Architects can no longer afford to be intimidated by the puritanically moral
language of orthodox Modern architecture. I like elements which are hybrid rather than
"pure," compromising rather than "clean," distorted rather than "straightforward,”
ambiguous rather than "articulated," perverse as well as impersonal, boring as well as
"interesting," conventional rather than "designed," accommodating rather than
excluding, redundant rather than simple, vestigial as well as innovating, inconsistent
and equivocal rather than direct and clear. I am for messy vitality over obvious unity. I
include the non sequitur and proclaim the duality.
I am for richness of meaning rather than clarity of meaning; for the implicit
function as well as the explicit function. I prefer "both-and" to "either-or," black and
white, and sometimes gray, to black or white. A valid architecture evokes many levels
of meaning and combinations of focus: its space and its elements become readable
and Workable in several ways at once.
But an architecture of complexity and contradiction has a special obligation
toward the whole: its truth must be in its totality or its implications of totality. It must
embody the difficult unity of inclusion rather than the easy unity of exclusion. More is not
less.
No comments:
Post a Comment