working on a comparison of types of monuments, their program/intent/origin, life span, user group, and benefactors
how monument goes from event - conception - completion - use - disrepair/lack of relevancy
what is the life cycle of monument
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Paul-
Open up Tim's Blog and read my comments meant for you, about sustainability and monumentality. I started writing to him yesterday, stopped for dinner (and some wine) and resumed my posting, thinking of your project. Sorry 'bout that. I will write more to you later today. jp
john's wine infused mistakenly placed posting from Tim's Blog...
And finally, I would argue for consideration of the notion that a sustainable monument is maybe a non-permanent monument. A monument with a shelf life, physically speaking may better suit your intentions. Back to definitions of "sustainability" and of "monument". Maybe, in the 2nd millennium, dead marble put in place for eternity is not meaningful. Maybe sustainability itself, dealing with the healthy reinforcement and nurturing of living, changing processes in equilibrium on this planet means that its monumental infusions must do the same. It exists, as a real artifact or place, only as long as it supports larger defined issues- then it continues only in memory or mythology...and that is not necessarily less potent. Again, the Temple of Solomon is long gone, but its power continues to provide a living motivation for Israel to exist as a cultural and a religious entity, as a nation, right there. And if it did actually exist- it would reduce the memory because in fact it was a far more modest and disappointing building than the Old Testament would have it. Furthermore, its religious function has changed- Jewish high priests no longer sacrifice oxen to placate a god who has power over the fertility of the soil. Jewish rabbis preach a very different gospel of spirituality and fellowship- its changed. The ancient Yahweh is not their current godhead. So....I wonder, should your sustainable monument to sustainability mutate over time, metamorphosis in the service of other more critical issues than its own sense of pseudo-permanence?
It evolves in its functions and in its meanings. Nothing is permanent on planet earth- even continents move. And we are getting globally warmed over as we speak.
jp
What about something relating to my posting about coastlines being overtaken as global warming spirals out of control? Its life span could go in a few directions. It could be placed at a very low level, a marker as to the coming danger and sea levels. If we fail at avoiding this danger, the monument will be submerged and revert to something like a coral reef ala nate. even if humans can't use it, others species might? On the other hand, it could extend higher than anything around, it would stand as a marker far above any new sea level to mark the moment in time before our society had to retreat inland. In this instance it would have a very long shelf life in order to send a message to those generations after us. these are just thoughts about possibilities, obviously these would happen in new orleans and be modified to what would be relevant there.
in terms of dc, i'm thinking of a building that would just become dilapidated. In this context is it possible to build something that would return back to the earth? You mention solomon temples which has remained due to its construction of massive stone. We don't build like that today, can our buildings today age well? I'm quite skeptical about this.
in gettysburg, i think it would have to, and have plenty of opportunity to, return to the earth. perhaps after a period of time the rock formation and hills weaken the build forms, collapses in on them, and the earth scabs over this architectural injury.
going in this direction will make this a lot more interesting.
Paul-
New Orleans: absolutely fascinating take on the scene of America's greatest (precipitous) environmental disaster)- goes back to Lisa's irrefutable comment about siting- your strongest points are made at such a site. You are making architecture, but the building is a polemic- it is giving a speech. And speeches are best heard at the perfecto location- Ronald Reagan at the Berlin Wall ("Mr Gorbachev, tear this wall down"), the Pope speaking of the Holocaust at Auchwitz, etc. And the concept of a sustainable monument that marks the levee-breaking level, that would have to vertically adapt as ocean levels rise- it is undoubtedly the most potent of reminders. One case study for this is the Pearl Harbor memorial over the deck of the sunken battle ship that continues to leak oil stains, that holds the seaweedy bones of 2400 dead sailors. Maybe your monument has two scenarios- how it functions to remind people, to enforce people to watch those levees, to watch those sees, to house research scientists who monitor and warn, to memorialize the 2400 dead from Katrina, to house FEMA Gulf HQ's. And maybe there is another scenario when it fails- when it floods once again, when the building drowns and it begins to leak heating oil. Whatever- you have a fabulous line of thought here that is very provocative and very promising. Maybe its not The Big Easy: an artist recently traced, thru midtown Manhattan and Brooklyn, the 10-foot elevational line above sea level (cutting thru backyards, down streets, along the edges of buildings)- which is the catastrophic flood zone for New York City. Article in the New York Times a few months ago, since she got arrested for this. Trespassing and damaging city property. But it was indeed a vivid, if temporary, memorial to remind people to live on the up-side of that line. Or maybe drown. You could do such topographic maps in Phila.
DC: well, you raise good issues- it will be no Jerusalem. Buildings today return to the earth far quicker than ancient ones, and with all their plastics and synthetics, they will never never deteriorate in poetically inspired forms. But maybe that is the point- much like Jesse's Toll Brothers house, it will just fall apart, lay there, rot, mold and stink. This may move the project more toward a study of contemporary materiality (ala Rashida Ng and her research) and the effects of time, weather and lack of maintenance. Maybe we need to re-form our notions of Ruins. Is there an unexplored poetry in styrofoam, plastic syringes and scrap metals? Dunno.
Gettysburg: I don't think you want to allow 20,000 years for a new glaciation to overtake those old marble monuments. Earth will not scab it over fast enough for your purposes. But certain, if you don't caulk those monumental joints, the marble will leak, spall, crack and collapse. Can you collect the parts and re-use them? Maybe to provide new center city sidewalks in New Orleans, maybe to more permanently pave that 10-foot elevation thru New York. Maybe the raw materials of an irrelevant and misbegotten orgy of monumental excess at Gettysburg have a better second life elsewhere.
Much as I would like to go with Gettysburg, it always does seem, to me, that the site always comes out weakly in terms of your very challenging thoughts. Wish you could make me feel differently.
jp
Post a Comment