Every year or so, me and my wife will have a history scholar come and stay with us for a month or two.  When they come to visit from their home in Venezuela. I have the opportunity to have an additional person to have interesting conversation with.  Often times these  conversations leave me barely treading water for not only am I having a conversation with a former university professor,  but also a person who worked in historical preservation of architecture.  So they are well versed in multiple subjects with a deep philosophical understanding as well.  Ive been accused of being a grumpy cat so I happen to really enjoy challenging discussion about history and architecture’s sociological implications.  The more challenging provocative/cynical the better for me.

Often times conversations between would start on a seemingly simple mundane topic.  As we would progress the conversation would eventually get to a point were I was either deeply questioning some thoughts or opinions I have withing myself or the topics allowed my to stumble onto new thoughts.  Sometimes these ideas may not fully manifest until later.  Much like these thoughts I am typing about right now are based on a conversation from almost a year ago.

It was during the spring of 2016 towards the end of my 2nd semester as a graduate student.  I was deep in the middle of course that prepared us for my coming thesis project.  So I was trying to find out what my ideals about architecture were, and I was trying to decipher or translate my frustrations with it.  I felt there was a severe disconnect between architects/designers and “architecture”. From my perspective there is a real detachment, or self imposed divorce from the intrinsic nature or experience  From all the theory that we have to read to some of my professors themselves;  I picked up, what felt like to me was a deep desire to justify architecture objectively.  Almost as if Victor Hugo was both the reaction and a causation when he wrote that the printing press had killed architecture in the early 1800’s.   I mean how could one not feel threatened by a statement like that or be forced to react.  Justifiably  modernism attempted to address these insecurities by resisting ornamentation and embracing function.  This was causing me to experience a sort of existential crisis within my own little world of architecture.

Well like I stated before the conversations between myself and the visiting professor that day began with discussion about the futurist architecture movements and then onto the types of architecture in Latin America compared to the west.  Eventually we began talking about the use of concrete and its implementation.  I believe i may have made a comment/comparison to brutalism when discussing a piece of architecture or style she liked.  Well the conversation began to take on the ton of a debate as she took offense.  I did not quite understand as i kept on describing the architecture as brutalist in nature.  Eventually my wife came into the conversation.  The professor’s main language is obviously Spanish , and she understands English but only speaks a little of it, Which is more than i can say because i am still after being married for 3 years and my Spanish is muy poquito.  So it was not until my wife joined the conversation and spoke to her in Spanish that I learned that brute in Spanish has a more derogatory meaning and that they did not refer to that style of architecture as that.  She also took offense because she enjoyed this type of architecture and appreciated its historical significance.

This was the moment in the conversation were almost immediately mythoughts or notions about a subject were washed away and challenged.  Here I was having a conversation with someone about a subject that was derailed by one word.  Or more importantly the meaning.  I, like most took the meaning as universal fact.  I was knowingly talking to someone in there second language yet for about 15 minutes I did not even think about the meaning of words I was using.  For the sake of time and efficiency, I summarized a whole typology of architecture with one word.  The meaning for me being true in the face of its fiction to another.

I never really looked at words like that quite before.  Especially now that I am looking back at this conversation.  Its as if words and meaning embody contradictory characteristics.   I am both amazed at their ability to convey and confuse.  In a way I am attracted to this idea.   They both enable us while simultaneously being responsible for our inability.

 

 

P.s

The Visiting historian is my wife’s mother (my mother in law).