and thus buildings generally hsve to be static
yknow, like we saw in materials
all forces must balance out, they must equal to zero
because what do we think of when we think of a building moving? we think earthquakes, we think destruction, we think millions of dollars of damage, we think structural failure, ultimately we can think of death
death by building ... huh
one superficial hypothesis for a disinterest in architecture based on this is simply that there are many other cool things (mediums) in this world that can freely move and architecture is not really one of them
kinetic architecture, as far as my young understanding is aware, has only come in the few recent decades to make buildings come alive
and it's still pretty rare ... when was the last time you saw a kinetic building with a dynamic facade or something? not online, i mean in real life. to my next point:
V. STATICISM, PART 2: and thus buildings generally have to be static ..
yknow, like we saw in materials .
all forces must balance out, they must equal to zero.
because what do we think of when we think of a building moving? we think earthquakes, we think destruction, we think millions of dollars of damage, we think structural failure, ... ultimately we can think of death,,,,
death by building ... huh
and then you look at all the power that other mediums and the art forms have. graphic design can move, resulting in animation. things can just generally move. sculptures can do whatever they want and they don't really have to justify themselves as much. (they don't have to "legitimize" themselves as much, is it?). music ... can just do whatever it wants. paintings can depict any scene, regardless of whether it is a structurally sound scene or not — regardless of whether it depicts something that has to be architectural or not, it doesn't matter in those other worlds.
and then back to architecture. the building stays still, in place. it has to; again, death by building. i think this gets towards the more "legitimization" or really justification that a building kind of requires. understood in this way, anyone can make a song, but not anyone can build a building. and by build i don't just mean the kind of conceptual and pre-design that we do in studio now; i mean the whole process, going into design development and eventually construction etc etc. it is genuinely just physically impossible for one person to do all of that for what we consider a building, a form large enough to be considered a building. it's almost like there's a respect to be had (which there is) for those who build, those who materialize the building because all things considered a building is a very controlled thing to make. again, it can't move and it has to respect the laws of physics. and it, whatever building you're thinking of, required all this hard labor that you can infer wherever you look at it; its parts that had to be designed then fabricated then constructed onto the site, the soil it sits on which someone had to flatten/correct, etc etc poetry.
hence in my mind one superficial hypothesis for a common disinterest in architecture based on all of this is simply that there are many other cool things (mediums) in this world that can do way more things (like moving and not following reality) and architecture is not really one of them.
kinetic architecture, as far as my understanding goes, has only come in the few recent decades to make buildings come alive
and it's still pretty rare ... when was the last time you saw a kinetic building with a dynamic facade or something? not online, i mean in real life. and thus onto my next point: