* 건축 공간에 흔적 남기기, 반달리즘 그리고 그래피티 The Pathological Building

당신의 몸에 새기는 문신은
당신에게 무슨 의미가 있나요?
저항? 사랑? 의지? 꿈? 희망?
몸에 문신을 새기는 것처럼
공간에 문신을 새긴다. 공간에 새겨진 문신은
우리 몸에 새겨진 문신처럼 대중적인
문화에 반하여 문화를 저해하는
반달리즘으로 인식되고 있다.
건축은 생활을 담는다.
그리고 인간의 삶을 담고 디자인하여 준다.
문화라는 것이 인간삶의 패턴이고
흔적인데, 어떤 흔적은 남아서 명화가 되어
문화가 되고, 어떤 흔적은 낙서가 되어
지워져 버려야 하는 걸까?
우리 건축가 또는 디자이너는 어떤 공간을 만들어
문화의 흔적들을 담아야 할까?
 
동영상을 보면서
멋있는다라는 생각 45%,
학교에서, 교과서에는 안 가르쳐주는 건축에 대한 생각 55%
내가 하고 싶은 건축은 무엇일까 하는 생각 5%
그리고 더 다른 생각 1%...

Art direction and architectural design by John Szot Studio; directed and produced by Brooklyn Digital Foundry.

Today we stumbled upon the first installment of a three-part series exploring the pathological potential in architecture, “Architecture and the Unspeakable,” by John Szot, avid street art fan and one of the founders of Brooklyn Digital Foundry.

---

An auspicious time for street art in the U.S: MOCA in L.A. will open “the first comprehensive museum survey” of street art, called “Art in the Streets,” next weekend.

Szot — who is also a writer and an adjunct faculty member at GSAPP, Parsons, and Pratt — has cultivated a long-time interest in street art (he talks about it in this 2007 TAXI  interview). According to Szot, his interest in graffiti is “…one facet of a broader study of environmental factors that are inherently anti-design… Considering their entire life-cycle, there are many things about buildings that are as fascinating (or more so) as those things for which its designer can be credited. Improvised use, dilapidation, vandalism – these are things that enhance the experiential impact of buildings, but in ways that undermine their value at a practical level…”

We’re pretty curious — if the first of three videos focused on graffiti as pathology — what the subject of the next two installations will be. According to Szot’s website, they’ll be based in Shibuya and Detroit: one of the most crowded urban areas on earth, and one a city being “reclaimed” by nature (according to some).

A bit more from that TAXI  interview:

    “In most cases these things are out of reach for designers, not simply because they are unsavory, but also because conscious coordination destroys them. Of these kinds of effects, I think vandalism and graffiti are particularly enticing because they are artifice, and this brings manifold meaning to the table. It also means that, being artificial, they have much in common with buildings and might be more pliable, conceptually speaking. So in my most recent work trying to remedy the self-annihilating nature of engaging these architectural taboos, I’ve focused on the dynamics of vandalism and its compositional properties. So far, it has suggested that one must adopt a more conservative attitude towards the practice of architecture in order to ‘make room’ for vandalism. There are some unappealing consequences of such a position, but I haven’t been able to fully articulate them yet, let alone propose a solution. Until then, my studies will continue to be largely superficial I’m afraid.”

from  architizer