A point that Jencks made that interested me was a quote on page 289. It read, “Double-coding can, of course, be used in an opposite way to emphasize the disjunctions, as for instance Stirling and Salle employ it; but however the method is articulated it acknowledges the simultaneous validity of opposite approaches and different tastes.” I think this quote means a couple of different things. First I think it means that by giving art or architecture two meanings it allows the viewer to make his or her own interpretation of what the meaning is behind the piece. Since the piece has two different meanings it will probably be easier for viewers to at least be able to identify with one of the views. When pieces have double meanings it is more likely that they will appeal to a broader audience. People that have very different tastes could still both like something that has a double meaning because one party may identify with one of the meanings and the other party may identify with the other meaning. This allows things with double meaning to become more popular than things that have one very concrete way of viewing them. In the passage before this quote it is discussed how double-coding can allow viewers to read the past in the present as well as the present in the past. When it is used in an opposite way as stated in this quote, double-coding uses irony, ambiguity and contradiction in order to validate the differences and make double-coding work. By using opposites double coding can show the differences between two things and how they compare and contrast with each other. By showing two opposites side by side, the polarization of two different things comes out more blatantly than if each was shown on it’s own. This is how double coding works to emphasize disjunctions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment