Carson_Camille_222_1.1
Alberti stated “Beauty is the consonance of the parts such that nothing can be added or taken away” (Judd 93). Describing the ideal is not an easy thing to do and yet this quote says it perfectly. The ideal of any whole is when you cannot add anything to make it better and you cannot take anything away to make it better, creating a perfect balance. To achieve this balance there must be a unity between all the parts of an ensemble. The difference between a whole that has unity and a whole that does not have unity comes down to whether or not the spatial order was maintained and respected with the addition of similar parts or not. On a larger scale you could look at a building in relation to the surrounding landscape or city.
“Minimalist work of the sixties and seventies sought to empty the artwork of its figurative or decorative character” (judd 95). As this was in art as it was in architecture, wherein the work itself used to hold the importance, now the importance was placed on space and engagement with the space by the viewer. Where there is ebb there is flow, where minimalism was strict and sure, focusing on structure, post minimalism takes the focus on space and builds on it, creating art that interacts with the space. These post minimalist artists “dissolve the idea of ‘sculpture’ as a delimited entity, an object distinct from the field it occupies” (Judd 97). Instead there is an innate awareness of the space the work occupies, until the two bleed together.
Figure ground, broken down separately into figure- an object and ground- or background. However, what if we thought of figure and ground like this: “not as a demarcated object read against a stable field, but as an effect emerging from the field itself-” (Judd 97). Instead of thinking of two separate things, thinking of them as a whole brings a solution of more unity, creating a focal point rather than a rift. Through this a unexpected whole could be created through all to expected elements. As seen in Moires. In a city this unity between figure and ground can create a particularly exceptional experience at specified increments.
Where there is a group there will be a pattern. Birds flock, based on basic and easy to understand unspoken rules. “The flock is clearly a field phenomenon, defined by precise and simple conditions, and relatively indifferent to overall form and extent” (Judd 99). While every flock is slightly different they all function on those basic rules. In crowds however another layer is formed with a multitude of desires comes a multitude of ways of existing in a place full of people and an overall duality of positive and negative reactions to a crowd. However, “The crowd always wants to grow; Within a crowd there is equality; The crowd loves density; The crowd needs direction.” there is a clear directional to the mass mindset of a crowd. Whether it be on the edge of control or on a strict path patterns are formed in the daily movement of all creatures.
There comes a time when a change is dictated, when traditional values or aesthetics need to change. This time comes when the use of the space changes. When tradition of order and repetition is no longer upheld then perhaps it is time for the tradition of the space to change as well. However counter to that idea is one posed by Michel Foucault, “while there are constraining architectures, there are no specifically ‘liberating’ architectures. ‘Liberty,’ he says, ‘is a practice’” (Judd 102). Thus architecture should attempt to pose alternative ways of looking at relationships between parts. Space must be left for unintentional use, this will create a longevity to the space.
