"Hardcorism is pure form unconcealed. It is blunt, straightforward, explicit, up front. It presents itself as it is, and represents what it presents. No decoration. No crime. No ornament. No structure. No distractions. No program. No excuses. No dialectics. No post-occupancy. No hat-tricks. No diagrams. Archetypes of Jungesque proportions, Hardcorism is pure imagery embedded in the Collective Unconscious. Hardcorism is architecture made for photography, for engraving, for model making. Hardcorism is emphatic; final. Hardcorism is reductionist. It is architecture as architecture.” 13 Totems, not objectified in their essence, are architecture without a program; they do not refer to existing objects, they have no purpose. They exist in a world freed from themselves.
The above considerations, however, have no ambition to be a pean in honor of the disfigured function of architecture. Meandering between the decorating architecture (follies) and the pretending architecture (Potemkin villages), and finally, also the manifesting architecture, was to somehow provoke the question whether it is justified to delimit the substantive architecture of the border. The border against the nature of a man to fantasize about a radical dialogue between nature and architecture, proposed by Superstudio or Archizoom, amongst many.
// The question asked is not to answer it, but to question the veracity or inaccuracy of the previous judgments around what architecture and the scale that describes it can be.
We perceive architecture on a human scale because that’s only how we’re able to empirically examine it. Everything that goes beyond our perceptual abilities is classified as non-architecture, false. However, we usually are not able to substantively answer the question why architecture cannot really be anything other than what it was before. For example, beautiful scenery in space.