+++
Wolfgang Bachmann wrote:
"Hängt von ihrem Alter und dem Dialekt ab.
Gruß BCH"
27. Juli
+++
Silvia Fohrer:
da gibt es verschiedene Geschwindigkeiten
27. Juli
+++
Urs Wolf:
....gute Architektur braucht nicht zu sprechen
27. Juli
+++
Aldo Nolli:
Florians Frage habe ich mir noch nie gestellt. Und wie auch schon gibt es zwei Ebenen der möglichen Antowrten. :-) Eine ist schnell, schlagfertig, effektvoll. Wie man auf italiensich sagt "UNA BATTUTA". Die andere, wenn man zu überlegen anfängt, ist langsam, es entstehen Verständnisfragen, die zuerst bearbeitet und beantwortet werden müssen. Also ich bin da nicht so schnell. Vor allem im Sprechen nicht. ‚... Aber die Frage stellt sich schon: spricht Architektur?‚...Oder anders herum gefragt: ist das Gehör das primäre Wahrnehmungsorgan für Architektur :-)))) (Ist natürlich alles Blödsinn, aber ich bin heute abend von der Arbeit so "ausgelaugt", dass mir nichts gscheites einfällt)
27. Juli
+++
Daniel Purdy:
Depends on the material.
27. Juli
+++
Christian Schlameuss:
I think, concrete speaks veeeeerrrrryyyyy slllllooooooooooowwwwwww..‚Äã.....;-)
27. Juli
+++
Paulo Brito:
Silva how fast can you read ?
28. Juli
+++
Florian Stocker:
@Aldo... so "UNA BATTUTA" like Aldo Nolli mentioned? I know the terminus from fencing, there it is used for a sudden stroke against the epée of the opponent to open his target area.
28. Juli
+++
Aldo Nolli:
UNA BATTUTA may be translated with EIN SPRUCH oder im Französischen UNE BOUTADE? ‚... Sprüche Klopfen, Wortgefechte wie Cyrano...
28. Juli
+++
Dick van Berkum:
no answer about the speed here, but architecture communicates definitely, in fact buildings behave a bit like us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87ZWWqf40J0&feature=related
DELIRIOUS NEW YORK Koolhaas
29. Juli
+++
Paulo Brito:
Silva fun-tastik @Dick van Berkun...
29. Juli
+++
Florian Stocker:
@Dick van Berkum so its "body language"?
30. Juli
+++
Dick van Berkum:
Yes, and the speed varies, it's more like this........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mUv705xj3U&feature=related
György Ligeti - Poeme Symphonique For 100 Metronomes
30. Juli
+++
Christian Schlameuss:
I think, to approach to the question of speed, first you have to think about, WHAT the specific architecture is saying. Some buildings talk about very deep thoughts, other are just babbeling stupid shit, and other have just nothing to say.....
30. Juli
+++
Wuwi H. Erhardt-Stierli: http://www.chenshaoxiong.c‚Äãom/welcome.gif What and when, how fast do I interpret anything into it in something?
http://www.chenshaoxiong.com/welcome.gif
www.chenshaoxiong.com
30. Juli
+++
Michaela Maier:
nachdem vor der sprache immer ein zeichen ist .... "in welcher geschwindigkeit schreibt architektur?"
(na gut, ich bin ja auch der steinerne brunnern)
01. August
+++
William Alsop:
"AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT."
ARCHITECT, ARTIST, ANGLER,SMOKER.
3. August
+++
Cordula Rau:
"Architektur sollte nur sprechen, wenn sie gefragt wird." Hermann Czech
"Die Geschwindigkeit ist daher zweitrangig. Cordula Rau"
4. August
+++
Diana Soeiro:
Dear Florian,

Out of intuition I would say architecture talks fast, too fast, every time faster and as time goes by we are less and less aware of it because we're too busy responding, with our bodies, to fast architecture. We are meant to be casual passer-bys and architecture, always eager to act metaphysically, actively promotes places where each and every one of us has a hard time staying.

