Post Class, In response to Dr. Casey and King Kriggle

This is my quasi-response to Jordan’s – excuse me, “King Kriggle” (I know, I asked myself the same question) – post pertaining to Dr. Casey’s lecture. I’m using it as a springboard more than anything, but I also agree with most of what was said. I too realized that the idea of post-modern architecture is more than just a “pissing contest” of “new wave people.” However, I had mixed feelings about the descriptions of each of Jencks’ canons. He made a great point that Jencks was an observationist and these are in no way set rules. In his lecture on each canon, my understanding was in some ways clarified and in others muddied. He cleared up the idea of radical eclecticism for me, especially when he said that it is not organic. He also cleared up anamnesis with his wonderful examples. I had a relatively clear idea already, but was unsure of how it fit into architecture. His description of multivalence, however, threw me off track. Perhaps I missed something, but from what he showed us it was all about multiple planes, surfaces, and juts off of the integral structure. Prior to today’s class, I understood multivalence as having multiple codes, references, themes, and the like. It is inclusive and not minimalist. This seems a little redundant after the rest of the canons, but what I got from Dr. Casey’s lecture was rather odd to me. Again, I probably missed something. If anyone can clarify that for me I would greatly appreciate it. He also cleared up the idea of the absent center for me, and as I re-read Jencks yet again, I picked up on something I had missed before. And just to wrap it up and touch again on King Kriggle’s post, I too realized there is more substance to Postmodernism than our preconceptions led us to believe.