Been trying to chase my own ghost and its liking lately. Particularly between Banchini, Holtrop and Ishigami.
It seems like a common characteristic of all of them is that they both dislike being static. Not only in a physical sense but also in a conceptual sense. To be static conceptually is to define completely.
Holtrop said he enjoyed working in Jordon or Italy in a sense that he doesnt need to rationally justify everything he do. And at the same time, he also appreciates the variations of natural and humanly ordered matter in these places, where things have no sense of permanence.
Similarly, Ishigami like outside spaces, he likes to feel the wind and dislike static environment. He wants to feel the changes of things, no matter air, light or temperature. To that, I can relate - I also like to feel the wind from inside my room.
But for Banchini, he is less interested in the natural environment. To Ishigami's explanation of normalcy, I find his alignment between the three to be about the simplicity and empowerment that comes from simple construction technique. To put something together simply implies a certain degree of normalcy. Instead of some super delicate and complicate Japanese joint, the simple nail joint with 2x4 wood strips are often overlooked and unvalued, but Banchini values that. His "neo-vernacular" in its essence is also trying to dissolve in the normalcy of the world. To return architecture from its exclusive and superior intellectual properties into something that much more primitive, intuitive - democratic. And sometimes because of that the product is deemed fragile and reduced, but in its own beauty. To that, I find myself aligning with his ideology, although somethings his work is quite ugly and mundane to me.
