A Critical look at the Projective
When first presented with the theory of critical
architecture, we have a rapid, almost visceral reaction to the idea. The notion
of architecture being autonomous, in theory if not in practice, seems bizarrely
foreign to us. And for good reason; we
are taught to think in terms of the diagrammatic, contextual, and performative.
However, I’m fascinated with critical architecture – if not
exactly a proponent of it – because of its radical resistance. It is so starkly
removed from all societal influences, so that it can become an influence on
society itself. It’s detached from reality, but reflecting it. It becomes a
political, purposeful, even powerful stance.
And this is where I begin to have issues with the theory of
projective architecture. It seems to me to be a tepid, almost timid attempt at
undermining criticality. Somol and Whiting begin to reveal the shortcomings of criticality,
but do not provide a strong enough counter argument. They speak about a
“Doppler architecture” which is focused on interdisciplinary and the inherent
multiplicities of the field of architecture, which is a brilliant idea, but not
radically enough. It can be summed up in the self-given adjective to their idea
of the projective – a ‘cool’ architecture as opposed to a ‘hot’ architecture.
Do we really want to be producing ‘cool’ architecture? I am firmly in the
lonely camp of idealist architects; I would rather see architecture as an
energetically radical tool for improving the world, instead of becoming a
‘cool’, mild product and effect of its societal context.
I am in no way advocating for the perpetuation of critical
architecture; to be critical one must be removed from the subject of critique,
and I believe architecture cannot be even slightly removed from its context,
whether that be physical or societal. But I don’t think the response to
criticality is to become the complete opposite. We don’t have to pick an
extreme; either remotely critiquing the world, or building a utopia. There must
be a way for architecture to be neither critical nor projective, but somehow an
improved version of both.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDo you not think it's possible for "cool" architecture to be impactful? An "effortless" presence initially feels like an idea that does nothing of its own as it responds to its context. However, I think that maybe cool architecture can present a radical concept, but present it in such an obvious way that the effect is felt subtly yet powerfully.
ReplyDeleteI'm more concerned that projective architecture attempts to do too much at one time, and therefore makes all of its endeavors less meaningful
I think it probably is possible for 'cool' to become a subtle version of the radical - that may be even better than the blatantness that is criticality. But the way that Somol and Whiting present it feels more like it is fading into the background.
DeleteI also think that about projective architecture; it becomes a jack-of-all-trades but master of none. But I thought I might save that idea for another time and not write an entire novel on this blog post.