1990 Lovendegem

A (very) small house.....

 

Two proposals. 

The second one is better.

 

What do we see?

Very few ‘things’ ....

 

 

 

 

- For the building... :

 

In a square outline, 

the questioning or the doubt  over the square.... 

Or perhaps even its negation.

 

An in-between two straight edges

where the circulation of a rhythm of curves begins....

 

Nothing more.

 

It is impossible to see a functional hierarchy here.

 

 

 

 

- For the garden ... :

 

A bit of straightness...

But above all, the oblique....

 

 

*

 

It is impossible to see in the design of the project 

the imaginative emergence 

of something existing or pre-existing...

 

It is impossible to see in the drawing of this project 

the contribution, 

coming as a copy from the outside, 

of a figure from a historical architectural object...

It is therefore impossible to see in it

the com-position of figures...

 

One can only see 

the institution of a geometry...

That is to say  

of the ‘One’, here unfinished...

of the other...

and of the articulated in-between 

from one to the other...

 

All this in an inaugural mode....

by the simple dis-position of 'matter'.

Matter' of which the Greeks, 

by the word 'phusis',

said that it was 'that which makes possible'.

 

All this, then

without ever reaching the notion of object...

so much the play of the in-between 

is authoritative in this project.

 

 

 

 

This project therefore says that 

the elements or instruments of architecture

are simply non-significative matters 

dis-posed at dis-stance.

 

It is therefore thought here that

it is the ‘dis-stances’ that make the architecture.

And dis-stances is even a better word than dis-position.

For it contains the word for poetry: 'stanzas'.

Stanzas' that are not significant

but are there, 

necessarily before all else, 

to welcome the new sense, at its inauguration.

 

It is therefore that

this inaugural dis-stance between matters,

which we might call 'space',

that  is 'what makes possible' anthropic life at its inauguration

by simply saying,

that to get out of the Real,

where the Impossible reigns, 

one needs a few 

of  ‘law’

but above all 

one needs

the oblique and of the curve

that is to say, 

a way 

of not going straight 

and only doing with what already exists

but to go towards the other 

directly in an oblique

or at any time in a curve....

 

That this is necessary 

to be able to live in Reality 

a ‘contract with the Real’ 

called in Greek sym-bolein ...

That is to say, to establish a worthy symbolic life 

outside or at dis-stance of the Real.

 

In this project, space is connoted with this without more.

 

It is simply based here 

a ‘locus’ of curve and oblique.

A ‘locus’ 

and not a site, a position, a place, ....

but an active dis-position

through the stance 

of the specific in-between

described above

and instituted,

at dis-stance of the Real,

underpinning a Sensibility,

and thus carrying the possibility of Sense

namely the Symbolic...

 

 

*

 

This is what the client did not want 

....because it was about architecture.

 

He built

instead of this project

a building

which can be seen as a

a paradigm of inconsistency.

 

This is to be thought of ....

Few people want the consistency of architecture...

It is not even clear that our society wants it...

unless it consists of its negation 

i.e. it must be an 'object' or 'image'.