Tuesday, February 23, 2010

ANALYSIS #2 EGGS - actly!

EGGS-actly WHAT DID YOU DO?

I haven't flipped. I just thought the egg pix would inspire Amy to have fun with the words for the game Alex inspired for our presentation on Structuralism .

I liked how abstract and subjective the thinking could get with a mere egg – the inside and outside; to incite or urge, egg on one's face, humiliation or embarrassment, walk on eggs, or a good old goose egg.

I also liked how abstract, interchangeable, associative words and images got with the word bill. There’s Bill Clinton, the Bill of Rights, the invoice, statement, bulletin, handbill, poster and the beak.

I believe I was most helpful by emailing the key points along with the work cited information that I found most interesting concerning the theory’s historical context, cultural importance and practical uses . That way the one who orchestrated our power point could simply cut and paste what she needed. I then emboldened what I felt was the bottom-line so our coordinator didn’t need to spend too much time wading through the information.

Example:
Ferdinand de Saussure, Swiss, early 20th Century linguist argued:
Study language as if frozen in time and cut transversely (in a cross direction; road that cuts through a park or other area of light traffic; shortcut) like a leaf.
The result: vision of entire language system – implied or unconscious in any utterance. Utterances are merely manifestation of rules of the system that lend order to the heterogeneity (composition from dissimilar parts) of language. (IMPLIED ORDER central to Stucturalist; derives historically and logically from Formalism; adducing the internal system or order of linguistic, cultural and literary phenomena - a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed)


Other favorite facts were:


“During the early and middle sixties, structuralism so dominated the French Intelectual life that Bernard Pinguad could write in a 1966 issue of L’Arc devoted to Sartre: ‘1945 1960: In order to measure the distance covered between these two dates, it is enough to open a newspaper or periodical and to read a few book reviews. Not only are the same names no longer quoted and the same references no longer invoked but the same words are no longer pronounced. The language of reflection has changed. Philosophy, which was triumphant fifteen years age, today gives way to the human sciences, and this is accompanied by the appearance of a new vocabulary. One no longer speaks of “consciousness” or “subject” but of “rules,” “codes,” “systems”; one no longer is an existentialist but a structuralist” [L’arc, PP 30-31]. In his elegant and entertaining Structuralism in Literature, Robert Scholes defines structuralism as a movement of mind and as a method.”
__________________________________________________________
One of the many reasons why a typology of forms might have more impact on practice in architecture than in the other arts is the inherent reproducibility of architecture and its dependence on prototype. In the past, all the arts depended, to a greater or a lesser extent, on the faithful reproduction of prototypical elements. In classical artistic theory this use of prototypes was, so to speak, sublimated into the theory of mimesis, insofar as this applied to the imitation of models of classical art. The romantic movement condemned this concept as a denial of the absolute originality of each artwork; though the process was not destroyed, after romanticism it ceased to be a de jure practice and went underground. But in architecture the concept of reproducibility persisted . . .Once and idea has been established in architecture it tends to be repeated in countless examples . . . humble buildings like houses are often identical . . . partly because such buildings are intended to satisfy basic and continuing human needs, and partly because to translate an idea into material form requires the mediation of a number of agents, which in turn demands a certain degree of standardization.
In architecture and urban planning evolved around the middle of the 20th century. It was a reaction to CIAM-Functionalism which had led to a lifeless expression of urban planning that ignored the identity of the inhabitants and urban forms. . . The organization was hugely influential. It was not only engaged in formalizing the architectural principles of the Modern Movement, but also saw architecture as an economic and political tool that could be used to improve the world through the design of buildings and through urban planning.
CIAM's conferences consisted of:
• 1928, CIAM I, La Sarraz, Switzerland, Foundation of CIAM
• 1929, CIAM II, Frankfurt, Germany, on The Minimum Dwelling
• 1930, CIAM III, Brussels, Belgium, on Rational Land Development (Rationelle Bebauungsweisen)
• 1937, CIAM V, Paris, France, on Dwelling and Recovery
[Note the Swiss and French influence, as with literary thinkers]
__________________________________________________________

I’ve noticed in other readings Robert Scholes defined “Structuralism is a reaction to ‘modernist’ alienation and despair,” the way the following article does . . .

________________________________________________________

I enjoyed this project and those I got to work with VERY much :)

No comments:

Post a Comment