1)Jencks points out, "Not only does [architecture] express the value(and land values of a society, but also its ideologies, hopes, fears, religion, social structure, metaphysics. It may represent these facts of betray them.."
Protoghesi puts the case somewhat differently, in his suggestion that the rhetorical tendency displayed by postmodern architecture "allows architecture to criticize and dissent as well accept..." Who do you agree with Jencks or Protoghesi about there thoughts of how architecture is a part of rhetoric? If you agree with Jencks or Protoghesi why?
2)"Physiological studies of emotions reveal that changes in blood chemistry, heart rate, endocrine, secretion, palm sweat, and so forth very little from emotion to emotion. Whether an individual's aroused psychological state is interpreted as hate, fear, anger, joy, love is partly determined by drama that accompanies the emotional state." Do you believe this is true? When an individual either gets mad or creates emotion, does the emotion of love always counter act with other emotions?
3)"Renaissance architects, trained within the rhetorical tradition, looked at the city through the lenses of their rhetorically trained memories, leading them to conceptualize...As Anthony Vidler writes, " Architects became aware of the possibility of transferring to the realm of reality that which they had imagine in their memory: That is, of cutting out of the fabric of the real city the squences and places of their memory maps of the city."- Is Vidler's statement true? Is Renaissance architecture a rhetorical tradition? If you think so, why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment