Most of us celebrate the truth but only few of us can handle it.
What is the truth anyway? Can we define thing that we see as truth or the truth is what we believe that it is real? How can we be so convinced that what we believe that it is real is, in fact, “real”, anyway?
When some of us are facing the truth given by others, only few could accept it as reality if it does not correspond to his or her preconceive of that particular fact or reason. Take “The Matrix” as an example. What we recognised as reality, is, in fact, a projected image, made from source code into our neuron system. Sometime we put our trust in reality before it is actually exist because we had been told that particular reality is real. Sometime we believe the existence of reality because it is within our perception sensory parameters: If we can see, hear, smell, taste or touch it, then, it is real. When we can build an environment that perfectly imitates those parameters that you cannot easily define reality from virtuality? Will the reality matter anymore?
Reality is more less to me as a perception on relativity domain. You compare the new thing that you see to what you had already known before. It is similar to putting a new thing in the categorized boxes. If “a new thing” can be easily fit into the box, then it is real. Even it is not quite actually fit in that particular box but it may have a chance to fit in that box, you will try very hard to push it in the box and call it as described in the box category. If you find something that definitely cannot put in any of the boxes, then it would become a fraud, an ideal, or even a fake, anything except reality.
Everybody has different boxes of his or her own. Thus, reality should always seem different from each other standpoint. Religious and politics are the good examples. Some of the major boxes may seem pretty much similar but would definitely be different in details. Then, truth should be likely different in reality. Everybody should have his or her own kind of reality and all reality should be different.
In fact, some reality is becoming virtual and, vice versa, virtuality is becoming more real.
Globalism is not a “cool” methodology anymore. The world had already become one, no matter if you would like it or not. The present of network infrastructure of Internet has already proved it existence in the New Economy system. The network connects each individual on earth like it has never happened before. Other media is also benefit from this coherent structure and has been recently change itself dramatically.
Published media, such as Books and magazines are changing it shape and structure. Articles from all over the planet can flow with fluidity by the fast transfer via electronic mail, blogs and other form of web pages. Thus, those subjects in the media then becoming more a global domain oriented. Each media is becoming global than local. Local is learning more about global through media and vice versa.
In fact, we are learning about the world presently through the media. Few of us may travel around the globe to collect raw “truth” information but most of us are likely to stay local and learn about global via published media and Internet. We comprehend the world in the way media is seeing or would like us to see. The world may be virtually true enough for us as through these media. Things we read, architecture we see in the land 2000 kilometre from here published in the media is in fact not actually appearing in real in front of our eyes. We understand it in the way the article was written or the photograph was taken. Photographs can lie. We do not actually see the architecture in front of us, nothing but a virtual representation of the architecture, which is published in magazine. And we usually make our judgment to the architecture from what we saw in the magazine, forget that is not real. This is truly how most architects are learning from each other nowadays.
I did realize how much reality could be persuaded by this virtuality. Some can learn about architectures, analyse and criticize them from their projected image though current media from all over the world. This is how we learn about architecture today, searching from flickr and designer blogs flashing across the globe. You cannot visit the world every month and this mainly how the world is preceieved nowadays.
And movement in architecture of younger generation of architects has changed dramatically ever since.
Media also work backward in the sense: If you are learning more from others’ architecture from all over the world, they can also learn more from you through this non-linear world of media. New designer has becoming more recognised by global society than their locals. Media has also becoming some sort of exchanging node rather than an information node. They also learned from each other more than learning from the media itself. Current media is not supporting culture but already become the culture.
Architecture is becoming more and more a culture in itself. Schools and individuals are discussing their architectural thinking via their blogs. Idea and theory is become more fluid that it has ever been. With the media support, the new generation of architect try harder to get their project completed in the way the media will recognise them. It is the same old story of human social need to be recognised and the media serve them well. You can become a architectural “star”.
Gradually, the new electronic media become the new judge and jury of new architectural culture. Media is making more and more judgment of architecture from its virtual representational rather than its situation in real context. Even worse, new architects are designing their new architecture to meet this virtual criteria. It is race of virtuality against virtuality.
And nobody actually cares whether reality would matter or not. They all want to be an architectural celebrity.
Perhaps there will soon be no locality. The world is becoming “whole” and “one”. There will still be cultures, of cause, and they will be good helping maximize fringes. Fringes are good to globalisms. In fact, fringes are part of globalism, part of the total self-organisation system. Fringes help create diversity. Diversity is creating heterogeneity. Heterogeneity is biological. Biological is life. There is a value in the culture but that is no reason to separate locality from global domain. Architecture is one of several media that has a possibility to reflect those fringes but not all the fringes itself. Then, we should ask the question whether we should resist the changing of architecture or simply infer it as only the reflection of culture evolution-revolution. Several dramatic cultures have been permanently dissolved during the past 20 years, which is faster than those lost in the last hundred year. The evolution is faster by the assistance of globalism and its future mainly relies on how much we can handle this changing.
There is no definite in truth. The only thing that definite is “changes”. Changes are good and they are only things that matter. And the current media serves as an organisational structure to this evolution. Media influences architecture if not becoming architecture itself. It is not our same kind of world we use to live in. What you see is not always what you get, and vice versa.
Welcome to the new world.
First published on THINKCRANK.wordpress.com on 22/02/2009 / 16:46