西方建築史（中英文）37-启蒙时期【俄亥俄州立大學公開課】 #公開課 #建築史 #西方建築

今天我們將專注於18世紀 以及18世紀改變的世界觀 其中一項是關於聖誕的 我們之前很簡短地提到過 但我認為這個話題值得延伸 我們看到的圖像是一間法國髮廊 這是一個很棒的主意 你們應該嘗試在自己的小學院裡 設立一個這樣的髮廊 讓聖誕老人 最有知識的人 在哥倫比亞的周圍 來討論想法 你可能有一個主題 男人的權利 或者你可能有一個主題 女人的平等 或者你可能有一個主題 奴隸是一個好主意 或者你可能有一個主題 生物學能否被量化 可以是任何類型的主題 你會對世界的一切感興趣 特別是對於 找到新的方法來系統化這個知識 讓這個知識有意義 讓這個知識 能夠建構起來 讓你前進到下一步的位置 大程度上 學術社會在18世紀 是從教育學院 例如法國教育學院 在17世紀開始的 路易十四教育學院 你嘗試找到一個方法 讓知識可以轉移 而不是一個祕密的教育資訊 我們看到在路易十四教育學院 在18世紀 藝術學院教授建築 教授繪畫 還有科學學院 教授那種資訊 他們會舉辦競賽 很有趣 競賽是關於不同的題目 他們對所有人都很開心 不僅是學術學院的學生 也對社會的所有人 包括女性 例如 1200個競賽 在法國的科學學院舉辦 約50個競賽是由女性贏得 這似乎是一個很悲慘的數字 但如果你考慮到 女性沒有機會 得到男性的教育 或者你甚至考慮到 她們能夠參加競賽 這就顯示了 世界正在開啟 這個世界正在開啟 被稱為 也被稱為一系列的東西 但我們稱之為聖誕 而聖誕這個詞語 是來自一篇文章 由Emmanuel Kant 答案是 什麼是聖誕 我只能這樣說 這基本上是 回答問題 什麼是聖誕 Kant的基本概念 就是人們應該為自己思考 他將這篇文章結構成 從未成熟到成長 他稱之為 未成熟到成長 並建議 在未成熟的狀態下 讓人們為自己做決定 人們告訴你喫什麼 人們告訴你做什麼 但當你成熟的時候 你會為自己做決定 他建議 大多數時候 在社會上 人們不是為自己做決定 而是依靠書籍 或是他們的主席 或是他們的醫生 告訴他們要做的一切 這很放鬆 很容易 因為他們不需要思考 不需要做任何努力 Kant說 聖誕只需要自由 而最無辜的一切 可能被稱為自由 是自由 在一切事件中 使用公眾的理由 現在我聽到 所有人都哭了 不要爭辯 警察說 不要爭辯 律師說 不要爭辯 收費人說 不要爭辯 律師說 不要爭辯 相信 世界上只有一個主席說 爭辯就算你願意 但要遵守 我們發現 自由的所有限制 但哪個限制 是對聖誕有妨礙的 哪個限制是無辜的 哪個是提升聖誕 我回答 公眾使用某種理由 必須在任何時候都自由 這僅能帶給人類聖誕 Kant建議 人們必須 放下道理和方法 放下生命上的機械工具 在每一刻 要思考 Kant說 聖誕的條件 只需要一件事 自由 自由利用自己的理由 在每一刻 這份知識和進步的接受 和反對 這種措施 在反革命中 採取的措施 例如 《基督教》 人們持有 不同的觀點 被燒 被酷刑 或其他 聖誕的基本條件 包括 進步的興趣 宗教承諾 這是聖聖皇帝 約瑟夫二世的獎項 指出 不再違背 基督教或法律 好法律 有興趣的 自然 自然是一件真正的事 可以用來作為模型 向我們展示 如何清洗我們的靈魂 從我們在城市中 受到的各種腐敗中 自由 平等權利 和教育 特別是 聖誕 是反對 基督教 受到的基督教 例如 組織性宗教 或非基督教 例如 皇帝教 或奴隸教 或其他各種腐敗 這裡有幾個 啟示文字 第一個是 Emmanuel Kant的標語 敢於瞭解 有勇氣 去思考自己 再一次 這是相反於 過去人們被告知做的事 你被告知 你只能夠 重拾知識 重拾已經思考過的想法 你對自己的想法 沒有什麼 是如歷史 和權力 和宗教 所證明的 或者 Voltaire說 再一次 我們可以想像 這是在反對教育中 出現的一件事 那就是 憤怒 這真是 讓很多人 在社會上 產生了 明顯的不舒服 一旦憤怒 腦子被腐敗 憤怒 幾乎無藥可藥 唯一的方法 就是 將憤怒 幾乎無藥可藥 唯一的方法 解決這個 疫情的憤怒 就是 哲學靈魂 這些就是 哲學靈魂的 主角 Voltaire Rousseau Montesquieu 和他們 Thomas Jefferson 和Benjamin Franklin 美國的創始人 在聖誕節 長大了 帶給美國 並在美國的 創始文件中 帶來 這些 聖誕原則 一切的平等 一切的自由 學習的機會 教育的重要性 和 一個承諾 所有這些東西 都隱藏在 美國的憲法 和 獨立的宣言中 這裡有Rousseau Jean-Jacques Rousseau 他寫了 很多重要的作品 例如 《平等的起源》的講述 是一篇 非常強烈的 反對奴隸 是一篇 活生生的 不僅在 歷史上 但是在 所有的殖民地 這段時間 還有 社會合約 這是一些 Rousseau的文章 第一個人 擁有 一塊土地 就說 這是我的 然後找到 人們能夠 相信他 這人 是真正的 創始人 和 民族社會的 創始人 當Rousseau 說民族 他真正的意思是 非常腐敗 和糟糕 他有點 嘴巴 和嘴巴 嘴巴和嘴巴 和文明 因為 Rousseau 價值 文明的 自然 從多少 犯罪 戰爭 和謀殺 從多少恐怖 和不幸 難道 我們沒有一個人 能夠拯救人類 只要 拉起 牆壁 或塞住 牆壁 和對他的同僚哭泣 注意 聽著 這個騙子 你無法做到 如果你忘記 地球的果子 是我們所有人的 地球 是我們所有人的 所以這就是 文明的靈魂 這就是美國 創立的靈魂 我們有一個概念 稱為 聰明的騙子 這個概念 基本上說 人類 出生於優雅 社會 騷擾他 你能夠 離開 這些 民族建築 你能夠 靠近 自然 你會變得更好 文明的 偉大紀錄 是 Denis Diderot 和他的朋友 Mr. D'Alembert 你會想到 文字筆記 是現在的 數字筆記 像維基百科一樣 這就是 Diderot的圖片 來自哪裡 所以我不是 打擊維基百科 但是 文字筆記的概念 是一種 非常驚人的東西 文字筆記的概念 是一種 嘗試 將人類所有的知識 放在一份文字筆記中 然後組織 複製 結構 讓這些知識 能夠儘快獲取 這是一個 非常驚人的行動 在早期 不能被概念化 只有在 聖誕的精神 進一步思考 只有在聖誕的精神 愛的教育 才能讓 這樣的想法成為現實 這只是Diderot的 文字筆記的幾頁 它講述了一切 非常有趣 例如 可能你對馬 和牠們的繩子 感興趣 也許你對 切割工具有興趣 現在讓我告訴你 關於印刷 這只是一個 奇怪的文字筆記 充滿了一些東西 其實 Diderot的一個任務 就是要取得 所有的資訊 但是他還有一個 重要的任務 就是 找到一個方法 來組織它 你如何組織 世界上所有的知識 這是一個正確的方法 來提供 世界上所有的知識 有一位 20世紀的哲學家 Michel Foucault 一位法國建築學家 他花了 大部分的時間 嘗試解決 這個時刻 創造了一個 新的思維方式 他寫了很多本書 他們都非常有趣 也非常好 1966年 他寫的 The Order of Things 在法文中 是 Les mots et les choses Une archéologie des sciences humaines 意思是 在法文中 意思是 The Words and Things 很有趣的是 這個名字 並不被保留在英文裡 因為Foucault 所在看的 就是 關於 The Word and The Thing It Means And how a key to understanding the difference between say enlightenment thinking and the thinking that went before it has to do with this association between sign and signifier that in the earlier period that association was magical and unquestionable And by the time you get into the late 17th century the time of the academies and in the 18th century in the time of the enlightenment it becomes a much more slippery thing Foucault also wrote another Foucault wrote a bunch of books but he wrote another book about this period called Discipline and Punish and in that book he's looking at the rise of these institutions that take care of aberrant things in society like up until pretty much the 18th century if you had somebody who didn't quite fit in you called that person the village idiot and you would poke him with a stick from time to time that would be what you would do and that was great because after that period you threw them in a big pit and gave them some water sometimes you marginalized people that didn't fit into the norm you know the dark side of the enlightenment desire to give structure and form and clarity to all things in the world was if things didn't fit in they had to be marginalized and hidden hidden from view We've looked at Piranesi's prisons but Piranesi's prisons are really more and he calls them this prisons of his imagination they're imaginary prisons they're