Architectural Interregnums

dc.contributor.authorSpiridonidis, Constantin Victor
dc.contributor.authorVogiatzaki, Maria
dc.date.accessioned2021-02-24T07:22:09Z
dc.date.available2021-02-24T07:22:09Z
dc.date.copyright© 2020
dc.date.issued2020-02
dc.descriptionThis article is not available at CUD collection. The version of scholarly record of this article is published in ArchiDOCT (2020), available online at: http://www.archidoct.net/Issues/ArchiDoct_vol7_iss2/Archidoct%2014%2000%20good%20practice%20example%20.pdf
dc.description.abstractArchitectural design has always been the laboratory where experimentation with ideas about the newness, and elaboration of forms and spatial arrangements take place towards architectural creations. Prefixes such as post-, de-, re-, neo-, appear as typical signifiers of the spirit of novelty representing the different shifts that shape the history of architecture and could be broadly summarized by the term ‘meta’. Even if ‘meta’ is a kind of ontological reference to newness, implying its definition with what preceded, it always remains polysemic and, for this reason, ambivalent. Design is acting between the existing and the (be)coming, the established and the expected, the familiar and the xenon, the antipathy and the empathy. It is driven by the quest for a ‘meta’, known (or not) that since its appearance, it will lose its newness and will become commonplace. What type of novelty does it put forward through its creations in the contemporary interregnum? What are the primary formal or material traits that can attribute that identity to the new that can clearly distinguish it from the old? The paradox we are confronted with nowadays is that despite the unprecedentedly fast pace of changes happening in the sphere of the intellect, the sciences, technology, and the geopolitics of the globalized world, there are no apparent signs of novelty in contemporary architectural production. © 2020,ArchiDOCT All Rights Recerveds
dc.identifier.citationSpiridonidis, C., & Voyatzaki, M. (2020). Architectural Interregnums. ArchiDoct, 7(2), 13-25. http://www.archidoct.net/Issues/ArchiDoct_vol7_iss2/Archidoct%2014%2000%20good%20practice%20example%20.pdf
dc.identifier.issn23090103
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.archidoct.net/Issues/ArchiDoct_vol7_iss2/Archidoct%2014%2000%20good%20practice%20example%20.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12519/341
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherLifelong Learning EU
dc.relationAuthors Affiliations : Spiridonidis, C.V., Canadian University of Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Vogiatzaki, M., Anglia Ruskin University, School of Architecture, United Kingdom
dc.relation.ispartofseriesArchiDOCT;Volume 7, Issue 2
dc.rightsPermission to reuse abstract has been secured from Lifelong Learning EU
dc.rights.holderCopyright : © 2020,ArchiDOCT All Rights Recerveds
dc.subjectarchitectural design
dc.subjectBecoming
dc.subjectinterregnum
dc.subjectnovelty
dc.subjectposthuman
dc.titleArchitectural Interregnums
dc.typeArticle

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Access Instruction 341.pdf
Size:
56.57 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description: