As with most of the readings so far this semester, I found
Jencks to be a lot more relatable and understandable after discussing it in
class, than I did when walking into class on Wednesday. In class, we focused on Jencks’ idea of
architecture relating to intertextuality, and viewed examples of each of
Jencks’ eleven categories of postmodern architecture. I think the reason that the Jencks reading was difficult to
follow, was not because I could not understand each of the individual concepts
Jencks introduces, but because I had difficulty placing these eleven concepts
in my everyday environment and surroundings.
The concept from Jencks’ piece that I had the most
difficulty comprehending was dissonant
beauty or in other words, disharmonious
harmony. The relation between
these two oxymoronic ideas was difficult for me to understand, because in my
daily life, they do not usually go together. As Jencks states, “Inevitably art and architecture must
represent this paradoxical view, the oxymoron of ‘disharmonious harmony’, and
it is therefore not surprising that we find countless formal paradoxes in
postmodern work…” (282). Until
listening to the rock song before class on Wednesday, I was unaware of what
forms of art and architecture Jencks was referring to in his article, however,
using the song to exemplify disharmonious harmony really helped to illustrate
the meaning behind the concept.
When thinking about it, the idea of disharmonious harmony
actually begins to make sense.
It’s the idea that two things that seemingly do not belong together,
actually work together quite well.
As Jencks states, we do see these paradoxical relationships all the
time, yet we don’t notice, because, at least to me, the concept seems so
foreign. By listening to the song,
however, disharmonious harmony is no longer a foreign concept, but something
that is apparent in everyday life.
No comments:
Post a Comment