I don’t know if this article did much to talk about the construction of poetics of augmented space as much as a historical overview of the problems associated with new technology, but I thought many of the points brought up about architectural augmentation were interesting. Venturi’s ideas of embracing architecture as the form of communication through complex iconographic surface treatment are terrible.
Modern architecture abandoned the idea of surface narratives and ornament; the problem he creates is trying to unify the spatial integration of information as surface and the contradictory decoration of architecture created to deny decoration and embrace form.
Both of these problems are poor problems to worry about. What happens if all current architectural surfaces are used to display information? Who will get to decide what information is displayed or how it is displayed? We already have enough of a problem with an overabundance of information on the internet, as well as the strategic targeting of users’ attention. Yes lets cover up surface with bright lights and pictures in the name of a false dialogue (because the information is dynamic, you see); taking inspiration from Las Vegas, flashy Billboards, and Times Square, with their wasted resources and social misdirection.
The discussion of the public dialogue definitely appeals to me, and it still remains an issue of spatial control. One of the neat things about looking out my window and seeing nothing but bland industrial buildings is the idea of potential. It’s low-key, unwanted and sometimes unused. There is the potential to be clever, creative, and raise awareness of other things than Pedigree brand dog food or Prada or whatever.