For a tradition to remain within the semantics and souls of people, it must seek to engage and be adopted; this sub-memetic event makes it run the risk of it becoming a simulation of itself. A mirror image of the tradition & it is here science preys, this is where science hunts for objects to put on show for its attraction, and pleasure.Science as a murderous collaborator with museums.
The 'edifice' questions the chance for tradition; more precisely, revived tradition to not merely simulate itself, but live, grow and replicate to inform new generations. The real truths lie in the activity of tradition.
Case Study: Ningbo Museum.
https://www.dezeen.com/2016/08/18/video-interview-wang-shu-amateur-architecture-studio-ningbo-history-museum-movie/
Materials reclaimed locally in this example have a history (from old housing or civic buildings); does their use in the defining of a space which will exhibit dead objects as a way of ‘’pro-memoria’’ constitute reincarnation? Should it allow them to continue as characters, or are they fundamentally dead building blocks, reflecting the objects they shelter and protect? Provenance would help conclude these un/truths.
The march of the Anthropocene regardless to loss of habitat, skills in language and technical ability.
The building crafts & ancient skills revitalised and used had died out; and unless it was divine intervention which is unthinkable, they died out for a reason; this reason is because the technological revolution made them redundant; they exist merely as a nostalgia. Is it Wang Shu’s ego that drove their re-introduction? Will an echo of the revived activity fade with time, quality diminishing and finally lose to imagination. The ambition comes from architectural thinking that exists in the classical era but does not have a place in the Anthropocene, cannot survive the structuralist times in which we live. 'A' for effort rather than its success in truth.
The truth that stands out is one of science being a murderous collaborator with museums. For tradition to remain alive it must be engaged; the risk of engagement after its disappearance is it becomes a simulacrum of the tradition; it is here science steps in to kill the tradition and put it n the museum… so the building begins to question the chance for tradition, more precisely, revived tradition to not merely simulate itself, but live a grow to inform new generations. The truths lie in the activity those traditions are re-engaged to do. The materials reclaimed from the surrounding villages may have come from housing or civic buildings, so, does their use in the defining of a spaces to exhibit dead objects as a way of ‘’pro-memoria’’ for the future constitute a reincarnation, and allow them to continue from where they left off? I would argue the provenance would help conclude these truths. The obvious evidence of the march of the Anthropocene, apparent in the derelict villages where the advance of the city marches on, regardless to the loss of not only habitat, but also of skills in language and technical ability. The building skills that where revitalised died for a reason; is it Wang Shu’s ego that drove their re-introduction and will they ever be used again, or will an echo of the activity fade with time, the quality dimishing and the final carve lost to an imagination. The ambition comes from an architectural thinking that exists in the classical era, maybe even the renaissance but does not have a place in the Anthropocene, cannot survive with the structuralist times in which we live and needs to realised for its effort in truth, rather than its success in being truth and thus existing with integrity.
