Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

It's interesting that the declaration of a new style and a departure from modernism is delivered in the medium of modernist discourse: the manifesto. Shouldn't parametricism be explained in a series of surface logarithms? If the architecture community vindicates the existence of a parametric style, then the community will be moving away from the actual dialogue and content of architecture, which is and has always been space in some respect. Space is not merely a tenet of modernism. "Parametricism" is an attempt to venerate Form as the means, the generator, and the product of design in our "heterogeneous" context. But if Form becomes an expression of "fields", and everything becomes everything, then is parametricism really an appropriate response to the premise of heterogeneity? Integrating all elements of design into a fluid aesthetic package is actually the pursuit of flattening and homogenizing design (that is, limiting variety). Herman Hertzberger talked a lot about this issue in a fairly articulate manner. He believes that the disproportionate obsession with continuous surfaces is a compensation for a lack of programmatic or spatial innovation. This new style appears to be nothing more than an engine to propel the fascination of form and aesthetics that predominates the broader discussion of architecture... a discussion that undermines the value of design in society and posits design as a superficial act that is of no importance to everyday life.

Your details

Cancel