Subjectivity and Objectivity

SUBJECTIVITY AND OBJECTIVITY (History & Theory , Journal, 1)

As a human being I feel I am both subjective and objective.

I am objective as belonging to the human-being mammal group. I am objective in being a female, belonging to the female human-being group. And I could probably keep on going with objective relationship between me and others, between me and the world around me.

But I am also subjective as I am an individual, with my own thoughts and feelings, with my own way of living, my own way of thinking and perceiving, and consequentially, a priori or a posteriori, acting.

So human being , we are both, objective and subjective, depending and according to different and equal things.

In one sentence we are all the same and all different, capable of changing and this is fascinating.

And this thought , I think, might be evident, but it is deep, very deep; and also extremely elastic and malleable, suitable and applicable to most of things.

Among all the things we can actually apply this 'thought' to, I would like to focus on its relation with History.

We know about history, about the past through many different and various sources.

Some of them are more evident : the tangible footprints left in that moment in the landscape we live in right now, and since then remained or maybe it is better to say, survived in our contemporary living world.

But again, among this we should distinguish between the ones that have remained unchanged through time and the ones that might have been reused or restructured or...

And even the ones that have remained unchanged through time haven't remained unchanged, because time has gone by, time can't be stopped, and time brings change with it. So it is probably more precise saying, everything changes? Because everything walks hand to hand with time? So the things which have been able to survive, they have all anyways changed. But the ways of changing are different, some are more evident, some are less. It can bee weather, human being action...

So, finally among this kind of sources, we can say, that even if they have all changed, some have changed more than others, so we can probably relay more on the ones that have changed the least. And of the others, try and understand and study how they changed, why, and what they where in each moment. And this is what I think about the physical sources that surround us.

But if we have tangible, physical sources, we also find intangible ones, which are generally less reliable. This ones are generally know as consequences. Some are long-term, some are short-term, some bring to another consequence.

And this sources I have mentioned, are probably meant to be considered more objective. The subjective ones, but, at the same time, the ones we tend to give in a way more importance to, are the written sources. Written by human-beings (historians, philosophers, writers...whoever), so even if they might have tried to be as rational as possible, and as objective as possible, it is almost unavoidable not to bring out subjectivity through your own thoughts, opinions, ideas and maybe even feelings. That is why I believe that when we read about history, and generally about events or moments that usually have more than one view, is necessary to read about at least two different points of view, so that we can find a balance. Although even this balance can be subjective. Because where is the middle? What is the balance? "our own-balance", what we want to keep of what we study and read, and in a way, 'cause is us who decide, is subjective.

Finally I think, in this case, it is all about finding objectivity through subjectivity.

"Le Cabanon"

After looking a few images of "Le Cabanon" and reading through my class notes about Le Corbusier these are the first impacts and impressions I have perceived about him and the only project he actually imaged, created and had built for himself and his wife.

They might be wrong, but this is how I feel about him and this is the way I'd like to think of one of the most revolutionary Architects of the 20th Century.

We know Le Corbusier was devoted to his work, and addicted to his vices. And work, for him, was a vice, his passion, his religion, his philosophy, his life. Because Architecture embraces a little of everything, as Vitruvio had already underlined Centuries and Centuries ago.

He had a rigid working scheme. He was a slave to it, and he was conscious about it.

On the other hand he would appreciate pleasures and give them to himself, 'cause life, the one we know, is one. And I believe this concept emerges through the importance he gives to functionality in space. Because I believe functionality helps making things easier and much more pleasant.

And he focuses a lot on this concept, which I think makes him the personified Revolution of Modern Architecture. Space is not ordered anymore on the basis of a specific, common, scheme but what rules his spaces is functionality.

So his Cabanon, although being such a small area, is perfect for the use he wanted to make out of it, for the roles he's going to play in it, for the pleasures he wants to live in it: a perfect wonderful view (sunset and sunrises over the beautiful "Cote d'Azur" sea), a balanced sound of nature (waves brushing the coast, the flapping wings of seagulls, the creaking of crickets, the sea breeze through the dense pine forests), a place to focus on work (the hard and severe desk with specific chair) , a place to sleep, to wash, located next to his friends restaurant (to supply himself with delicious meals) ...

All his main principles and characteristics emerge and merge in his Cabanon: square shapes, round ones, functionality, minimalism, freedom and dependence; in one word: Modernism.