One way to achieve that is working with straight-lines (oh so very modern) and use white surfaces (a grey, or rainbow like, shoe-box style structure is a variation of that). Another way is to work with scale conceiving its form as if you were an alien seeing the building from ‚Äúup there‚Äù. It makes beautiful blueprints, though no one will ever see the place like that - except aliens and people flying in planes with excellent eyesight and x-ray vision. Some architects use both techniques. Then of course, you have exceptions, the ones that go for weird shapes and try to join forces with the latest engineering tricks building impressive, perceptional defiant shapes. Again, you look at it and you're impressed, it looks great in blueprints and magazine pictures. How it actually works when you're at the place, around it, and inside‚... most of the times is very disappointing. And you move faster, to leave the place.

Big stadiums, airports, train stations, bus station, universities, schools, hospitals, hotels, all of these are the kind of structures where architects nowadays can build something from scratch - which is getting not so common‚... - and leave their print in the world. Usually they go for the big alien-like-scale where no human feels comfortable in. And actually, because there are a lot of people moving around the place is conceived to keep you walking and not standing/ sitting. (This is achieved by avoiding small protected areas, by always keeping the space open where you always have the feeling of having hundreds of people looking at you, by conceiving small bathrooms with less stalls than it would be necessary, by painting walls in aggressive colours, by using too much light, by using blueish-light lamps that hurt your eyes, by adding rollers everywhere, by making you walk stupid distances to get you tired, etc).

As for apartment buildings they are meant to be cheap and have a lot of apartments in order to force people to get used to live in smaller and smaller places. Sometimes so small, you have a hard time staying in too long.

So whether you're talking about public or private spaces, the intention is to keep you going. The question is‚... where to? To the office, to the restaurant, to the mall where you work? Humm‚... Perhaps to your computer, where you can sit and let the world spin a bit slower. There's nothing wrong with that. Only disadvantage is that architecture creates a place where people's eyes meet and computers don't. And that is a big responsibility for architecture that should conceive structures that make us interact with each other, slower.

