The Formal Method II

I think the idea of montage as individual elements which are brought into context only when juxtaposed or viewed together is a very powerful idea and tool. Though I view the story of Bernini’s heroic act against the papacy with some skepticism, I don’t doubt the method and effectiveness of those eight reliefs. That method applied to architecture, as shown by the progression through the Acropolis, is also powerful and tantalizing. However, I strongly agree that sometimes the overall plan doesn’t make sense unless viewed with respect to what the planners were trying to achieve. I don’t think that it decreases the merit of the work even if it’s not understood immediately. However, when the true progression is shown it is very powerful. However, I am more dubious of works which are not understood and still are not understood even when explained. Personally I think if a work has merit, it could be explained, but the power of a piece of architecture should be experiential, which is also why I can appreciate detail in architecture more as viewed when in it and when inhabiting it than just looking at it as a whole, like a sculpture which has force only through outward appearance. That is also the difference between most sculpture and architecture, though of course there are exceptions (Serra’s work comes to mind).
I also find that the last article was so much a categorization of the new movement which eventually broke away into individual and competing ideas that the force of its idea as a whole is not as powerful. Certainly such background information is useful, and I vigorously support such information in conjunction with reading works which are theoretical. However, I feel that the information could have been presented in a way which can communicate more forcefully the thesis. In a way it’s like designing a paper to best communicate an idea.