We are now in a position to be able to discuss the Second Generation and subsequent “regional” architecture with a sharper understanding and critique of several things: the Modernist project, the so-called post-colonial era, the idea of identity, the idea of globalization, and the notion of “Flat World”.
1–Do research on the term “Flat World: What does it mean? Where does it come from? What field, what year? How might it apply to our conversations about architecture? 2–The chapter from Lefaivre and Tzonis is from a book published in 2012 that explicitly attempts to address the issues in the above first paragraph. This the last chapter in the book, and the conversation is anchored by discussion of the second generation and its architecture. It then proceeds to talk about the current generation, citing projects all over the globe. I have issues with this chapter, and assume you will, as well. What critique to you have the way the authors frame the emergence of the current wave of what they call “regional” architecture? Be specific! (Try to ignore their mistake about the architects for the Tiantai Museum by Amateur Architecture Studio. They seems to have confused the architects’ names, Wang Shu and Lu Wenyu, hence their naming of Wang Lu?), 3–Vikram Prakash returns this week through the Epilogue he wrote for the Third World Modernism book. Here he returns us to the term “Third World” and an alternative interpretation of it. He makes a very clear and specific claim about why modernism as an architectural vocabulary was adopted in formerly colonized countries. What does he say about this? How does he connect this to globalization? He goes on to discuss the tension between the universal and the local. What is the tension he identifies? Explain, expand, expound!! (PS: please citing reading sentences to answer the question rather than using other reading material resources. Also specify and explain the term from question 1 clearly )