Debate on the papers of Session 1 95
Rivka Oxman, Haifa, Israel
I respect your rationale, but what I am asking is what language, what is the architectural
language that you use to describe this? Apart from the rationale, despite the influences
etc., we have to develop our own terminology.
Vana Tentokali, Thessaloniki, Greece
I thank you because you have helped me mention the second part of my speech, which
I did not make.
Sean Hanna, London, United Kingdom
I am sure we would love to hear it, but I must warn you that we do not have time to hear
the whole thing, because we are running out of time. But please continue.
Vana Tentokali, Thessaloniki, Greece
The students are following two paths. One is from the concept to writing, and the other
is from the conceptual reading to the writing. They sound the same, but they are not.
The first refers to a text, a book. For instance, I choose a book – the last couple of years
it was Homer’s Odyssey – and the students choose a piece and design in an automatic
way, writing automatically whatever comes to their minds. The second has to do with
conceptualising whatever the first text included in a rational way. They catch and choose
the concepts, which they had already used unconsciously. In the second part they con-
ceptualise these concepts and derive rules and canons; this is their own study. In both
of their assignments they have to write three kinds of texts, the first with words, the
second with designs and the third with constructions. All three texts must say the same
things. The point I want to show them with this is very difficult, almost impossible, to
have consistency when we talk, when we design, and when we construct. This is the
assignment. It is hard for creative people to do that, and it is very easy for teachers
like myself to grade.
But I am getting carried away. I wanted to say something about Daniel Libeskind.
He designed the Jewish Museum in a way that I think was used for the f irst time in
architecture. He used theoretical concepts based on one of the opposing themes I was
talking about, presence and absence. He made space based on the underrated notion
of absence. He is talking about the absence of Jewish civilisation, the absence of the
Jewish population, etc. The whole building is built on the notion of absence.
Urs Hirschberg, Graz, Austria
I would like to answer that in a completely dif ferent way, and to add something. I
understand Rivka Oxman’s question as something that I often hear in connection with
the hostility that someone described earlier. The kind of thing we hear for instance,
that we are talking about architecture and not about technology or that if we are talking
about technology we are really missing the point because it is about architecture, and
my reply to that would be that obviously technology is not going to answer this ques-
tion. Technology, and I think this is true quite generally, is what enables us to express
ourselves. So if we just take it as that, then it is a different discourse, and I do not think
your question can be used as a weapon against technology, in the sense that we should
not talk about tools so much. On the contrary, I think that we should talk about tools,