Seamlessness

Scott: Thanks so much for swerving away from that topic, I am getting
really tired of the one-liners and bland opinion although John Young is
spilling some interesting views and insights you won't learn from any
school.

RE:   _Precis #12_
>
>A student journal of GSAPP here is attempting a topical issue this time
>'round. The topic: Sustainable/Environmental Design.
>
>What I want to do here in this venue is collect all of your thoughts on
>how this title is defined, prioritized, marginalized, and generally
>considered or not.

>spN, is hyper-surface a sustainable condition?

The ensuing topological movement in architecture/infrastructure that stems
from the electronic revolution is absolutely a new opportunity to think
architecture in relation and as continuous with ecological logics.
Hypersurface is an open architecture that absorbs the "other." The other
has been the environment. Finally the avant garde can be green. The work of
Keller Easterling is a good example, (she is involved with Bateson's mind
ecologies and othe New Ager thesis). But I want to make clear that there is
that nagging conservativism in the terms that I see sustainability posited
these days. Ask any biologist, an ecology won't live if it is static.  It
has to circulate. Hypersurface affords that kind of circulation in an open
and continuous system.  I envision a seamless environment, and toward that
electronics is good glue, (could even be solar powered like Venturi's
proposed South Ferry electronic billboard). Deleuze's theoretical interest
in overcoming dualities is the theory the "sustainables" need to make it
really work. I don't think they are reading him though.

spN