this sublime evocation of what the condition of being in prison might be During the enlightenment however philosophers gave serious attention to the question of the prison particularly Jeremy Bentham a British philosopher who in 1785 proposed the idea of the panopticon and for Bentham the panopticon would be a new reform in what it was to incarcerate instead of using torture instead of using deprivation and cruelty the panopticon would offer a kind of pain-free surveillance that would have to do with the notion of conscious and permanent visibility You have a watchtower in the center You have prison cells arranged around it and the condition of surveillance has to do with the fact that the warden in the center can see the prisoners and the prisoners cannot see the warden The Milbank prison in London in 1861 is one of the earliest examples of a penitentiary designed in this panopticon spirit We have the multiplication of these panoptical organizations Towers in the center Radial disposition of cells on all sides This model appears again and again Here's Pentonville Prison in North London This is the form that more or less gets reproduced in a wholesale fashion Little baby panopticons surrounding the major panopticon And even in the United States John Haviland's Eastern State Penitentiary of 1829 is a pretty straightforward example of a panopticon Radial Opticon means the eye Pan means all So by situating the warden in the center of this radial organization he has this all-seeing eye power to surveil people in all the cells The benefit of the model of the panopticon, of course is that the warden can see the prisoners and the prisoners cannot see the warden Instead of relying on the guard to personally be at hand when the criminal is behaving in an improper manner the panopticon hides the act of surveillance and thereby it forces the prisoner to be constantly vigilant constantly on guard People could be surveilling them at any moment Discipline instead of being imposed from without in the model of the panopticon becomes internalized In discipline and punish Foucault challenges the idea that these prisons are humanitarian Instead he thinks that the panopticon is a diagram for producing docile bodies for a new industrial age And in fact this panopticon model originally applied to the prison becomes something that is used again and again in other kinds of institutions like insane asylums or factories or hospitals or schools By the way, John Havilland the architect of the prison in Philadelphia is considered to be one of the major American architects of the period Most of his work is this very decorous Greek revival architecture like St. Andrew's Episcopal Church in Philadelphia He was also the architect of the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia And the Franklin Institute is really a learned society where people come together and discuss scientific issues By the way, not that many true panopticons were constructed This is a pretty great looking one in Cuba Closed in 1967 Where there is in fact almost a literal representation of the diagram The warden in the center The prison cells displayed all around And you might be inclined to say Wow, those Cubans are crazy Here's one in Illinois The Illinois State Penitentiary Really very, very similar in its general disposition to the Bentham diagram and to the Cuban one And here it is on the outside Really quite an extraordinary looking thing One thing that Foucault talks about in the order of things is this painting Great painting De Lesca's Las Maninas 1656 This is a Baroque date But it's at the cusp It's this moment when there's a shift taking place between how people see things By comparison look at something like the Mona Lisa Perhaps you're familiar with this painting If you had to say what the subject of the Mona Lisa is it would be pretty easy to say Well, it's this woman standing in front of a landscape But clearly the subject of this painting is the woman There's only really one focus in the painting If you come back to Las Maninas you have to say what's the subject of this painting And you might be inclined to say Well, it's probably the little princess the infanta here But you would be wrong because those of us who speak Spanish that means not me would say Las Maninas means the handmaidens So Velasquez is very clear not to say portrait of the little princess but rather the handmaidens And we see this range of handmaidens surrounding the little princess and primping her So what's this painting