Amandeep

I was reading “All that is Solid Melts Into Air”, when I came across Marx's interpretation of Modernity:

“Modern environments and experiences cut across all boundaries of geography and ethnicity of class and nationality, of religion and ideology: in the sense, modernity can be said to unite mankind.”

He then goes on to say, “ The maelstrom of modern life has been fed from many sources: Great discoveries into physical sciences, changing our images of it and our place in it; the industrialisation of production, which transforms scientific knowledge into technology, creates new human environments and destroys old ones, speeds up the whole tempo of life, generates new forms of corporate power and class struggle; immense demographic upheavals, severing millions of people from their ancestral habitats, hurtling them half way across the world into new lives; rapid and often cataclysmic urban growth; systems of mass communication, dynamic in their development, enveloping and binding together the most diverse people and societies…mass social movements of people, challenging their political and economic rulers, striving to gain control over their lives…In the 20^th Century, the social process that bring this maelstrom into being, and keep it in a state of perpetual becoming, have come to be known as “Modernisation.”

Apart from being left breathless and slightly dizzy, this got me thinking- is modernisation linked to Mobility, because according to this definition they seem very similar? This move from a world where none of what we have today was possible and was seen to be in distant future, is now easily accessible to everyone- a stage of mass communication.

He later goes on to say that we are now “Capable of everything except solidity and stability.” Is this a good thing or bad? Solidity means that we are stuck with everything permanent even when changes around may occur. Doesn’t our world of ever changing surroundings provide us with spaces that are adapting to our changing needs? Isn’t this change/ mobility necessary for us to survive?

Maybe this permanence can occur, if the built environment was naturally adaptable to our needs, if architecture was designed in such a way as to always accommodate the needs of its user…?? And referring to Neil's post, the building shown maybe a step closer to this, the ideas are there but are we able to translate into a built form?

Can one building remain permanent and modern at the same time??

What do you guys think???