In the below updated spreads on one of the fragments – House VI – I tried to think of it as a section in a monograph, which partly due to its length, presents a very limited idea of the house which turns into fabricated material about it. This leads to the question – what information is included and how. In this case, the focus is on the physical context of the house, its scale and the transformations it goes through.
The concept of a monograph is interesting to explore further, as a format which on the one hand enables architects to situate projects within a personal worldview, at a time when the role of architects is being increasingly marginalised, and on the other hand it is a traditional format which invites redefinition / reformatting.
It also enables to draw connections between projects. The fragments are arranged and presented in the book while also being arranged in the desert.
So at this point, the concept of the so-called ‘named view’ has a dual meaning:
1. physical named view = is what creates the thresholds in the film and it is the aerial view
2. conceptual named view = curated oeuvre
And one last thing about the monograph – if all goes wrong, I can find comfort in the fact that even the worst of architectural monographs do gain interest over the decades (at least according to this article – http://www.iconeye.com/opinion/comment/item/11999-why-a-monograph)
So, is the white book a monograph of Sandpit?