about? And Foucault says the fact that this painting is about so many things is what makes it kind of window onto this changed way of understanding the world It's not about a thing at all It's about relationships It's about ways of seeing It's about ways of viewing It's about framing and concealing and lines of sight What is the little princess doing? Clearly the handmaidens are sort of doting on the little princess But what's the little princess doing? She's looking out toward us But is she looking out toward us? And the clue might be what is this thing in the corner? Any ideas? A canvas, yeah It's a canvas And this is a self-portrait of Velasquez So he's painting himself painting a picture which is already a very reflexive self-referential kind of content for a painting to have Who's he painting a picture of? Any ideas? Yes The people in the foreground these guys? Well, kind of Except no Totally wrong Yes Where are the mother and the father of the little girl? Right, exactly The mother and the father We call the mother and the father of the princess by a special name Do you know what that name is? King and Queen You seem like a smart girl, Lisa I'm shocked that you didn't have the vocabulary to come up with that So we have the king and queen over here reflected in the mirror looking back at us looking at them while Velasquez is looking at them Princess is looking at them the little dwarf because every Baroque court has to have a couple of dwarfs and this is one at this court is looking out at them and there is this kind of constant thrust in Perry There's even somebody here framed as if in a picture but framed by a door looking at the picture framed by a frame We're looking at a frame that frames the picture of people looking through frames at frames of people framed in a picture reflected back at us It's a rather complicated space You kind of long for the clarity of the Mona Lisa In fact, I have seen this displayed and I swear it wasn't a dream although it easily could be because I've been back and it wasn't like that It's in the Prado in Spain and I've seen it there with a mirror in the room so you're allowed to go stand in front of the mirror and look at yourself in the mirror looking at the reflection of Las Mañinas It might have been an installation This was years ago but it was a nice experience So that is what Foucault would say becomes the way of seeing things by the time you slip into this period and of course he doesn't say things clear like 17th century or 18th century He uses these words that no other human being in the world uses which are classical epistem and pre-classical epistem Epistem? What could that be? Well, good luck trying to find out The book sort of unpacks these terms and epistem is the root of the branch of philosophy epistemology and epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with how do you know things how is it that you can acquire knowledge It's a speculative field and for Foucault an epistem is a way of knowing the world How do you extract knowledge from the world you're in He would say the pre-classical epistem that is pre-baroque before the birth of the academies and this increasingly progressive way of acquiring knowledge building on knowledge and advancing discourse The pre-classical epistem was a system of knowledge based on faith resemblance and mystical affinities Think of astrology for example You look at the sky You see something that looks like a woman sitting on a throne and you think Cassiopeia the Greek goddess in the sky or you see the orbits of planets and you think these things are predicting your future because they resemble certain patterns that have been individuated or you look at tea leaves and you see little patterns in the tea leaves and you say the tea leaves look like a heart I think I'm going to fall in love This is the pre-classical epistem where there is a direct resemblance between the thing and the meaning of the thing The sign and the signifier adhere tightly together By the time you get to the classical epistem and by classical he means baroque and forward and that's where Foucault is slippery because nobody else uses classical that way By the time you get to the classical epistem beginning in the middle of the 17th century you acquire knowledge through direct observation through reason scientific method supplants earlier methods of acquiring knowledge debate had to do with how many teeth do people have and you could argue a lot about how many teeth people have I think people