i'll attempt to elaborate a bit. the premise for this exercise was to address the topic of man's relationship between an 'active' life and the 'contemplative' life. while i agree there is a dialect relationship between the methods of thought and action, i took a stance asserting a proposition that provided opportunities for the inhabitant to adapt and grow (?) into their surroundings without prescriptive measures. i believe while it is true that certain spaces allow one greater ease of contemplation or facilitate more active participation these recognitions, or resonances, are based on deep personal convictions (possibly bordering on unconscious) that cannot be necessarily specifically designed for. daily life is a constant oscillation between the interiors of our minds; thinking, and the participation in the outside environment; making. this design/build space offers no labeling of spaces, merely opportunity.
formally, the plan of this space consists of four conceptual rectangles and four regulating lines arranged in an a-b-a rhythm along a underlying grid. while the framework to set up composition is strict and regimented the relationship between these two formal deployments reveal an overlapping adjacency of spaces. the deconstruction of the four boxes creates apertures and thresholds for interaction between the constructed, inhabited microcosm, and the exterior world; within and without; between the mind and the body. equally relevant, the adjacency of spaces begin to define areas with overlapping, ambiguous relation. the layering of space offers opportunity for habitation based on personal (subjective?) interpretations of space.
I might be trying to get at something like this; thought and action are in a constant symbiotic flow. however, at times, a heightened focus in which one (thought or action) may overshadow the other, but this is temporary and we are drawn back towards the opposite end of the spectrum to maintain a harmony….
my question; do we need defined areas of work or thought to be labeled for us, with defined separation or will we adapt and interpret regardless of any conceptual imposition?
Posts
i like the spatial sequencing and the variety and interconnection of spaces through poche. I would argue, though, that some of these spaces may be almost too constraining while the next space in the sequence is just another degree of constraining. I don't think, however, that any formal thing be changed, necessarily, but instead, the materiality, section and ground plane be altered. In this way. While you are in a small space, you will also have a perspective, or perhaps while in a large space, there is a smaller space above you, or you have sight access to the outside, or even, while in a bigger space, it seems bigger but alone by placing a thin strip of windows at the ceiling height, but not with visual access, while the smaller spaces have a sectional difference, a material quality of warmth and window at the lowest floor level so that one must duck to see and bodily be confined as well. ?
ReplyDelete