The ideas from this lecture were elaborated on in discussion more than anything. The conversation centered around why even discuss type. Some people said, type makes architecture recognizable, it puts it into categories and allows the public to understand. I think post modernists like Rossi did a good job of questioning both type and form in order to alleviate us from having to know what a building is when looking at it. I myself have always wondered “why does it need to be recognizable?” In studio we are looking at elevation and facade and one of the comments made by out professor was that the current facade (our job being to update it) lacked a clear entrance and was confusing. I think this makes an assumption that humans are sheep and require large arrows in order to understand how to enter a building. In my opinion this also presupposes that they are singular sheep, not following some kind of precedent set by the herd. That is to say that without a clear entrance provided out of a common understanding of the typology of “entrance” you would find people dumbly feeling along the side of a building until they found a door handle. I think this is an absurd notion, that in order for the public to understand the function of the building it needs to follow some kind of form precedent.
This question of type also brings up an earlier post about how work should speak for itself without any use of language needed to better understand it. I think this is a bit of a limiting argument to make, while I do understand the need for representation to be as strong as it can possibly be. The great ability of the human mind is its ability to maintain memory and connection. If a building form was so unique, and so original that it was unable to be understood as a building, all it takes is a few words for the human mind to begin to understand where an entrance is and to remember its location. Moreover the more obscure an entrance, the more difficult to find the first time, the more likely you are to never forget it.