ABSTRACT
Design intervention theory pertaining to existing structures is articulated in our current context primarily through the vehicle of history. Buildings classed as historic are currently seen as artistic expressions of a past social and indeed physical context. This is architecture as a static monument, relative to a previous social narrative and use. Indeed Mark Hewitt speculates in his paper, ‘Architecture for a Contingent Environment’ that, “We tend to isolate it [the building] in much the same way that museum curators have traditionally dealt with objects in their care.” (Hewitt 1994: 198)
The current objective treatment of historical architecture does not just reflect a shift in dictation within its own discourse. It in fact represents a general development in architecture throughout history, which has sought an objective means of defining processes and categorisation. To ‘objectify’ means to fully comprehend and command, which are arguably two traits intrinsic to human nature; including beyond the boundaries of the architectural discourse. (Mitchell 1998: 88-91 - See Goethes realist 'Plant Theory' )
However rather than the ‘historical’ building that we perceive as a fixed artifact solely embodying a realist methodology, it in fact demonstrates a subjective process relative to ‘place’ as a transient notion. Buildings, when understood in this relativist way are responsive artifacts, incorporating layers of transient social, topographical and geographical change.
The entire notion of historical architecture as perceived as representative of a fixed point in the past, can therefore be brought into question, indeed even the very notion of historic can be challenged in this light. If architecture is actually in reality a responsive medium then should it not therefore seek to continue this function of reflecting the evanescent nature of its particular milieu? How might our architectural methodologies embody this essentially subjective and transient characteristic in buildings, whilst maintaining the sense of order that collective society seems to posses as a primordial desire?
“What if the artifact and its environment were instead considered as a morphologically continuous and, temporally fluid system undergoing a lager metamorphosis of which the ‘designed’ changes are only a small part? (Hewitt 1994: 200)
