TS is done!
Reviewing comments from previews to know how to proceed, some quick notes:
– The grid as a system of giving value and order to land was also based on the idea of commodification – land has always been a commodity and bought and sold. What is the difference that I am arguing for?
– Currently the argument against grid, pro-box is too much focused on form and not the reasons behind the forms. Want to know distinctions between the two based on forms of commodification. Value properties first, formal properties as a by-product.
– Look into : land speculation in America, especially California and Texas based on oil and gold rushes.
– Palmesino said I was essentially looking at the figure-ground argument, but rather than always drawing my ground as an inarticulated terrain, ground should be the already gridded American landscape that I am reappropriating. As soon as a grid has been laid down is it really possible to destroy it? Even if you remove the marking, the organization remains.
– What is the end of the narrative? What happens when the grid / box loses value? Is the grid in ruin / will the box become a ruin?
– Structure presentation so it does not sound like a student project but from a specific point of view – and not just about the experience of the narrative but a more critical stance.
– Commodification of form (what does that mean??)