probably have 20 teeth because that is a really nice number and you might say 25 is a better number because it's a square and I would have a hard time arguing with you I might say 36 because 6 is a perfect number You can multiply the factors of 6 and you get 6 or you can add the factors of 6 and you get 6 So if you take the square of 6 and get 36 that would be a good number for teeth This all makes sense to me if I were living in a pre-classical epistem If I were living in a classical epistem I would just count your teeth and I would say this is how many teeth people have or I might not just count your teeth I might count everybody's teeth and take an average I would take a larger scientific sample and I would average that Kind of makes sense Of course we are living in the moment where that way of organizing knowledge makes sense but it really represents a huge departure from the previous way of organizing knowledge Foucault refers to a book on the history of science by a man called Thomas Kuhn and Kuhn speaks about a paradigm shift and paradigm in this sense means something like epistem de Foucault Thomas Kuhn's paradigm is like Foucault's epistem a structure by which we can know and understand our world And a paradigm shift is a change in how knowledge is apprehended and meaning conferred to the world So there's a shift Thomas Kuhn suggests that these paradigm shifts are abrupt They're really kind of sudden There's no predicting them They just happen all of a sudden Within a few years, around 1800, the tradition of general grammar was replaced by an essential historical philology Natural classifications were ordered according to the analyses of comparative anatomy and political economy was founded on main themes which were labor and production Kuhn is suggesting there are two paradigm shifts One is this moment in the Baroque and one is the beginning of the Industrial Revolution where people begin to shake up how they understand and organize the world He talks a lot about discontinuities in the way these paradigms give rise to a new paradigm And these are the two great discontinuities The beginning of the Classical Age halfway through the 17th century and the beginning of the Modern Age at the beginning of the 19th century I might just say if Foucault had lived a bit longer to come into the Digital Age he may have said there's another great discontinuity Because I really think that there's a huge difference in how knowledge is disseminated and how knowledge is apprehended and how the field of knowers shifts when you're in the Digital Age In the 17th century or in the beginning of the 19th century the people who could get knowledge were the people who had access to books or access to universities or access to the kind of leisure time you needed to come into contact with that But now people in remote villages can go to iTunes University and hear this very discussion that we're having now provided they have a computer The world is flattening and there is a kind of common access to information that would have been unthinkable to Foucault having died in 1984 I've been kind of not talking about a number of Magritte paintings They're all pretty provocative The cover of my personal English translation of The Words and Things has this Magritte painting on it Ceci n'est pas une pipe which translates into This is not a pipe What do you think that means? Why is it entitled This is not a pipe? Yes, right, it's not a pipe It's a painting of a pipe I think this notion of the image of the thing the simulacrum, the artificial is what's being discussed here It's not a pipe at all It's the picture of a pipe And here it's even less of a pipe than the picture of the pipe because it is a digital projection of an image on my screen of a picture of a pipe taken from a book So it's totally fake It's not a pipe at all The thing pipe and the word pipe don't connect together And in fact even the image pipe doesn't connect together So many of Magritte's paintings are about this same theme that Foucault is discussing and the kind of disconnection between the signified and the signifier Foucault also talks about this beginning of a story by Borges where he's talking about a Chinese dictionary I don't know if you've ever read this It's so funny It's somebody trying to make a list trying to catalog things in a Chinese dictionary Foucault quotes an essay by Jorge Luis Borges called The Analytical Language of John Wilkins Borges typically invents erudite sources and then discusses them And