All the best,
Diana Soeiro, Lisboa, Portugal"
4. August
+++
Paulo Brito Silva:
I find this a good text (congrats Diana Soeiro), although, in my (humble) opinion, language and communication are an essential part in the essence of the humanity of the human being - that, in my opinion, can be found, for example, in Heiddeger text "Letter about humanism", where he wrote that we act (and think) by language and that language take us to the being. But, maybe I am wrong and this is a good day to learn....
4. August
+++
Bernd Breyvogel:
"Lieber Herr Stocker,
in aller Kürze Ja doppelt versetzt: Zu verschiedenen Zeitgenossen und zu verschiedenen Zeiten unterschiedlich!
Viele Grüße Bernd Breyvogel"
5.August
+++
John DeFazio Ÿ"architecture parlante"
At what speed does Architecture speak?
Question of the Month June/July2011:
Different architectures speak at different speeds and some stand silent or mute. Some speak quickly, matter-of-factly say what the have to say and get off the stage. Some like to play-their-cards-close-to-the-chest, slowly revealing themselves-- seeing if you are smart or patient enough to follow along. Some are quick stand-up comics, rattling off one-liners-- rat-a-rat-tat -- others, dead-pan comedians-- saying their line lazily and flatly and wait for you to get the joke. Some architectures are proud and civic minded-- formal and rhetorical-- they speak in Greek or Roman Latin, Renaissance Italian or French in a pinch, something that befits the occasion-- changing their cadences, rhythms and speeds, building up to a crescendo, all for dramatic effect. Often they fall into bombast-- but sometimes they stir the soul. Then again, some others seem to start with some point to make, and, somewhere, go off on a tangent and forget what they had to say in the first place. Some scream at you, standing on soap boxes, clamoring for your attention--”they’re mad as hell and not going to take it any more!” -- explaining what is wrong, now, with the world and with us. But many stand stoic, doing their work quietly, steadily and without complaint, nor looking for any applause. Others slowly whisper of other times and other cultures-- half memories of who we once were and who we thought we would be someday. Some quietly weep, lamenting a lost past. Of course some are more poetic and speak in the cadence of poets: teahouse-haikus, flowing Romantic sonnets, or, like the Acropolis, in a lyric epic form. Others sing. Some in slow low solemn Gregorian chants, others sing like little birds, tweeting in a light Rococo mezzo soprano, skipping up higher and higher ‘till they evaporate into the ether. Some architectures barrel-down “The Strip” at 60 miles-per-hour, shaking their hips and flashing their rhinestones, rolling to “Viva Las Vegas!” Some buildings don’t sing at all-- purely instrumental-- majestic symphonies of buildings, little minuets. Some play honky-tonk stride piano, others blare out in raspy soaring Goodman jazz clarinet for all the world to hear. And, there are architectures that rap in the quick and dirty funk-jive of the street, not ever meant to be considered significant of anything at all-- most prefer not to acknowledge them-- they’re not art-- just buildings, just life.
All communicate in their way, all we need to do is listen.
16. August
+++
Aldo Nolli
And sometimes it depends on the mood of the subject who is wathcing or using architecture. :-)
16. August
+++
Aldo Nolli
What Architecture does to me, it's not to speak. I think I could compare it to breath. I'm breathing architecture. Like Sunday in Castelvecchio in Verona. I was breathing architecture in every detail, in every corner. :-)
16. August
+++
Aldo Nolli
Sielende is a quality I like in persons and in space. Today architecture is often too eloquent. Like a person who talks too much. One of the absolutest Architectures like the Pantheon in Rome doesn't talk. If you listen to you standing in the Pantheon's space, you believe to hear a deep continous sound, from the infera....or is it just in your imagination?
16. August
+++
John DeFazio
An "architecture parlante"-- an architecture that speaks-- is a old concept in architecture. It usually is associated with ornamental systems and the integration of figurative sculpture in architecture that work in toto to create narrative and allegorical "stories." Through history architecture was everything-- truly "the mother of all the arts." This reading of purpose of architecture began to evaporate with rise of Modernism-- each of the arts became "pure" and broke away from their mother, and abstraction (something that was always beneath) became a new language -- the thingness of things open up to us and the world changed. A great Myth (a metaphor bearing a great truth) became a second-hand mythology (some falsity that we can no longer believe, we have our own Truth now). But that does not mean that they (architectures of the past) fell silent. They whisper to us still. Our humanity still dwells within them and we can hear it if we listen.
16. August
+++
Silvia Fohrer
yes it is different between silence and to much sound, the sound of pantheon, i can understand this # in the konzentration camp now a museum , pardon, it is a very strong picture, there was a sound of hell, this is no sound of life it is in the walls and room for ever and ever no end. So I thinThis is no architektur, but here live and murdered people in rooms, the people must go to this places an hear the sound of death. ######but, please, architektur is more then a room. Different silence, motion and emotion, when I see the sound (in form) I see motion of artists soul. What is room, space, sound, feeling, history, form, remember, architektur without people is nothing.
16. August
+++
Christian Schlameuss
To say something possibly provoking: Is it too immodest to say, that all the whispers, crys or shouts what we may hear from a building are just echoes from that what the constructor engraved in it? Isn't a Building just a frozen idea from someone else? (you may ask, how long can this echo remain to stay comprehensible). In this case you could imply that that, what you may hear from architecture is only a combination of that, what the architect trained it to say (like you would do with a parrot) and that what the listener is willing to understand....and the question of speed is just secondary.
17. August
+++
John DeFazio
This is a question about "authorship", "the reader" and the "privileged voice"-- a Deconstructivist philosophical question... perhaps for another day. As for "parroting"-- architecture is product of a culture (or at least a small circle with a culture with the means of building) and not just the architect. That said what ever content that the architect "as an artist" brings to a work, I don't think it is just a matter of propaganda being parroted. It is not unlike other arts-- did Picasso parrot a way of seeing? Did Joyce parrot a way of writing about what experience is?
17. August
+++
Christian Schlameuss
I agree, that the architects ideas are interpretations of the influences from the enviroment and culture, in which he was situated. So architecture is therefore like an effigy of its specific culture and it is this culture, you are going in a dialog with, when you are listening to a building- Then the question of the speed is related to the question of the speed of the specific culture in the context of history and in relation to our own culture. On the other hand, for sure its possible, that architecture is able to emancipade from its original idea and tells storys, where the constructurs would turn in their graves, if they would hear about it...
17. August
+++
John DeFazio
I think Florian's question was more metaphorical-- if architecture "speaks," at what speed?-- than the content it communicates. The "slippage" of content from it original intent to later interpretations is yet another long conversation for later.
17. August
+++
Hans Georg Keitel
BIG=prestissimo; zumthor=adagio and the other once s.th. in between...
17. August
+++
Silvia Fohrer
what is speed ? Speed is motion, so when we take a stone and a motion in one concept, there are two demensions in one. Two demensions in one, very difficult. Reality and Dream, Water and Fire, + and -, so we put feeling for answer this difficult question. But feeling is emotion and no product in mathematic. Feeling can help. Time can help,space can help, a sculpture of motion is dynamic form, drive in space, my hands goes in the form and take vibration my feeling ::::::the answer of Florians question, your body and your motion in correlation to sculptur space, this is speed.
18. August
+++
Bernd Breyvogel
Lieber Herr Stocker,
früher gab es sehr wohl nationale oder sogar regionale Architektursprachen, die aber verstehen konnte, der nur genau hinsah (pardon: hörte). Heute ist die Architektur ohnehin zunehmend international und spricht mit einer einheitlicheren Sprache denn je ...
Nochmals Grüße
Bernd Breyvogel
+++
Kaye Geipel
Wenn die Fragen kürzer und die Antworten pointierter werden hat das mit Gescwhindigkeit zu tun.
26.8.2011
+++
Aldo Nolli
La vie, vite!Stand hinter meinem Haus an der Bäckerstrasse 25 in Zürich (1981-1986) auf einer Wand gesprayt. Es war jeweils das erste, was ich sah, wenn ich aus dem Haus kam.
26.8.2011
+++

