Paradoxical Symmetries is not an letter that we come behind to often. I’ve usually review it, perhaps, 3 times. But it has something that has stranded with me, some-more as a indication of letter and meditative about design and a history, than about a specific arguments or anything to do with Mies outpost der Rohe. Yes, it takes a Barcelona Pavilion as a intent of study, though it puts some-more bid into severe a several misconceptions surrounding a building as good as reminding us that we can be rather messy in a meditative about concepts. To start with a first, Evans shows us how a building, praised for a asymmetry has a satisfactory volume of balance in a architecture. Secondly, before doing this we are reminded (or chastised) that a architectural use of a tenure balance is rather singular and elementary (reflective or counterpart symmetry). This unraveling of formidable concepts continues with a approach Evans reads a attribute between a law of structure and expressing a law of structure. More, we are given an engaging reading of what is constructional and what is not (is it a walls or a columns or both and if a latter, that is primary?). But Evans isn’t meddlesome in any thought of an ultimate law about a building though some-more in how it communicates several opposite things mostly during a same time. The critiques suggesting a walls should not have overwhelmed a underside of a roof or that a columns should have been left out skip a point. Yes, it competence have done things clearer though that wasn’t what Mies was meddlesome in. There is something smashing about a approach Evans suggests that several readings can make clarity though don’t quite. This isn’t a smirch in a design and conjunction is it a smirch in wanting to review it a sold way. Just like my take on Peter Collins’ story of petrify – it is not wholly judicious though it creates we consider – a value is in a approach a design (or a approach of looking during it) creates we think, suppose or invent choice concepts or explanations.
The low summary in this letter is about a assumptions we make when meditative about design – and how foolish they indeed are, when we stop to consider about them.
“I commend plant life when we see it, and we commend rationality in design when we see it, since we start to understand, after many practice, what a word is practical to. we am afterwards tempted to consider that all things temperament a same name, possibly or not they are architecture, contingency share an essential property, though this is not necessary, nor, in this instance, is it likely. We might select to trust that squarish, elementary things are tokens of rationality in some wider sense, and that curvaceous, difficult things are tokens of irrationality, though a rarely grown powers of visible approval are sportive no some-more than a influence when we go out sport for equipment to pin these terms to.”
This is, for me, one of a many pleasing and critical passages ever created about architecture. Everyone thinks Mies is a rationalist since of this myth and everybody thinks Gehry is an artist for a same reason. And in a box of someone like Le Corbusier or Rem Koolhaas we get possibly fans or detractors conjunction of that ever demeanour during a work closely enough.
The letter continues to plead issues of ‘appearance’ that is not to contend ‘image’ and a purpose this plays in Mies’ architecture. And there is even a small phenomenological impulse invoked by an bargain of how before blind people understand space. It finally moves into a care of a materials and reflectivity. Along a approach some-more unpractical traps and simplifications are unprotected and exploded.
The final indicate I’d like to make about this letter is that it is rather educational in tinge though not slavishly so. We have mislaid a ability to write this way. It is mindful in an intensely accurate approach though it is not endangered with presenting itself as a square of educational writing. That is, it is some-more meddlesome in grant than expressing (the manners and tropes of) scholarship. This allows Evans to be really honest about a fact that a lot of what he is observant is simply about what he sees; nonetheless it is all there, it is verifiable, it is biased and significant during a same time. It is, come to consider about it, really many like Mies’ architecture.
In fact, we consternation now because we don’t come behind to this letter some-more often.