So one of my guilty pleasures/ habits is ArchDaily. Tonight, not able to sleep, I was scoping the new posts and saw this: A memorial at Lukishkiu Square in Vilnius, Lithuania.. now this is a place I know absolutely NOTHING ABOUT.. but this is what caught my attention:
"The Freedom Field, a large indentation in the ground, “cradles” those walking in the memorial area. “This indentation penetrates through all historical and cultural layers right to the roots of our national identity, it also reaches the authentic surface of the beginnings of Vilnius,” explained the team.
I will comment on this more tomorrow but I thought it was interesting in how it tied into Auge's thoughts. In the last pages of his book he mentions that one possible outcome of the spread of non-places/globalization/ect is a strong return to the specific, to the particular. He does not give it very much attention ultimately, but I think it is one of his best arguments.. And this particular project displays that quite nicely in a very general way.. To penetrate through all historical and cultural layers is also to penetrate the international influence, all to return to what is true to this specific place despite time. Although, according to Auge, an anthropological place is a location in place and time.. er.. something like that. But then to think of Heidegger, to think of his proposal of the desire to dwell as mans nature, that can never change. If Non-Places make it impossible to dwell then surely we will find a way to return to that, to fulfill the void in which we find our own humanity. Now I am not making any sense, but hopefully I can sort out what I was thinking when I wake up tomorrow.
Here is the link.
Jessica,
ReplyDeleteI think you may be making more sense than you realize. Collect these thoughts and document them once you have sorted them out a little more. The issue of "Authenticity" is very important to the topics that you are concerning yourself with - but it is also very BIG. I'd look at it as if scratching the surface of something that you realize is much larger than the ways in which you are using it. That is okay, because you are looking at strctly through the lens of the dwelling. Also, as it pertains to place vs. non-place, layering of histories and traditions, the production of local identity consider the use of the palimpsest as a frame for your thoughts. Ultimately, all of these notions are culminating in ideas of context at the large scale. That is important, but don't dwell to long in the overarching ideas of "collective identity" as that is much bigger than you are prepared for at this juncture. Instead look at it briefly for its ability to help you define the mechanisms that form "individual identity" and their relationship to space, dwelling, and ultimately architecture.
The arch daily text really drives straight at the subjects that you are addressing. I would look to unpack it a little further, and draw correlations between those ideas, and those of Hailey, Heideggar, Auge, and Serres.
JE