Question 1: The author talks about how GMC's work fragments architecture, tears it apart, and exposes "all levels of reminiscense. And of course, once you get into reminiscence, an infinite number of associations emerge" What does he mean here? I understand the role of GMC's work in connecting different spectrums of time, but, to me at least, "reminiscense" is a very personal word, specific to individuals. His works are definitely interesting, but I don't feel any personal connection to them. Even if it were, say a house down Durant in Berkeley that was sawed in half, I still don't see that much of a personal aspect to it, not enough that I would use the word reminisce to describe the experience.
Question 2: I think it is very cool how GMC's works connect past, present, and future and are at the same time a critique on capitalism and the Westernized vision of 'progress' -amazing perspective. However, the author opens the article by talking about how artists of the 70's tried to defy and deny the museum and its institution, yet still always came back to relying on it in order to display and publicize their works. With GMC's type of work, yes, he is able to avoid the museum entirely, but doesn't he still rely on popular cultural institutions? His work is not as meaningful and recognized unless it is done in a well-known area, with in relation to famous architectural pieces, which in themselves are a part of mass culture and institutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment