The idea of various surfaces representing catastrophe behaviors is quite compelling. It's nice that they gave them names, such as the butterfly catastrophe. Though the most basic catastrophe is called the fold, surly Eisenman is not saying he literally based his Rebstock Masterplan on such a specific type of mathematical representation. Just as when Deleuze speaks of the fold, he's using it as a metaphor or framework to talk about (basically) everything else. Temporal modulation of space, continual variation of matter, singularities and repressed immanent conditions of existing urbanism = the fold = a way of projecting new social organizations into an existing urban environment. I follow. But, sadly, I don't know enough about his actual Rebstock proposal to know if he pulled it off.
I found some images of the project, but from a site in Spanish. As Eisenman himself said, he likes to enter competitions, but would rather not win because then he has to build something. Was the formulation of his Rebstock masterplan conceived as a way to advance his theories/agenda? Does it matter if that was the case? Where does this proposal fall within the realm of other fold (or topological?) projects, historically speaking?
No comments:
Post a Comment