Architecture historians Petra Brower and Matteo Kuijpers try bringing back the concept of copy and paste against "the growing waste produced by a culture that insists, uniformly on uniqueness" . Their argument starts off by saying that copy and paste has always been a part of architecture citing Alberti they say that "copia, moderated by varietas to avoid excess, was essential for a design to succeed.", this states that modern architects "imitated antiquity by understanding it's principles and knowing it's history in order to emulate it's functionality.
They move on to express The Copy and Paste Manifesto of which I found a lot of points interesting.
- States the new became obsessed with he idea of having no predecessor at all.
- The culture of Copy and paste was replaced by a culture of waste.
- The new without precedent simply does not exist, the search for it drove 20th century architects to distraction.
- Every creative act begins with a copy of what an architect subconsciously already knows he can transform or destroy but never create.
- Originality fosters inefficiency this is wasteful in a society with growing architectural needs
- Architects can enlarged the stock by respecting transforming or destroying these answers but not denying their existence.
The point I found most interesting is the one where it's stated that architecture can always be judged on it's performance, meaning that's judged on whether or not it enhances it's precedent. This means that, the past can only be ignored so much, because since there are already examples of efficiency and productivity even if we choose to ignore them our work will have to be held to the same standard as those who did the same things before us. Therefore this means that our best bet would be to use them as examples, modify and emulate. Ignoring the past will only lead us to repeat the same mistakes done before and ignoring their success.
コメント