« Bill Viola: An Art-Scientist | Main | Naturally Live Plastic »
September 28, 2005
Unlearning the rigidity of motion
In "Plasticity of Motion," Stanislavski demonstrates that he had to unlearn his typical ways of movement in order to achieve fluid motion. I find it to be such a delicious paradox that he had to investigate the discrete components of his anatomy before he could enjoy them as one harmonious system. I would really like to apply this process to the design of spaces, but I am not sure that I know which components to begin investigating for causes of tension. What is the equivalent to Madame Sonova's imaginary mercury that I could make flow through the joints and musculatures of NY's public spaces?
In terms of architecture, I doubt that a space could be designed that would be immune to the same misuse as the unknowing person's handling of their anatomy. A community that is unaware of the mechanics of an architectural space might introduce rigidity and destructive, negative energy to the most sensitive of spaces. Or, does a reaction like this still leave the architecture to blame? For some reason, reading this article and contemplating it in architectural terms brought Yamasaki's failed Pruitt-Igoe projects to my head. This urban renewal development project was thought to embody the height of modern architecture back in 1951, supposedly having been "designed for interaction." Although a lot of other factors were at work (social, economic, & political), the buildings were deemed a failure due to crime and environmental degradation and were demolished in the 70s (hence the image above this post.) I guess what I'm wandering towards is the question: can successful architecture, when considered in the social realm, be led by such abstract notions as plasticity? And if so, how does the community become integrated into that energy?
Posted by Robert Croft at September 28, 2005 04:10 AM