this seems to be an example of that He's looking at a Chinese encyclopedia The Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge And this is how this document purports to categorize animals And this is just an illustration of how hard it is to put together an encyclopedia How do you categorize things Foucault suggests that this method of categorizing the animals shatters all known methods of holding thought together Borges gives us 14 categories Those belonging to the emperor Embalmed ones Those that are trained Suckling pigs Mermaids Fabulous ones Stray dogs Those included in the present classification Those that tremble as if they were mad Enumerable ones Those drawn with a very fine camel hair brush etc. Those that have just broken a flower vase Those that from a long way off look like flies Begin to get this kind of categorization that seems crazy of all these things that get lumped together in a seemingly random way because the structure of language that underlies that is quite different So let's just look at two more paintings again as a way of getting at a difference between the classical and pre-classical way of looking at things This is Mantegna Dead Christ 1450 Great Renaissance Painting Mantegna Northern Painter What do you think that the Mantegna painting is about? The title might tip you off It's about Christ It's about dead Christ It's about the mourning of Christ and it's using perspective which is pretty new in 1450 It's using it not simply to represent the image of the dead Christ but to increase the emotional value of the dead Christ There is this slab and the feet project beyond the slab into the space of the viewer The powerful presence of the dead Christ is so great that the mourners are pushed to the margin The space of the painting can't contain the grief created by his death It's a kind of very, very strong painting that uses perspective in a way to enhance and amplify those meanings This is a Magritte painting called Euclidean Walks Can anybody see what's going on in this painting? Yes Right, exactly right There's a painting This is an easel Here's a painting Here's a window What we're looking at in fact is not really the view through the window but the reconstructed painting of the view through the window and the image is deliberately confusing deliberately because Magritte is interested in this impossibility of knowing and how things and words conceal the truth behind things So here we have a little comical tower and a little medieval castle Here we have exactly the same shape but it is a road receding off into perspective He's fooling us We have a painting that's apparently symmetrical but it's representing two radically different conditions extreme foreground and extreme recession into space In many ways this Magritte painting is like the Velázquez painting It is a frame within a frame constantly removing the immediacy that you have with your engagement of the object A lot of that sets up the beginning of the modern condition and as we move into the 18th century we're moving into the modern condition There are a number of people who pin it there For example the architectural historian Joseph Rickworth writes a book called The First Moderns and the first moderns are in the 18th century One condition of the modern that Foucault underscores is this notion of self-consciousness that you are aware of the act of doing the thing that you're doing Magritte's painting very much is about making a painting It's about the act of representing Whereas Mantegna's painting is about the act of making a contemplative icon of the dead Christ So there is this self-consciousness You're out of nature It's like Tintern Abbey and Wordsworth that we discussed last time Wordsworth is aware of the fact that he is having an experience admiring nature but he can't get to the authenticity of that experience not the one that he had the first time So that's it Remorse of self-consciousness Has anybody read Ulysses by James Joyce It's a big crowd here James Joyce fans I see Well you would probably get stopped like in the first page by the words Again by the in which Because I know that made me put the book down until I got a little bit of a concordance to go along with it This is a phrase from a medieval text that means Remorse of self-consciousness And in many ways Joyce in Ulysses is talking about the modern condition And he identifies it right away with a medieval phrase meaning Remorse of self-consciousness That you cannot get beyond the fact that you