Oppositions and their Resolutions
During the two lectures we had in class on oppositions, I really enjoyed the first opposition that was talked about; the struggle between man and physical nature and landscape. We went through many examples within the opposition, but one that struck me as the most amazing was the â€śDig inâ€? example. Even more specifically, I was amazed by the dwellings in Kapadokia, Turkey. Living in the mountainous region in which they chose, there was no real option to create structures on that ground. So they decided to instead to construct their buildings in to the surrounding mountains as shown in the picture above. This is amazing to me as it is aesthetically very cool looking and at the same time very convenient as the structure is already there and there is no building to be done only carving out. The shelter is all natural and the roof over your head is literally tons of rock. This response was called enveloping oppositions, which means taking the extremes and enveloping them into the boundaries to which you can work.
Another opposition that I found incredible in class was the opposition of permanence and entropy. Right away I thought of the physics definition of entropy and the fact that there are so many things can go astray in the physical world just by so many different things affecting an object all at once. I believe a perfect example of this opposition is the house â€śFalling Waterâ€? by Frank Lloyd Wright. This house, all of you know, was built on a small waterfall in the middle of the woods in Pennsylvania. This specific piece of the land that the family purchased was probably not the first spot they expected to put their house one, but they did it anyway. This house stands today as one of the finest pieces of architecture in the nation because of its timelessness. The waterfall and the danger of the forest brings up the problem of entropy, but that was no problem for the master-mind/architect Frank Lloyd Wright. The resolution that I believe Mr. Wright enforced here was that of â€śprobabilistic responses to the opposition.â€? He thought about what could all go wrong and where the problem spots might be and he tested them to withstand whatever nature was to through at it.