transparency

This reading was rather difficult for me. I read and feel like I understand what they were saying, but perhaps I missed the point. I understand that there are two different kinds of transparency, literal and phenomenal, and their characteristics are easily understood with the help of Kepes’ description and the overabundant comparisons. The art examples following are helpful and further develop the proposed ideas. However, when moved into the realm of architecture, the comparisons become a little stretched. If you want or need to, you can always create a comparison between things. I don’t know if they are using the most appropriate comparisons, or perhaps this idea of transparency has been utilized to a greater extent in the years following these articles.

Perhaps it was discomforting because there were no real conclusions drawn from the exhaustive comparisons, besides establishing that this idea of phenomenal transparency is not a direct result of Cubism, but can be seen much earlier, with the example of Michelangelo’s work, among others. This transparency is something that is now more inherent and expected in design today. All this said, I think the authors were aware of all of the above excessiveness, yet found the comparisons to be helpful in understanding and explaining these concepts. In most contemporary successful buildings I believe you can find phenomenal transparency that gives projects depth and more significance. Yet, I do not think it has to be this blatant characteristic. It is not an obvious quality that is readily apparent, but is perhaps found through extensive inhabitation or study of a building.