know that you are doing something in the world in a way that's no longer authentic You can't get back to the authentic act So that's one of the problems And in this context you begin to have this reemergence of interest in aesthetics in the idea of beauty Because if art is no longer authentic Art is no longer directly about something about some transcendental reference like it was in Mantegna Then what is art about? What is the content of art? And the content of art might be about beauty might be about an intellectual engagement with beauty The content of art might be about stirring up strong motions The content of art might be some witty game about what it is to make a picture These become the subject of aesthetics and so forth And then there's also the idea of taste And taste has to do with judgment How do you make judgments about whether something is a good work of art or not? Taste is critical in the Enlightenment period because it's what you can get through learning It's what you can get through knowledge It's what education can give you The acquisition of taste is a progressive act just like knowledge So here we have Louis XIV I just like to show him because he's so good looking And again we see this image that we looked at briefly before of the primitive hut a modern desire derived from Vitruvius's description of the first architectural act the primitive hut But in this 18th century representation of the primitive hut by Abbe Loges it really looks like a desire to get back to origins a desire to get back beyond the clutter of history to an original way to make things It's kind of like Rousseau's Noble Savage How would you build if history and culture didn't force you to build in a certain way Here in Loges' drawing we see classical architecture piled up like a heap of discarded trash and the allegorical figure of architecture is saying this, look at the forest this is how you build this is the original act of architecture Architecture is not about the orders Architecture is not about heavy stone carved and shaped in an artificial way by man Architecture derives from the natural condition of the forest And the ornament of architecture instead of being conventional derives from the joinery the twining together of branches You're going to see this like 10,000 times by the time we're done because it really is a key image to understanding how we move forward into modernism In the context of this discussion of the Enlightenment I want to review again these terms we discussed last time of the beautiful and the sublime These are terms that Edmund Burke discusses in his inquiry into the beautiful and sublime And he's trying to find these different categories for aesthetic judgment The beautiful is really the thing that the Renaissance would have wanted Clear, well measured, proportional, understandable And the sublime in many ways is the architectural effect you get from Gothic where you're overwhelmed, you're dazzled, you don't quite understand the limits of the space or the kind of life or even from Baroque where there's something rhetorical and powerful going on You would also get a feeling of the sublime from nature When Piranesi does his engravings some of which are meant to be scenes of everyday life in Rome he does so with this strong sublime desire Like this is the Colosseum but it's much bigger than it should be The light is really strong There's backlighting The idea of the ruin is played up so that you can begin to see nature overwhelming these great artifices of culture revet when they're measuring the Greek antiquities a very enlightenment project to be out there looking for origins looking beyond Rome looking at Greece But at the same time they do these strong sublime landscape paintings backlighting strong sweep of nature very dramatic Or Piranesi's Capriccios where it's just backlighting overwhelming scale superabundance of material Or his prisons where in his original print it's already crazy but when he recuts the plates he just keeps amplifying and amplifying the amount of material there so that it really becomes like a maze almost or a portrait into the mind of someone trying to make sense out of things that cannot be constructed together This is the Chinese dictionary of all these different pieces that don't adhere together Or this is just the attempt of taking too much information and trying to make order out of it It also has to do with the deliberate play of sensual apprehension of an architecture or a painting as opposed to a painting