GRGR(30): You will want cause and effect.

[Mark Wright AIA]

--- Paul Mackin <pmackin at clark.net> wrote:
> Consider
> this: minimizing tension between inside and outside (having them
> appropriate to each other) isn't nearly as radical a way to undermine
>  the
> hierarchical binary opposition (nearly as postmodernist presumably)
> as
> deliberately generating conditions where the inside and outside of
> buildings are in conflict with each other, as you say the
> postmodernists
> might do. The former is happy harmony. (What reason has the outside
> to
> complain when they have things just as good as us here on the
> inside?) However the latter way--EMPHASIZING differences--is at least
> symbolically dissident.

So: would a German Baroque architect (let's say Balthazar Neumann at
Vierzehnheiligen) in 1747 become postmodern when he undermines the
hierarchical binary opposition by deliberately generating a condition
where the conflict between inside and outside is emphasised? Or only if
his intention is to be symbolically dissident?  (Or do you mean
symbolically dissonant?)  Is intentionality the key? If so, then that
quality of an artifact that is "post-modern" must die with its creator,
or once the accompanying explanatory text gets lost or forgotten.  In
that case is the "post-modern" artifact distinguishable from a complex
pre-modern work of art in any meaningful way, or simply by virtue of
sequence?

This is fun again.
Mark


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/