1992 Eynaten
This is an unrealized project....
It is therefore a reflection. One can see that...
But a reflection rather on
how to architect together some buildings ...
in a dis-position
that
how to put together dream buildings reduced to objects ....
in a com-position
Here the answer was
that it is a single building,
a 'straight' building in this project,
in different parts held together.
Different parts held together
by the view that runs through them all,
revealing that it is
a single space
without opposition between inside and outside.
Different parts held together on their ground
by an crossing apparatus of the buildings,
which is made up of paths,
fixing these parts
and holding them to this ground.
But what is their ‘ground’ .....?
It is clear that it is not reduced
to the immediate proximity of the buildings.
A path runs through each of them...
And this path each time
is both an inner and an outer space.
And we can also see that these paths
stand together,
or are 'of the same order'.
But above all we see
that these paths
are of an endless sensitive gesture
inscribed in the universe...
As, moreover, is inscribed in the universe
the building divided into parts.
This building,
we see it well,
-and this is its ground! -
is inscribed in the Real universe
on virtually infinite lines,
by a small series of strokes locating
the part of each of its elements.
We can also see
at the bottom of the first ideogram-drawing
the joint line with the road
parallel
to the joint line with the immense Real
above the project.
Project that is done,
we see it well,
in a virtually infinite in-between
on both sides.
The 'virtually infinite’
-as we can see-,
is essential to this project,
as with many other projects here on this site.
The project drawn here
is not whole.
It is not the infinite whole of the virtual project
The 'finished' is not
the only constituent.
There is finiteness but it is never in opposition to the infinite.
Another important point is
that there are no real facades in this project.
We see in plan
parallel lines
written by lines
in a small sequence
establishing a local depth.
But there is no difference between
the outer and inner edge lines
So that, again,
there is no opposition
between the face of the building and its local depth.
But this appears
both in plan and in elevation.
It is clear that
the walls are
structured in elevation
parallel to the earth
as if they were emerging from its depth.
Here again, therefore
a non-opposition between
the face that the project takes in elevation and its depth.
So we see again
in this architectural reflection
as an unknown presence
through many of the projects on this site
the triple non-opposition
between interior and exterior,
between finite and infinite,
between face and depth.
A triple non-opposition
pertinent because it constitutes
of the non-humanist anthrope-subject
non-finite,
not hidden behind its face,
and whose inner life is not isolated from those of the outer ones
but on the contrary
whose life is constituted from the outset
of the crossing of others
before it becomes authentic.
*
Finally, we note,
-and not unrelated to what has just been written-,
a regrettable point in this project:
It is massive. And weight counts.
It is only very late...
too late...
that I realized
that I had to distinguish mass from matter.
Too late I realized,
-essentially thanks to Japanese architecture
and particularly that of Sejima and Nishisawa,
that it was possible to build with matter without mass.
(See, for example, the Louvre Lens by Sejima and Nishisawa)
But also that one had to do it
from the moment we wanted
a pertinent architecture
for an anthrope-subject crossing of others
in the triple non-opposition indicated above.
This crossing of others,
this triple non-opposition
cannot be established
by coming up against mass,
by bumping into walls.
For this, you need a matter without mass,
not walls but walls without mass.
For the architecture of the crossing of others,
for the architecture of the triple non-opposition,
for the architecture of the non-humanist anthrope-subject,
we need an architecture
without mass, without weight, without walls.
Mass, weight and walls
are indeed the hallmarks of humanism
and of humanist architecture
which wants to be
in opposition between interior and exterior
in opposition between finite and infinite
in opposition between face and depth
not for a subject
but for Man
with his heavy and massive Phallus,
thus to the verbal wishful thinking of heavy and massive concepts.
For the Man
with a heavy and massive identity
in opposition to other identities
massive identities.
There is still some humanism in this project ...
and that is regrettable ...