It [the street] cannot exist in a vacuum; it is inseparable from its
environment.... Its viability depends as much on the right kind of
architecture as on the right kind of humanity.
(Bernard Rudofsky, Street for People: A Primer for Americans, Anchor
Press/ Doubleday, 1969, P20)
They [locus, meaning 'place' in Latin] trace the relation of architecture
to its location -the place of art- and thereby its connections to, and the
precise articulation of, the locus itself as a singular artifact determined
by its space and time, by its topographical dimensions and its form, by
its being the seat of succession of ancient and recent events, by its
memory.
(Aldo Rossi, Architecture of the City, The MIT Press, 1984, P107)
If the theories by Rudofsky and Rossi are true, where is the singularity
of city in Tokyo which is suddenly updated as if it breaks off historic
context? Even though I faced the situation that many buildings which
defined memory of place were dismantled in sequence, I could only
continue archiving Tokyo without being able to answer that question.
I have come to think that the viewpoints seeing the city can be
represented by two types of them while I have continued archiving
Tokyo. One is the viewpoints of general people enjoying the city, the
other is those of architects and city planners creating the city. While I
watched my works of cityscape once, I noticed that invisible cities
appeared as a result of interpenetration of those viewpoints that never
overlapped each other.
Invisible cities inflate the singularity of themselves by bringing about
distortions in space, time and architecture while they dismantle
physical forms and refuse the search of the place by the
viewer. I will continue looking for the alternative singularity of the city
in invisible cities and archiving memory of place which may be lost.