Throughout the semester we have seen that the projection of the human body onto buildings, the anthropomorphization of architecture, is fundamentally intertwined with questions concerning the relationship between nature and culture and how to define what architecture is, what it is for, and what it should aspire to be/do. We have been tracing this phenomenon historically beginning with its first written articulation in Vitruvius’ De Architectura. Now, we find ourselves in the contemporary moment. For our final week we will examine a recent manifesto on the place of the human in design entitled, Are we Human? Notes on an Archaeology of Design in order to evaluate whether the tradition of anthropomorphism in architecture still has relevance today and how it might serve or hinder humanity moving forward.
Pre-recorded Lecture: None this week
Readings:
- Beatriz Colomina and Mark Wigley. (2018) Are we human? Notes on an archaeology of design (Selections).
Links to readings: Are We Human? Notes on an Archaeology of Design
Asynchronous Assignment: None. Focus on the final essay.
Synchronous Discussion:
- How do Colomina and Wigley present the history of the human body?
- How has technology transformed what it means to be human or how has it changed the practice (praxis) of being human over time?
- Apart from normatizing the body (which we discussed last week), in what other ways has anthropomorphism in wider cultural discourses come to be represented in architecture?
- Where are we today?