Talk:Future Landscapes Group 6
Dear group members, please use this discussion page for compiling and sharing your thoughts!
Montevideo group 03 on Nürtingen group 02 (Gabriel, Nemanje + Beate) selected project
We found the selected project really interesting and captivating. The general considerations that justify their choice (the use of local materials, the simplicity and elegance of its design, its subtle inclusion within a historic and well defined area, its self-reliance energy , its strong and local rooted narrative, and its poetic dialogue with the elements of nature) are very compelling. We also share the team's ethical stance in relation to global warming, environmental pollution and the disciplinar commitment with these problems. Similarly, regarding the need to measure the impact of our actions and decisions from the perspective of design (as quoted to in the article by Craig Pocock) is also very compelling.
Notwithstanding these considerations, after seeing the project and its context, we raise some questions:
Should it be the landscape conceived as a work of art (produced by an individual person or group) as an interesting urban attraction, as Nicola states, or as the provisional result of a complex and collective process? Is this a false opposition?
Is there a difference between a work of art, a spectacle and a landscape?
What happens when individual interventions start to accumulate in a limited area? Does not this imply entering a regime similar to that of an amusement park?
An installation suggests something "fragile, provisional, removable and that is able to be re-used. Was this project conceived in these terms?
The formal simplicity of the proposal contrasts with the technological complexity that makes it work and that gives the meaning to the project. What should be the relationship between landscape and technology, thinking of technology obsolescence in the context of an environmentally friendly design?
Must the landscape of the future be necessarily linked to technological sophistication?