From: Mark Darrall <00mtdarrall@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 1995 10:21:30 -0500
It's been a while since I'd read the article, but the value of critique
from without lies in the fact that others can only relate to the
outer expression (built stuff) of the philosophy. Doesn't this relate to
the political nature of architecture (or any art)?
I think this is the biggest problem with highly-philosophical art; it often
gets lost in itself---in the "why", instead of the "how."
To bring up another popular PBS subject, Wright, we can see these videos,
with the wonderful old Wrightian soundbites ("...in Unity Temple we see the
first expression of _space_ as the reality of a building..." or some such),
and lovingly long dolly shots conveying the flow of space. Those of us who
have studied these things (our own form of elitism, ja?) realize this is
a construct, a contrivance just like any other, but for many of us, there
is a resonance in the old guy's work, whether we deny it (intellectually)
or not (emotionally).
The best part of this is that it resonates with those who aren't in the know,
as well. It's all there in the built stuff, clear as a bell.
Now, if we can only find out how Bob Ross' paintings resonate in the masses,
we'd have it made!