Upon reading Henri Lefebvre's chapter on "Spatial Architectonics" in his book, The Production of Space, it becomes clear that architecture has been mistaken for a visual system of objective containment. Or, that architecture somehow exists in an objective realm that transcends coding. Architecture is more accurately the subjective sequencing of boundaries. Its importance lies not merely in how it shelters and protects from the elements but in how it communicates inward and outward thresholds, transitions, changes in physical, psychological, intellectual and spiritual states. Architecture is therefore a transformative orchestration of boundary maintenance or transgression for very specific and culturally-defined subjectivities.
As Lefebvre notes, monuments are distinct from mere buildings. because they represent the nodes, or the "strong points" in the web of meaning--or as he relates monuments to music, they possess a "horizon of meaning." They stand out in the fields; they are the significant knots in the fabric.
In reference to Beijing, the monuments are perhaps not what they appear to be. Rather, those buildings designated as monuments may in fact not perform as true monuments in all senses. They may serve as such in the visual realm or in the realm of spatio-historical tourism, but in terms of new cultural forms they are merely buildings. Where, then, are the true monuments of present-day Beijing?
No comments:
Post a Comment