A carcass can be the macabre remains of a dead body, as well as a building in the state of construction or destruction. Eitherway it somehow relates with endings and beginnings. The view of a carcass disturbs equally all of us, as it exposes the structural order, the meaning, the "guts" of an organism, without ideological ornaments and insulation materials. Maybe what disturbs us is that we find ourselves infront of a "common skeleton", universal, "objectified", opened, determinant. If we perceive architectural creation as an "organic whole", we should then realize that this "organism" of ours can never succeds in not being dead! Architecture ought to be dead, still, persistent in order to house life. The death of an idea comes with the materialization of it...
Still, the best way to praise a piece of architecture and understand it as a human creation is to visualize it as a carcass, to proceed in an anatomy of space, time, object, that in contrast with the medical term leads to personalised evaluation and aesthetics. Gordon Matta-Clark presents a section of an old house. He is in search of a human-scaled doll-house. Dr.Mantle quotes that there is aesthetics of the insides of a body. To sum up architecture is understood through memories of inhabitation and use as a series of carcasses. We make our own maps, sections, diagrams to orientate and function in buildings and cities.
How do we embed this valuable information in an architectural organism? How do we reveal the idea, the uncommon skeleton to public view? In order to apply a critique on architecture, do we need to exclude the ideological DNA, or focus on the anatomy of it? Let us be microbiologists or anatomists of the contemporary building environment?
Still, the best way to praise a piece of architecture and understand it as a human creation is to visualize it as a carcass, to proceed in an anatomy of space, time, object, that in contrast with the medical term leads to personalised evaluation and aesthetics. Gordon Matta-Clark presents a section of an old house. He is in search of a human-scaled doll-house. Dr.Mantle quotes that there is aesthetics of the insides of a body. To sum up architecture is understood through memories of inhabitation and use as a series of carcasses. We make our own maps, sections, diagrams to orientate and function in buildings and cities.
How do we embed this valuable information in an architectural organism? How do we reveal the idea, the uncommon skeleton to public view? In order to apply a critique on architecture, do we need to exclude the ideological DNA, or focus on the anatomy of it? Let us be microbiologists or anatomists of the contemporary building environment?
