calls for articles
43: temporary architecture
44: architecture and play There are several ways to think about play, the most obvious one being the one which children, with great imagination and entertainment, do, learning as they go. Then there is organised play, sports and such, games involving opposing players of great prowess, skill and combativeness. And somewhere in-between is play that involves messing around for the sake of meaningless joy: play for the sake of play. There is another use of the word play , which is the looseness in a system. Mechanical parts that have some play are not highly machined, or if they once were are now worn, introducing a play between parts. This is very interesting, that play describes this sloppiness, where exactitude is not a factor. The architecture of play is linked indubitably to Aldo van Eyck’s schools and playgrounds, and from there all the theories of education, learning and play that so dominated the twentieth century. Increasingly, either through psychology, ideology or health and safety regulations, play has become channelled, scheduled – something closer to a machined part in a busy life than poking about a ditch with a stick. for hours. till dinner time. Somewhere in all of this is the sense that joy is for children, that eventually one puts aside childish things and gets on with some other form of life, usually something more grim, less joyous. Something we see in the tragic children of war who have been forced to put aside childish things almost from birth. In the practice of architecture do we have works conceived, designed and built with joy throughout the whole process? Where the sense of play is there from the start, an architecture of simple pleasures, of ridiculous time-wasting that is vastly pleasurable? This transcends program and looks squarely at the process of making architecture. Examples please, from history, from contemporary practice, from buildings you know, playgrounds you loved, or love. What is the relationship between architecture and play?
What is the acceptable durée for architecture? Is it found in construction, or form, or program? Is the temporary a material issue, or is it about occupation? Can a rental suite be considered temporary architecture, no matter how long the physical space has existed? The use of space might be temporary, or the construction of the space itself, such as a Oxfam tent, might be designed to be short-lived. How can we extend the limits of a temporary architecture so that it becomes a fluid, nimble, responsive typology not just a reactive condition to disaster, or crisis; not just a condition of poverty or charity. Can a temporary architecture be intentionally demountable and moveable, rather than thrown up for quick occupation and then bulldozed, as happens at every informal refugee camp, even in our own first-world cities? Well, of course it can, but is this actually happening? Sometimes a shoddy building stands on into its second century, beyond all reasonable expectations. How does this happen? Is its use, its symbolic function, part of its material persistence? Sometimes a solidly-built building runs out of programmatic functionality and is let go, a ruin before its time.
So, what is the acceptable, or the probable, or the unfair durée for architecture?
Send proposals for this issue any time up to April 30 2023, final submissions will be due July 1 2023
https://onsitereview.ca/callforarts
Send proposals for this issue any time up to August 31 2023, final submissions will be due December 1 2023
https://onsitereview.onsitereview.ca/callforarts
62
on site review 42: atlas :: being in place
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter maker