an architect's aesthetic sense is subjective because he or she has not thoughtfully considered how architectural forms arise from and translate themselves back into shared existential qualities like motion, weight, substance, insideness, outsideness, permeability, closure, and so forth.
does this subjectivity negate the notion of the universality of architectural expression?
There will always be a certain tension, a kind of imperfection, between what we wish, do, and make. The significant questions are how do we dwell in our own particular situations and how can we shape the quality of our dwelling for better or worse?
The act, the process of dwelling..."How can we shape the quality of out dwelling..." Taking agency in building a community/lending yourself to a space. What happens when places of dwelling are chosen for a person?
the universality of architectural expression
reminds me of the potential for universal art or universal feelings--resonates deeply with an array of different people in a way that transcends barriers like language, geography, etc.
also means at the same time to cherish and protect, to preserve and care for, specifically to till the soil, to cultivate the vine.
in terms of building houses, thinking of the opposite of mass tenement or high-rise production, part of the idea behind "morals" of the house/home
When we speak of dwelling we usually think of an activity that man performs alongside many other activities. We work here and dwell there. We do not merely dwell-that would be virtual inactivity-we practi~e a profession, we do business, we travel and find shelter on the way, now here, now there.
Reminds me of the allure of living in luxury apartments and taking work outside of the home, idea of compartmentalizing aspects of life, etc.
Man acts as though he were the shaper and master of language, while in fact language remains the master of man.
if language is the master of man, does man make language his master?