I was very happy to read your argument — in response to Hugo’s claim that the printing press “converts itself into a flock of birds, scatters itself to the four winds, and occupies all points of air and space at once”: — that “[h]e could just as easily be talking about radio or television or the Internet – disseminating ideas through the ether. And similarly, with each new communication technology, there are both celebrations of new possibilities, and concerns about the increased removal from “real,” “authentic” interaction.” EXACTLY! This is in part why we’ve been moving backward in time throughout the semester — so we can historicize similar claims made about *digital* technologies (…and television, and film, and photography…) revolutionizing architecture. We say the same things every time! And as you say, every time, there are both celebrations of new possibilities and concerns over what might be lost.
We can talk tomorrow about whether Koolhaas and Ingels propose any particularly compelling “new possibilities” for books, for buildings, and for books about buildings.]]>
I also appreciate your comment at the end about architecture having “its own language.” Do you think that language evolves as the cultural and technological ecologies evolve around it? Is *today’s* architectural “language” different than it would’ve been in Hugo’s day — before the rise of the mechanically reproduced image?]]>