description:The incongruity between “l(fā)imitations” and “flexibility” that exists in this interior design is obviously sharp yet ambiguous. The “l(fā)imitations” result from a variety of needs of the dwellers, whereas “flexibility” is produced from how the dwellers imagine life to be. A subtle balance can be observed between such limitations and flexibility. The public vs. private spaces are no longer seen as two isolated and oppositional spheres, as both can be connected with crevices in that space. This connection helps to provide a continuous experience for people when they are moving about.
評(píng)論( 0)
查看更多評(píng)論