Grafts
Grafts: The Old and the New in Architecture_Jessica Kelly
Detachment and Engagement – The Art of Architectural Grafting_Anna Roos
– Rehabilitation of the Holy Sepulchre Chapel_Héctor Fernández Elorza
– Tea House in Hutong_Archstudio
– Koya_SUMA
– 366 Kashiracho_NAAD
– New Sala Beckett_Flores & Prats Architects
– The Feuerle Collection_John Pawson
– Miyagawa Bagel Shop_Roovice
– Vigário House_AND-RÉ
– Peraleda House_Losada García Arquitectos
– Fanqueiros Apartment_CASCA
– House Z22 and Warehouse F88_Gus Wüstemann Architects
– House CG_Architecten de Vylder Vinck Taillieu
– Casa Gianìn_Clinicaurbana
– Rock Creek House_NADAAA
– Kulm Eispavillon_Foster + Partners
– Loft Panzerhalle_Smartvoll
Graft
Grafts: The Old and the New in Architecture_Jessica Kelly
Architecture is an expression of the principles, priorities and preoccupations of the culture and society that produces it. So said the Modernist architects of the early 20th century, who called architecture a ‘living art’ because of its intimate relationship with society. For Modernists, architecture was an art that expressed the ‘spirit of the time’, the zeitgeist. From this perspective, if a building ceases to express the spirit of the time, it becomes old; in a sense, it dies. This relationship between architecture and time – the past, the present and the future- remains a central theme in debates around the status, function and meaning of buildings. It is the theme of this issue of C3 magazine.
The title of this issue is Grafts. A graft is the insertion of something living into something damaged or dead – it is a bridge between the old and the new. In architecture a graft could be understood as an insertion of new architecture into an old building. ‘New’ architecture is living architecture, it is that which we recognize as expressing our present time, our ‘now’. ‘Old’ architecture is that which expresses a past time, something that belongs to history. Therefore discussing the relationship between old and new architecture involves addressing two separate but related issues: architecture’s relationship with time and our relationship with history.
Architecture has a complicated relationship with time. As a discipline conventionally defined by permanence and stability, the passage of time can seem to threaten the core principles of architecture. Jeremy Till, in his book Architecture Depends argues that architecture has developed four strategies to combat the threat posed by time.
The first of these strategies is simply to deny time, to insist that architecture exists outside of time – it controls time by expressing the present, the zeitgeist. The second is to insist that architecture can embody time, by representing the timeless, the eternal. Modernist architects used both of these strategies simultaneously as they claimed Modern architecture expressed the zeitgeist and was also a timeless, universal form of architecture. The third strategy is to accept that time passes, but to assert that the stability and durability in architecture can withstand its passage. Architecture will endure the passage of time by surviving change and decay. The fourth and final strategy, Till argues, is to acknowledge time, but only as a sequence of ‘moments’ that record the inevitable progress of architecture. This is often the strategy of architectural history, which organizes the past into a series of ‘events’ or ‘moments’, structured into a linear narrative of progress.
Graft
Grafts: The Old and the New in Architecture_Jessica Kelly
Architecture is an expression of the principles, priorities and preoccupations of the culture and society that produces it. So said the Modernist architects of the early 20th century, who called architecture a ‘living art’ because of its intimate relationship with society. For Modernists, architecture was an art that expressed the ‘spirit of the time’, the zeitgeist. From this perspective, if a building ceases to express the spirit of the time, it becomes old; in a sense, it dies. This relationship between architecture and time – the past, the present and the future- remains a central theme in debates around the status, function and meaning of buildings. It is the theme of this issue of C3 magazine.
The title of this issue is Grafts. A graft is the insertion of something living into something damaged or dead – it is a bridge between the old and the new. In architecture a graft could be understood as an insertion of new architecture into an old building. ‘New’ architecture is living architecture, it is that which we recognize as expressing our present time, our ‘now’. ‘Old’ architecture is that which expresses a past time, something that belongs to history. Therefore discussing the relationship between old and new architecture involves addressing two separate but related issues: architecture’s relationship with time and our relationship with history.
Architecture has a complicated relationship with time. As a discipline conventionally defined by permanence and stability, the passage of time can seem to threaten the core principles of architecture. Jeremy Till, in his book Architecture Depends argues that architecture has developed four strategies to combat the threat posed by time.
The first of these strategies is simply to deny time, to insist that architecture exists outside of time – it controls time by expressing the present, the zeitgeist. The second is to insist that architecture can embody time, by representing the timeless, the eternal. Modernist architects used both of these strategies simultaneously as they claimed Modern architecture expressed the zeitgeist and was also a timeless, universal form of architecture. The third strategy is to accept that time passes, but to assert that the stability and durability in architecture can withstand its passage. Architecture will endure the passage of time by surviving change and decay. The fourth and final strategy, Till argues, is to acknowledge time, but only as a sequence of ‘moments’ that record the inevitable progress of architecture. This is often the strategy of architectural history, which organizes the past into a series of ‘events’ or ‘moments’, structured into a linear narrative of progress.
