HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE AS COM-POSITION – HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE AS DIS-POSITION - IS THERE A PERTINENT CRITICISM?

History of architecture as composition – History of architecture as disposition Is there a pertinent criticism? Historiography changes depending of the (unknown) field of thoughts where the historian or the art critic stays… In this paper I just would like to present a difference between - a Historiography and Criticism in a history of architecture as com-position of figures resulting in architectural objects and - a Historiography and Criticism of architecture as dis-position of matters resulting in a architectural operation. and suggest a question: which historiography or which criticism is pertinent ? and develop synthetically what are the results of not making clear in which type of Historiography and Criticism we are ? The synthesis of this statement, which I could develop in my full paper is here: Historiography can stay in a field of thoughts considering that the anthrope –the so called Human Being- is ‘a priori there’, is ‘finite’, is central to itself, is capable on his own judgments or is a Cartesian subject. But Science to-day contradicts this thoroughly. For Science the subject isn’t anymore the Cartesian subject. For Science the subject isn’t central to itself. For Science the subject is the crossing of the others… He is limited but in-finite. For Science the subject isn’t com-posed as a Cartesian subject but is dis-posed towards the Real. For the Cartesian Subject, the architectural space was finite made by a finite com-posed architecture in a mental world of de-finition: An architecture of com-position of figures, as a sort of concept of and in the Reality. For the Subject, as Science presents it today, the architectural space is in-finite made by a in-finite architecture in a mental world of in-finition: An architecture of dis-position of matters, as an operation on the Real. And this doesn’t mean that the subject changed of structure…. For Science it was already so in the past. So the question ‘Which criticism of architecture is pertinent?’ & ‘Which historiography is pertinent?’ is a real question. In fact there is a Story of criticism… To criticize architecture as a com-position of a finite object isn’t so pertinent anymore… To criticize architecture as a dis-position of matter(s) in an in-finite operation is the work which still has to be done. Both of this type of critics are the results of an ideology. - An old one based on a believe making of the anthrope a Cartesian subject finite and a priori present who wants an architecture and an architectural space as objects. - A new one based on a knowledge of the results of Science showing the Subject limited but in-finite and evolving as the crossing of the others, and living in an architecture and an architectural space which are operations. The synthesis of this was presented by Louis Kahn in a lightning statement: Purity lies in the incompletion. The full paper and the oral presentation will present of course great examples of both criticisms of historical buildings past and present.

ISBN:978-605-9207-10-2

Jaar van publicatie:2015

Toegankelijkheid:Closed