Projective Architecture as Mass Customization?
I had a difficult time with this reading. The dichotomy between critical and projective wasn't as clear to me as say, junkspace v. public space. I have a hard time seeing the two as separate, polar extremes. Where it finally did make sense for me was the comparisons of hot and cold.
Hot architecture is rigid; it has a set of rules it rearranges for each project, creating a singular, specific experience. Cool architecture isn't beholden to any specific set of rules or language. Its final result is loose and open to interpretation. It tackles each project individually, not as part of a larger language. In this way, a projective architecture is tailored to the project needs at hand, without being limited by the pressure of continuing a line of thought generated by another person, project, or time.
I think this shift is a symptom of a larger trend in design: the movement from mass production to mass customization. Interestingly, as our society becomes more and more global, we tend to retreat more and more to the unique, the customized, the identifiable. Globalization has meant a level playing ground; everyone has access to the same products, same food, same architecture. In response, we crave the tailored, the customized, the hyper-contextual as a way to set ourselves apart--to remind ourselves and others of our unique identity. We move from factory assembly lines to 3D printers, from hotel chains to Airbnb, and from critical architecture to projective.
I believe we reached a point at which critical architecture felt mass-produced. Each project utilized the same set of interchangeable parts to generate a single response for the masses. While maybe beautiful, efficient, and functional, this architecture has stopped resonating in a society that craves mass-customization. We don't want off-the-shelf, we don't want what our neighbors have. We want something all our own, something we can interpret for ourselves, something that reminds us we are unique from others.
Hot architecture is rigid; it has a set of rules it rearranges for each project, creating a singular, specific experience. Cool architecture isn't beholden to any specific set of rules or language. Its final result is loose and open to interpretation. It tackles each project individually, not as part of a larger language. In this way, a projective architecture is tailored to the project needs at hand, without being limited by the pressure of continuing a line of thought generated by another person, project, or time.
I think this shift is a symptom of a larger trend in design: the movement from mass production to mass customization. Interestingly, as our society becomes more and more global, we tend to retreat more and more to the unique, the customized, the identifiable. Globalization has meant a level playing ground; everyone has access to the same products, same food, same architecture. In response, we crave the tailored, the customized, the hyper-contextual as a way to set ourselves apart--to remind ourselves and others of our unique identity. We move from factory assembly lines to 3D printers, from hotel chains to Airbnb, and from critical architecture to projective.
I believe we reached a point at which critical architecture felt mass-produced. Each project utilized the same set of interchangeable parts to generate a single response for the masses. While maybe beautiful, efficient, and functional, this architecture has stopped resonating in a society that craves mass-customization. We don't want off-the-shelf, we don't want what our neighbors have. We want something all our own, something we can interpret for ourselves, something that reminds us we are unique from others.
The idea of mass customization is very interesting because as a user of spaces and products we do crave something more unique to be special but when the people who hire us typically wants something done with least amount of money. Clearly, mass production is significantly cheaper so most things we buy from cars to phones are all mass produced and we all flock to the next iteration of the same product. The people who can afford customization clearly prefer it because it is unique and shows people who they are. So how do we, with today's technology and knowledge make mass customization available to people of all income levels? and how do we attempt to tackle this architecturally?
ReplyDelete