On Mystery (draft notes)

I guess all that I write shall all be drafts, but I shall write them all the same... I was just reading Rem Koolhaas' Junkspace (2001), and could not deny that he is a really good writer, for this pulp-fiction, marvel comics generation. Also, I really like all the 19th and early 20th century architecture writers, they are so honest and so forthcoming about criticism, convicted about their opinions, and they are not shy at all about using words and notions that architects would not use today, the words and notions that have to do more with some unquantifiable quality than rationales, reasons, and all the rest of that. They discuss boldly the fundamental questions of architecture, and they depend boldly on their instinctual knowledge of beauty and meaning. It is so easy to read what they write, while it is tedious to read some of today's writings. It is easy to read Rem's writings too, in a different way. He is a really good writer for this generation - "junkspace generation?"

"Junkspace generation" - not a flattering term perhaps. Junk food, junk art, junk films, junk fiction, junk dreams... really? What makes a junk dream? What makes a worthy dream? In a teeming city of neon lights, of tall buildings, of anonymous faces of passers-by, what makes a dream?

(-- What is architecture for? Because I am an architecture student and I want to graduate, I am doing a thesis on architecture. Is that all? Then I graduate, and get a job, and live, and try to live well, and then -- today in church, the pastor had said "perhaps it's news to some of us here, but we are all going to die at some point." From this perspective (I think it a very worthy one to take), we would think it important to ask then about the meaning of everything that we do in this life. What is architecture for? --)

What is the meaning of art, what is it for? Why do people read fiction, why are we immersed in grand epic films? It is because human beings have hopes and dreams. No matter what architecture is out there, perpetuating what convictions to what ends, it is not a scientific endeavor, like bio-medicine for instance, or mechanical engineering. There are some scientific-aspiring or mathematical-aspiring architecture, but these are not pushing the limits or boundaries of science or math, they are not scientific or mathematical pursuits: they are trying to use science or math to advance architecture. Parametric design, green buildings, high-tech buildings, design technology, etc. We should not be confused about this, and in a sense - a person who enjoys scientific tidbits should not think himself a scientist.

Which brings me to Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist of our days. If anyone had a claim to scientific erudition it was him, and he had named an unquantifiable element as the most beautiful and essential thing that a person should know:

The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. -Albert Einstein

What I had referred to in earlier posts as "imagination", I wonder if I could refer to it as the "mysterious?"



Then again, how can architecture create mystery? A Gothic cathedral is as mysterious to me as a boring office building is mysterious to a time traveler from the past. In this sense, it is the culture and environment of a person that jades his senses - if every woman looked like a femme fatale, the mystery would be gone. In this age, so many strange skyscraper forms had been built that the world is no longer surprised by anything - mystery is not to be found in novelty. In the same vein, mystery is not to be found in mere size of building in an age of skyscrapers. Mystery is when we think there is something we do not know, something hidden - perhaps we can find it. A blank wall could be mysterious because we think there is something behind it that is intriguing - we imagine all the scenarios. An office building could not be mysterious, because we already know what an office is like. Mystery is when imagination is activated. Imagination can be activated in a lot of ways. How can architecture activate imagination?

(-- Detail is the signifier of mystery. --)



Then again, all these that I just wrote seems to be "making mystery for the sake of it." It is like making something beautiful for the sake of it. Yet are these things not part of life itself, in other words, is not life itself mysterious, the fountainhead of imagination? Then, what is the role of architecture - how is life in a utilitarian building different from life in an 'architectural' building? (And another notion I had always had at the back of my mind, is not the blank slate ideal, the blanker the better - that life may write on it?)