the 2nd film


Things changed:

No longer generic vs. individual office. It was not specific enough. Now it speaks of hedgehogs and foxes (obviously), which is a homage to Greek philosophy as well as this important essay by Isaiah Berlin. Before I play the video, I will explain it very briefly to the critics.

No longer a question of “which wins?”, but replaced with “who are you?”; links back to previous paragraph, but I like the directness of a question on identity. Must not fear the literal.

The road is presented as having two meanings: the physical/architectural and the mental/architect-al. To “follow the road” is for me to do architecture, as well as asking myself what kind of architect I want to be, and, by extension, what kind of environment I want to work in.

Things new:

To unity: the road converges, the discussion on the rallying point, etc.

In and out and through: actions by which we engage the office.

Experience: you have to move in order to learn. That movement must continue in the office. No road, no learning, no architects. (not very controversial)

Makes cities: without roads, there would be no city. There would just be one massive building, impenetrable. The office, seen as a mini-city (hopefully as multi-culti) needs the road in order to work. It is hardly a choice.

To consider: how to transition from the (failure of) the TS-road-office to the activist part and the design of the mobile office, the road-office, the office on the road.

Tomorrow: ^designing the office.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to the 2nd film

  1. Sabrina Morreale says:

    Multa novit vulpes, verum echinus unum magnum!
    I like the change of question and I like towards the end when you start playing with the road in/out/through. I get it.