reaction to a comment i found interesting. yes, the primary focus of the publication is architecture; i am not so base as to think otherwise.
to be clear, i really like the idea of leaving various parts of the publication ambiguous, but i think we have to be selective when choosing where and how. i think if we are to pursue the idea of encouraging discourse (the main topic of the midterm review), using ambiguity to our advantage is an important approach.
my original comment was with specific regard to your post, which i understood to be referring to the comment you received on your article. i think that, in relation to articles, we should be communicative insofar as how our topics relate to architecture, and to each other. ambiguity is better suited to images or, more specifically, "visual essays."
in other words, i think that ambiguity in terms of topic purpose or meaning is ineffective while ambiguity in terms of stance has the potential to be effective.
how do you feel about this?
"visual essays" are the only things that are allowed to not refer to architecture, or rather, to be ambiguous? i thought "unrelated images" were a no-no. that is what happens when you have ambiguous imagery, remember?
saying that a level of uncertainty is better suited for imagery than text could not be farther from the truth. one of the greatest shared aspects of both language and imagery is that they both provoke free association. everyone makes their own conclusions as to the purpose of the subject matter based upon the information with which they are provided, in the context in which it is offered.
how do i feel about this? honestly, if humans could have telepathic communication in which every idea was instantaneously clear and distinct, i would opt for it, as we have not really gone anywhere.
ambiguity discourse aside, it's hard to argue that there is not a pretty big implicit link between photography and architecture and i think having to state it explicitly is not giving our audience enough credit.
and as for content [i'm not really responding to anything specifically here, this is just my take on it]: ambiguous or not, at this point i don't think we should limit ourselves*. like, at all. once we have content we can edit it down, but i think we're going to have a problem just getting enough good content if we decide to stick to certain themes. people are going to be running around paranoid [or, at least i will be] about whether or not their contribution fits; i'm already nervous enough, if we now say 'we only want contributions that relate to these specific areas (or general areas, even)' it's only going to get worse. i think with freedom [at least at this point] the opportunity is there to gain confidence and start cranking stuff out--maybe it'll end up cut later but we can worry about that when we get there and hopefully come up with some worthwhile stuff on the way there.
*[by ourselves i mean everyone in the class--outsiders could be a whole different discussion]
i understand now what matt was getting at. i think it was a misunderstanding of the word "ambiguity" and its use. i apologize for the confusion.
as for content, perhaps rather than establishing a topic, we establish a verb.
for instance, consider when we ask children: "What do you want to BE?" by doing so, we inherently limit them to what society has determined to be the extent of a given occupation. a doctor, for example, is limited to certain tasks such as helping ailing patients, possibly performing surgery, prescribing medication, etc.
we would be wise to ask instead: "What do you want to DO?" in doing so, we allow for a potentially infinite number of opportunities. suppose for instance one decides that "helping ailing patients receive medicine" is a desirable and suitable aspiration. one could then could practice medicine, become a chemical biologist, help advance inoculative technology, join the peace corps, etc. all of which are related to the same verb, and are implicitly connected.
perhaps we decide we want to "inform," or "initiate dialog," or "raise hell." then we can throw a potentially infinite number of topics at that verb, and what sticks, sticks.
i really like looking at it from the verb perspective--it's a nice open-ended and unthreatening push in some sort of direction. great idea!
Post a Comment