Florian Stocker
Quote "The movie in the head" Henning Engeln in Geo Kompakt Nr.27 "Das Rätsel Zeit"
"- There is a 3 seconds lasting moment time frame, which we perceive as the present.
…
- Longer time slots than 3 seconds surveys the consciousness with the aid of short time and long time memory "
Which means that all things we can perceive within three seconds, we can relate to each other in one perceived present moment. Battuta?
23.10.2011
+++++++++++++++++



April/Mai 2011

"iF buiLdings flOweR Ideas Are polleN" (Alec Finlay 2011)
"Wenn Häuser blühen sind Ideen Pollen" Übersetzung (Alec Finlay 2011)

Wann blühen Häuser?

Antwort senden*English
Newsletter abonnieren (keine Kosten)

aktuell>projekte>cv>skizzen>profil>theorie>jazz>kontakt

+++
John DeFazio
7.5.2011
"...it was the spirit animating the mass and flowing from it, and it expressed the individuality of the building." -- Louis Henri Sullivan

What instantly came to my mind when Florian posed this question: ” when do buildings flower?,” was obviously, the writings and architecture of Louis Sullivan... (one of my personal touchstone architects). Sullivan’s most famous quote (mostly because it was appropriated by the Bauhaus as their battle cry) was “form follows function.” But, unlike the “Machine-Age Functionalism” that was to emerge out of Gropius’s Bauhaus, I think Sullivan’s word’s intent were to teach us to think “organically”-- as in Nature-- and that things unfold and become as to their true function, their purpose, their essence, their needs to be. Sullivan was an architect of form and ideas. He sought a “free and authentic” architecture-- one that expressed not only the stuff of building and architecture but the spirit of a fully realized Man. He said that Architecture originates with “the idea”-- like a germ or a seed, and like a seed in grows out-- and it comes into being. Sullivan’s building forms were simple and bold; the building’s themselves are regular, symmetrical, proportional and balanced. Their tectonic forms are truly Classical-- harmonic order but without any reference to “the Classical Orders”... (Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, etc)... nor imitative of Greek or Roman or Renaissance architectures nor the Neoclassical styles that were to follow. Sullivan’s classicism is Classicism at its origin; it is classical as Nature is classical. He achieved this order and poetry through Tectonic Expression-- and through his own, personal, ornament-- an American version of the Continental ‘Art Nouveau. His buildings were like textiles with business-like working elements (windows, doors, piers, columns, beams, arches) interwoven with rich naturalistic patterns that evoke Celtic interlacing forms. These patterns created effervescent fields that animated and breathed life into the inert elements of ordinary construction. Beneath Sullivan’s flowering and shimmering patterns lay an invisible complex geometric armature-- “lines of force”-- that gave Sullivan’s ornament the same rigor and poetry of his overall building form. These abstract underlying geometries are not unlike the mathematical geometries found in Nature itself. Sullivan believed man should design like Nature because he was of Nature.
Louis Henri Sullivan’s seminal works and writings are all a century ago, and now perhaps we live in a more difficult and more complex times. But his architecture and ideas still speak to me for they are true. Buildings “flower” when the beauty of their idea unfolds and comes into being.
+++
7.5.2011
Häuser blühen, wenn sie in sich Ruhe finden !
Be.G.Pfister
+++
9.5.2011
Lieber Herr Stocker,
Mit neuen Fenstern und falschem Lüftungsverhalten!
Ohne Sporen in den Grüßen
Ihr Fensterbauer aus Plochingen
Christian Huss
+++
7.5.2011
Indian Bahai Temple aka lotus temple... so that ideas must be pollen ;-)
Masumi Mizoguchi
http://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/222278_1674795359692_1531689345_31355989_5637700_n.jpg
+++
11.5.2011
Florian Stocker @John DeFazio... an underlaying botanic message with a "noveaux/vieux force to grow"... ?
+++
11.5.2011
John DeFazio
Yes and no... yes as metaphor, but no as imitation of botanical-like forms (that is only a secondary trait)... it is deeper than that. The building "flowers" when deep and true purposes and forces are actualized within its constructed form. What was a (powerful, authentic, rich and true) idea becomes realized in building form... and experienced through use.
+++
11.5.2011
Florian Stocker thx - rich
+++
13.5.2011
John DeFazio The Early Louis Sullivan Building Photographs
William K Stout Pub; 1 edition (December 2001)-- www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.2069721982032.2127692.1214312907
+++
6.7.2011
Lieber Herr Stocker,
die Antwort folgt im Juni. Pol(L)emisch blühen Häuser dann wenn sie eine Allergie haben. Die natürlichen Erscheinungen wie Algen, Schimmel und andere ähnliche distinguierte Nervensägen kann man mit entsprechenden Oberflächenbeschichtungen bekämpfen und dann ist es gut. Heutzutage gibt es aber auch andere Blütenpollen die schwerwiegender wirken weil sie extrem gut vernetzt sind, man spricht hier vom Wärmedämmverbundsystem, Es gibt da Politiker, Bauphysiker,Industrielle, die allen, vor allem Eigentümern(Bauherren) und Architekten aufzeigen wollen, das dies die effektivste medikamentöse Behandlung gegen Wärmeverluste im Haus ist. Nonsens ist dies sehr wohl, denn erst einmal gilt: Heizung sanieren! Die Häuser können dan stilvoll weiter Blühen und brauchen keine Allerologen gegen Verluste.
Güße
Robert Thomsen
+++++++++++++++++


Februar/März 2011
Doppelfrage



"Eintopf"
Giesst ein Haus verschiedene Authenzitäten in eine neue Gestalt?
Diese Frage ist Immanuel Kant gewidmet



"Mischung"
Kann Architektur nicht authentisch sein?
Diese Frage ist dem Nara Protokoll gewidmet
Antwort senden*English
Newsletter abonnieren (keine Kosten)

aktuell>projekte>cv>skizzen>profil>theorie>jazz>kontakt


+++
John DeFazio
4th of March 2011
authentic |(abbr.: auth.)
adjective
1 of undisputed origin; genuine : the letter is now accepted as an authentic document | authentic 14th-century furniture. See note at genuine .
• made or done in the traditional or original way, or... in a way that faithfully resembles an original : the restaurant serves authentic Italian meals | every detail of the movie was totally authentic.
• based on facts; accurate or reliable : an authentic depiction of the situation.
• (in existentialist philosophy) relating to or denoting an emotionally appropriate, significant, purposive, and responsible mode of human life.

inauthentic
noun
not in fact what it is said to be : the Holy Shroud of Turin is thought to have been proved inauthentic by radiocarbon dating.
• not genuinely belonging to a style or period : baroque harpsichord pieces played on the decidedly inauthentic modern Steinway.
• lacking full reality or sincerity : people close to death could not waste time being inauthentic.

“How can Architecture be not authentic?” Can something, anything be inauthentic? One can argue that, because such a word exists--inauthentic-- there must be things that are... (interesting the Shroud of Turin appears again in the definition above, isn’t it)? But I think Florian is posing a deeper question here.

The question of what is authentic (genuine) goes to the nature of being and of being real. His original question, “Does a house cast different authenticities into one new Gestalt“?... (does a house pile differing (authentic) meanings into the same box?)... is really the opposite question for it implies that there are many authenticities that may sometimes seem mutually exclusive being held within the same place... which is how we may have many contradictory interpretations of the very same “house” (or work of architecture).

