Building After Aushwitz- Gavriel D Rosenfeld

51cqopF5kBL._SX373_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

 

 

 

pg 45- THe meaning we find in buildings – even when absent – is determined subjectively by the the differing expectations we bring to them. These expectations are largely informed by our social class, education, and aesthetic taste, but they are also shaped by the historical eras in which we live.

pg 184 – Libeskinds invocation of the Holocaust was influenced by Eisenman’s ideas about the need to rethink architetural practice in wake of Auschwitz. In an essay published in 1984 entitled “Peter Eisenman and the Myth of Futility,” Libeskind criticised Eisenman’s claim that the Holocaust provided the ground for renouncing architecture traditional desire to base its legitimacy in myths. Arguing that this claim risked becoming a new mything in and of itself.

pg 185 – [Libeskind’s unrealised project the City Edge of 1987] directed attention toward the city’s most famous historic wound, by extension,to its origins in Germanys defeat and division, Libeskind refused to efface the scars of German history as had been attempted by other, more revivalist postmodern works at the IBA by Charles Moore, Robert A.M. Stern, and Rob Krier

pg 185 – ” I suggest not rebuilding. I believe the HOlocaust is not something you can get awway from. The placelessness [of berlin] should not be be moaned” [jenks,new modern 269 ]

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: