1A Diagrams / Stan Allen
The field respects the objects within it while prioritizing the relationships between them. I thought of Mies van der Rohe’s sliding planes when I read this, particularly of the Barcelona Pavilion, which perhaps is a field of planes. The placement and orientation of each plane informs the experience of the others (e.g. reflectivity, circulation, continuous lines). If a field is so dependent on the relationships of its elements, then it can be assumed that there is a rigorous efficiency in a field—removing an object alters or deforms the field significantly. This made me think of fire hydrants within an urban landscape. Removing one creates a critical gap that would have significant consequences to that local area and lessen the functionality of the field as a whole.
“Algebraic combination” seems to address array, or at least multiplicity of elements in a field. What are the limits of an additive process that seeks to retain the same geometric composition of the original? What is the boundary of “sameness” that new, added elements must have in order for the original character to remain undisturbed? Allen argues that the local conditions and relationships must be maintained, but what is the physical outer limit of that? In thinking about columns, does each part have to maintain the same distance between them?
Allen describes the postminimal artist almost as a vessel to channel art from its conceptual ether to the viewer’s body. I imagine the patience it requires to look at a work by Rothko or Pollock: quiet, stillness, a bench to sit and submerge yourself without disruption or fatigue. The space between the viewer and the work is entirely, exhaustively defined in this scenario. The postminimal works, by contrast, seem to consume that distance and force the viewer to yield their own bodily primacy to the art: to sidestep it, be cautious and respectful of its boundaries.
I think people are the thickening surfaces of the new cities. Where people choose to congregate establishes the hubs of the urban fabric more than the architectural features (skyscrapers for example). Thinking specifically of Los Angeles and western cities, the dense architectural areas are merely showpieces, emptied out at 5:00pm and left vacant for all purposes beyond work. The horizontal streets, plazas, parks, and attractions gather people in much greater numbers than a large building might.
The “loose fit” seems to be taking hold in many architectural applications. Many college libraries are discarding books for more gathering spaces, suggested areas of action but left up to the users’ interpretation. Commercial space (mixed-use) might apply to some extent, though the boundaries of what’s free is still well-defined. The notion of non-hierarchical architecture may be impossible however, since what might signify equity to a designer may not to the users. Like algebraic combination, what are the outer limits of hierarchical composition? At what point does a building fall apart completely?