The problem lies in that some-(apparently real)-things do not seem “true” at all. They maybe falsehoods that only seem to be real, or factual. Our senses maybe being deceived and our interpretations, misreadings. A building, a house, maybe a fact, but it may allude to other houses in another time and place that may seem not present at all... like a daydreaming child staring out the window of school thinking of summers on the beach. The body is present, but his heart and mind are somewhere far off... which is the true boy?

What presses the question is when a moral imperative is attached to “authenticity”-- such as that as the agenda of Modern architecture at the turn of the last Century. “(Bad boy, John; stop daydreaming).” Before Modernism buildings had to be true in that it would be good if they did provide shelter and were relatively well made... but they were free to be ornamented and ordered on formal systems that had little or nothing to do with the truths of necessity. Artifice, something of a given in all the other arts, became shunned in Modern architectural theory.

Of course the search for truth in architecture has always concerned architects for architecture is the art that grows out the utility of building... and buildings’ factual utility” nature allows them only representing themselves and not alluding anything other than the facts. If you believe that Artifice is immoral in something that is by its nature a necessity, then YES, Architecture can be in authentic. But if you believe, that artifice is part of the nature of art and communicating ideas that are not of necessity and not present in time and space-- say, “a house like a whale”--, then NO, architecture can not be inauthentic.

In our Post-Humanist, Post-Structuralist, Post Deconstructionist world which we live everything, and every reading of it, is slippery, even things that seem to come out of necessity. Many authenticates. Nothing seems able to be nailed down. Plato would say well course you are all confused-- you are only looking at shadows distorted on the walls of a cave, the truth is the objects creating them... and the light that casts them-- the ultimate truth-- G_d.

All Florian’s questions are really the same-- what is truth. Like Diogenes of Sinope, staff in hand, he walks the streets in the daylight backward looking for the True, the Authentic. He keeps us all honest, and his questions, lifting the fog from our eyes.

+++
John DeFazio
4th of March 2011
If a (real ice) igloo is built in Las Vegas, it is not indigenous and, if it is meant to be a "true" shelter, it is not authentic. But, a plastic one, where one can purchase ice-cream, is authentic, and, irony or not irony intended, it is (somewhat) indigenous. This is the definition of Post-Deconstructionist discourse I think.
+++
4th of March 2011
Alexandra Straub:
Architecture is always authentic, if we accept that parody and irony and even ignorance can be authentic. There is no unauthentic architecture. We sometimes try to get rid of buildings or ensembles because they express ideas we don't agree with or find uncomfortable. The sort of pluralistic dialog that makes up society is reflected in its built form and is probably one reason why we have architectural theory at all.
+++
Florian Stocker@john, walking backwards...every bird sings one song. May be I have to get out of the hole of the seeker after truth and enjoy with you the hunting grounds of Las Vegas. "Man only plays when in the full meaning of the word he is a man, and he is only completely a man when he plays." J. Friedrich von Schiller
+++
Lieber Herr Stocker,
zu Frage 2: Dies ist ja ein großes Thema bei allen "Reko"-Diskussionen und wäre in diesem Zusammenhang eine eigene Betrachtung wert. Mir fällt spontan aber ein 1:1 - Nachbau der Marksburg irgendwo an der japanischen Küste ein - der ist mit Sicherheit nicht authentisch (aber originalgetreu - eine interessante Differenzierung)!
Liebe Grüße aus Weinstadt
Bernd Breyvogel
http://www.marksburg.de/ueno.htm
+++
Lieber Herr Stocker,
widmen wir die Antwort Herrn Heidegger und stellen die Frage nach dem Sein, dem Bauen und dem Wohnen. Auf diesem Hintergrund will ich kurz umreißen ob die Gestalt, neu gegossen werden kann aus verschiedenen Authentizitäten und zum Haus werden kann. Das eigentliche Problem dabei ist, welche Authentizitäten hier gemeint sind, die derer die das Haus bewohnen werden mit den bekannten geohnten Gewohnheiten, oder sind es die Dinge, die Materialen die neu zusammen gesetzt werden.Wenn es um die Bewohner geht ist es keine neue Gestalt, sind es die Materialien, dann gibt es sehr wohl eine neue Gestalt durch verschiedene Authentizitäten.
Grüße, authentische, ihr Robert Thomsen


+ + + + + + + + +