This discourse locates itself between the predicaments of culture technics and inhabitation. It predicates an attempt to address the question of whether architecture can be used as a medium for cultural diplomacy 1? That is – “is it possible for architecture to be an agent to emancipate societies from culturism as they re-define themselves in their consciousness and to each other as precipitated by the phenomenon of the Creative Industries?”
This premise underpins the design research investigation underpinning this body of work. The framework intends to initiate unique responses to meet the needs of the artisan in the Creative Industries in a neo-liberal economy, which ofttimes lay bounded by the tension of architectural paradox and conundrum.
The discernable impact the Creative Industries on global economies and society is the apparent fragmenting of spatial networks [Mitchell] within cities and the relocation of social exchanges from the physical to the digital agora [Markham, Carter].
By critically embracing McLuhan’s [1964] assertion that media constitutes an environment and city as “medium [Kittler 1996], the discussion proposes to ascertain an appropriate understanding of the social transitions occurring because of the Creative Industries. To inform the investigation of how architecture can influence the spaces that the Creative Class occupies in a role as cultural ambassadors.
Social interactions in cyberspace embodied in reality is attested by phenomenology, Creative and Cultural Theories, theories of place‐making and substantiated by ethnographic case studies of existential phenomena. Providing a sound conceptual framework within which to examine the implications of digital trans-cultural communication for architecture.
Special attention will be paid to regional variations in how different creative industries function vis-à-vis business and cultural policies, globalization and the strategic role of creativity in the creation of physical and virtual dimensions in which people interact. The hypothesis is posited that an understanding of the intrinsic factors of the Material economy, knowledge of media, public diplomacy countering cultural animus, economic growth and communications theories is necessary to understand and identify the dynamics of cultural renewal in the context of the inevitable technocratic re-definition of cultural values and norms arising from the shifting precipitated by the Creative Industry to establish how these can relate to architecture.
Finally, it is argued that the transmuting of culture into digital objects of art and translating them into key elements of architectural cultural identification can tangibly connect the cultural other, promoting learning and understanding of the unfamiliar [culture] through adoption and adaptation.
The scope and power of smart technology underpins an emergent architectural model that would advance a primary embryonic strategy to appropriate culture. A humanistic technological determinism directs towards a model typology that tests the feasibility of new mechanisms for the redemption and the redemptive work of the artisan in a considered architectonic digitally interactive and immersive environment. Conjecturing an inference and possibility towards an ethnoscape – a site of learning where the artist and the artisan studies, lives and works as a way to encourage and diversify the approach to cultural diplomacy.
No comments:
Post a Comment