Notes from the Jury

The Inkblot as Architecture and theInkblot as a Ruin-

The point at which the inkblot becomes architectural is when it begins to be read as a figure. One associates this with the cartographical conventions of drawing a figure ie a building as a black mass.

The blot begins to relate to a ruin as in any good ruin (or restoration) there needs to be just enough ‘ruin’ for the mind to project a figure on to it. Otherwise it reamins a mass. This is the artifice of the ruin.

This raises questions about the inkblot. The ratio of the figure (the blot) to the ground (the space around). Most people see the inkblot as the figure, but what if the distribution of the blot and space is equalised? There is always this vulnerability between the figure and the ground. There is an arrangement that generates  figuring. The same holds true for the ruin as well.

Its very much an investation via the Nolli map and Rorschach as a kind of element of architecture which is about projective reading, which is paradoxical. Projection and incorporation at the same moment.

 

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.