We are continuing the series of lectures and discussions entitled Architecture ≠ Art. Join us with lecturers Petra Čeferin and Miloš Kosec tomorrow, 27. 5., at 7 pm, at the Museum of Contemporary Art Metelkova in Ljubljana. PETRA ČEFERIN: ARCHITECTURE = ARCHITECTURE. The Construction of Architectural Bonds The starting point of the lecture is the definition of architecture, which might actually seem to tell us [Mies van der Rohe, detail, Barcelona Pavilion (1929), drawing by: Aljoša Kolenc] nothing at all: architecture = architecture. However, my thesis is that this is the most precise definition of architecture. This definition tells us that the constitutive element of architecture is something that cant be determined by any predicate: a void of meaning, a nothingness. But a paradoxical nothingness: a nothingness that isnt null, as it is constitutive, indeed crucial for architecture. Architecture is successfully realized when it comes closest to this paradoxical nothingness – as Mies would have it, when it is beinahe Nichts. As a result, one could argue that architecture is one of those practices which constantly has to be re-defined (anew), and which only appears in the world in the form of such re-definitions, expressed as concrete material objects such as buildings, drawings, texts. From this point of view architecture isnt actually different from art. The difference between art and architecture, however, is that each of these practices defines itself in its own, specific and intrinsic way. In the lecture I will try to show how the practice of architecture is doing just that. MILOŠ KOSEC: THE USES OF ADDED VALUE. The Dilemmas of Art and Architecture in Light of the Division of Labour The dilemmas regarding the relation between architecture and art have not always been on the agenda; the need to clarify this relation arose with the industrial revolution and the changed production and consumption patterns. Two paths developed: one sought to base architecture on the rationalism and functionalism of machine production, the other swore by the autonomy of architectural creation in the spirit of the “art for art’s sake” motto. The postmodern age seems to have led to a conciliation and coexistence of both views. This was enabled by a changed understanding of the concepts of added value and creativity – in the spirit of the apotheosis of the free market, which allows for a pluralism of even the most opposing ideas. With its separability from its architectural base, the artistic invention as a surplus, as “something more”, becomes an independent marketable good, while “creative” architects become cheap producers of this added value. Is contemporary art then necessarily condemned to the role of a development department of capitalism?
Posted on: Mon, 26 May 2014 08:36:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015