21 September 2006


Michielangelo recently has re-launched his blog as Eikongraphia, an updated version of his ongoing investigations into the role of iconography in architecture. I've definitely enjoyed Michiel van Raaij's thoughts and speculations as to how a building's iconography relates to its form and meaning -- his commentary is hard to categorize but easy to appreciate. The basic premise consists of short vignettes that take on a building strictly on iconographic terms (some of my favorites include the Penis and Vagina entries), thereby attempting to reconcile traditional formal concerns with a building's actual lasting effect -- essentially, how it is consumed by its observers. Read van Raaij's "Narrative" for a more detailed description of his methodology. While I do have some concerns with reading a building simply as an object for consumption, I am intrigued by the notion of "iconicity" (a term I presume coined by van Raaij? I've never come across it before) as an architectural quality to be pursued, or even perfected. It potentially offers a new, post-Venturi Scott-Brown way of understanding architectural form, and I'm curious to see how it plays out -- and if the politics of form/iconography will come into play.

link: Eikongraphia

1 comment:

Michiel said...

Let me shortly respond to that, as the author of the blog you talk about.

First I want to thank you for keeping up with the blog, I really appreciate that.

Why are the 'penisses' and 'vagina's' so popular, I often wonder. Those projects are the most read, clicked, and commented on.

The term 'iconicity' is I think very old. It appears in advertisement theory, but also in for instance 'The Iconic Building' of Charles Jencks.

And yes, I my endavours will lead somewhere beyond Venturi Scott Brown. I am working out some plans to do so.

See you around,

Best regards, Michiel.