With all the emotions welling, I suppose it's time to bring us all back to some other views which i think is critical to a critical discussion of our Singapore condition.(especially those who continue to believe they are acting in the service of the people and those who needs to think about the very act of preservation.)
"People can inhabit anything. And they can be miserable in anything and ecstatic in anything. More and more I think that architecture has nothing to do with it. Of course, that's both liberating and alarming. But the generic city, the general urban condition, is happening everywhere, and just the fact that it occurs in such enormous quantities must mean that it's habitable. Architecture can't do anything that the culture doesn't. We all complain that we are confronted by urban environments that are completely similar. We say we want to create beauty, identity, quality, singularity. And yet, maybe in truth these cities that we have are desired. Maybe their very characterlessness provides the best context for living."
Here I am paraphrasing:
In the Deleuzean concept of becoming, when A becomes B, A does not give up being A. It continues to be A, yet it becomes B without transforming itself into B.
This redistributed "knowledge network" is more of a scattering that allows the differentiation so dear to Deleuze (Diffe'rence et Re'pe'tition), rather than a simple repetition. With repetition comes difference, and also remebrance.
Derrida defines the archive as a form of memory control. An archive exists where things begin, where there is consignment and gathering. Archives allow one to trace something that is repeated, and to repeat it again.
One always forgets one or several elements, either consciously or unconsciously. Hence the pain of archiving.
For Deleuze there is blockage in repetition and its memory, what matters more is finding a difference. With Derrida, on the other hand, suggest that an archive must be allowed to forget occasionally, because if we are only concerned with knowing where something comes from, we will be blocked in our creativity.
In the Deleuzean concept of becoming, when A becomes B, A does not give up being A. It continues to be A, yet it becomes B without transforming itself into B.
This redistributed "knowledge network" is more of a scattering that allows the differentiation so dear to Deleuze (Diffe'rence et Re'pe'tition), rather than a simple repetition. With repetition comes difference, and also remebrance.
Derrida defines the archive as a form of memory control. An archive exists where things begin, where there is consignment and gathering. Archives allow one to trace something that is repeated, and to repeat it again.
One always forgets one or several elements, either consciously or unconsciously. Hence the pain of archiving.
For Deleuze there is blockage in repetition and its memory, what matters more is finding a difference. With Derrida, on the other hand, suggest that an archive must be allowed to forget occasionally, because if we are only concerned with knowing where something comes from, we will be blocked in our creativity.
What happens when we think of archiving is for difference rather than commonality? Difference is not between entities, but the reason for the subject's existence. To paraphrase again, we need to stay away from the dangers in some of the thinking concerning city preservation. The architect is consigned to the potentiality of the existing buildings because these buildings asks nothing of him/her, imposes on him nothing other than its ban (of the new).
8 comments:
i will comment on the issue of conservation with whatever knowledge i've gained from working alongside Mali at a later date when i have more time.
meanwhile, i'm peeing in my pants with excitement as i try to wrap my head ard the philo trajectory that wuks has initiated in our discussion of "city preservation". i think one of the key points to note is that derrida had his major tool--the "differ'ance"--that was so thoroughly employed in all of his works. his concept of archives, therefore, suggests a host of of correlations between direct and oblique defining elements that make that term.
what this means--to me--is that there are ways in which we can use this understanding of derrida's archive to generate new ideas of how we can to remember/ archive things. after all, deconstruction is largely abt reprioritising these defining terms to unveil new perspectives. derrida did herald a new chapter in his understanding of archives at the dawn of the internet, highlighting a possible break away. not cleanly, i suppose, but at least far enough.
what i don't get is this quest to "think of archiving is for difference rather than commonality". can wuks please elaborate in a slightly more explicit fashion?
sidebar: i'm extremely intrigued by wuks' bringing up both derrida and delueze in a single post. though my intrigue stems from the fact that in the last few years people have began swearing off derrida's work because it offers way too many questions but effectively little answers. this is why i believe many people have began looking at deluezean themes because they're often often more inclusive and still chalked full of deleuzean "potentiality". (for the uninitiated, deleuze will be the man who started the whole emergence discussion that EVERY architect is latching on right now.) pity i don't like or read delueze as much as i should; very passe to still be a derrida fan in this day and age.
oh, lest wuks didn't notice, i kinda reformated your entry a little: blockquoted koolhaas' para.
i'm a formating nazi :)
last comment; just wanna leave some trails to some much older posts that i recall related to either the two philosophers or the question of time/memory/conservation:
"Artificial Animation of Architecture." sio, 070228
"Understanding City In Internet Age." wuks, 070226
"Emergence and Field." sio, 060814
"Deleuze & Creative Philosophy." d, 060425
"Jacques Derrida & Deconstruction." d, 060417
"I Would continue to Survive." d, 051128
"Time In Modern City." d, 051016
"Negotiation With the Old." d, 051004
this is more for myself than anything else.
u can "design" a house, but u can never "design" dwelling.
u can design any architectural edifice thenceafter, but without the stasis provided by the Form of the house, you cannot understand "design" as an imaginative projection.
"think of archiving is for difference rather than commonality"
a few points i would like to address with such a statement. i beseech fellow architects to stop doing and thinking for the collective. To stop preserving FOR 'collective' memory. One, i think it is ontologically unsound. Second, i think it is further weakening the case for conservation/preservation.
Now, think of that particular building that you are fighting for in the context of all other buildings. What makes it unique, one of a kind? What makes it so worthy of keeping! Note, this is not for comparison's sake. This is the reason for 'being' for that building. Why people would tear down or demolish is because there is no reason for that building being that building anymore. I don't know whether i m fuzzing things further. For example, one lumps the building with other buildings as representative of say the post-independence era..i can jolly well preserve one and demolish the others.
Derrida's differance was more akin to deferrance and it was a 'mash-up' of the words difference and deferrance. The similarity is that both did not see the artifice as an object in itself. They see it in context. Their difference i think is that I think Derrida sees difference cartesianly..3-2 is 1 while Deleuze sees difference as internal, for 'being'. 3 is 3, 2 is 2. 3 is not 2, 2 is not 3 so there is 2 and 3. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.(These is what i get from a few weeks of internet philosophy surfing)
i thought koolhaas' "Preservation is Overtaking us" is very relevant to what we're discussing here. while preservation is vital in providing some form of continuity in the city, indiscriminate preservation is probably just as disruptive as destruction
i was hoping to flesh this topic out but seeing as how i'm tied for time:
doubt anyone would disagree with "r" on that point, except that all this talk begs the question who decides and by what criteria do we base this discretion?
our discussion so far has more or less been beating ard the bush of not responding to the 'real'-- almost palpable--memories of people. but first, who are these people? and why is regarding their memories so much more important than some other group's aspiration for change?
ultimately, is collective stupidity really justifiable or just a bite-the-bullet necessary evil of any democratic model?
I think one of the key points to note is that derrida had his major tool--the "differ'ance"--that was so thoroughly employed in all of his works.
___________________
Julie
Best place for your complete Internet marketing
Post a Comment