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

[Paul Mackin]

On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Mark Wright AIA wrote:

> 
> --- 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


It is, isn't it. SYMBOLICALLY dissident or dissonent is all we can hope
for (for those who are hoping). Nothing's going to topple the "system."

Good argument, Mark.

		P