Page 70 - META

70
ISSN 2309-0103 www.archidoct.net
Vol. 7 (2) / February 2020
changed the nature of most professions. Since the role of the archi- tect is to appreciate different needs and inputs and transform them into space architectural representations are conceived as a language that codifies space, translates spatially different practices and con- ceptualizes environments in which these codifications are possible.
3.1 Content awareness_ Standardization_Self-refer- entiality
Referencing Carpo and Goodman, Buchli notes that the arts hand- made by their authors are called autographic (for example painting) and cannot be replicated, the opposite, allographic, defines those artworks whose identities are irrelevant to notions of originality and duplication (for example music) (Buchli, 2016). Since Alberti’s times architectural representations could be understood as a codification that affected both the design object and the designers’ professional role in the social structures. The expertise in design mediation grad- ually set the foundations of the architectural profession, defined the domain and enabled architectural authority while at the same time imposed an architecture related aesthetic paradigm that was based in the method of architectural production implied in De re Aedifi- catoria (Alberti, 1991); design precedes construction, architecture is comprised by different parts that are related to each other accord- ing to firmitas – utilitas - venustas, that in their turn are defined by proportion, the rules of the orders, materiality, site and position and contouring. The standardization (Carpo, 2011) implied in technical representations and the notion of the identical constitutes a form of language that allows communication between different parties be it the relation between architect – object (construction and mate- riality) or the relation between object – appreciator of architecture (coincinitas) (Tavernor, 1985).
Architects after Alberti’s premises 1, by default, function on a me- ta-Albertian level which is a paradox as it assumes that in order to have a discipline someone functions on a meta- level although this level falls in the self-referential, content aware paradigm (architec- ture as a sub-group of Albertian practice). As architectural repre- sentations synthesize conclusions taken from various contributions that are then standardized by means of plans, elevations, sections and construction details that allow buildings or objects to be con- structed in the absence of the architect, architectural representation is considered to be a non-representational art-form for a number of philosophers. Namely, Scruton, Langer and even Goodman sug- gest that architectural representation does not represent any con- tent (Scruton, 1979) but represents the processes necessary for its materialization as is depicted through the repetition of symbols. This approach of course excludes the condition of architectural interior- ity, the way that architectural concepts and ideas are discussed and
1. Writing, drafting, drawing, designing are terms that share a strong connection in our case.
//
Meta(re)presentations
Antonis Moras