Mental Models of Purpose of College
2 years ago
Posts
Monday, March 2, 2009
Thinking about the discussion we had in class today, was wondering if Goodman would believe that there is such a thing as objectively good architecture. He argues that architecture means soemthing and says that it is not only subject to personal interpretation, but McCrickerd clarified that that does not mean that there is no wrong meaning. So, how do we distinguish a wrong interpretation from a right one? At the end of the article he says "A building, more than most works, alters our environment physically; but moreover, as a work of art it may, through various avenues of meaning, inform and reorganize our entire experience." (652) So, if this is true, how can he argue (or McCrickerd state) that there is a wrong way to interpret the meaning of architecture. I feel like so much of the interpretation is personal and can therefor never be independent of our personal experience with the particular building. But, if that's true then how can we argue that someone's interpretation is wrong?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that in a sense one could say that an interpretation of what architecture means could be potentially labeled as wrong if it goes against the intent of the designer of said architecture. While this remains true, I don't think the rightness or wrongness of said interpretation is the most important aspect of architecture interpretations. It seems that Goodman is less worried about the rightness or wrongness of said interpretations of the architecture but instead is focus on the fact that architecture has a profound and dramatic effect on the way in which we view our surroundings, environment and world. I don't think it is so important to define something as wrong or right but that one should just recognize that something is, and that it is there, and that it will effect every individual and that individual's world in significant and unique ways.
ReplyDeleteKevin Kuhle