Mitchum vs De Niro

I think one of the greatest benefits an architect can bring to the world as an instrument of the creative process is his or her own humanity. Inherent in this process and what is so amazing about architecture is that it is one of the few mediums in which we try to translate the metaphysical to something tangible. The human condition is a response to societal evolution – political, economic, cultural, social, etc. – which can be captured in a piece of architecture, but being able to shape society through it is projective: forward alternatives, tacit, multiple, cool, Mitchum.

                                             Robert Mitchum, Cape Fear, 1962             Robert De Niro, Cape Fear, 1991

To understand how we arrived at projective we must first look back to criticality: autonomous, didactic, singular, hot, De Niro. There we find Tafuri, whose work removes the architect and reduces architecture to just its language, method, and structure. And Rowe, who was more concerned with the geometry, form and the spatial “product” of architecture. And finally Eisenman, whose premise was based on autonomy, as if the architectural process was some independent act void of reason. To me, these are examples of limiting the potential of architecture.

Architecture is more than a “product”, it is an idea and a belief, which should be more concerned with the human condition and how to improve it, to weave people together through “multiple engagements rather than a single articulation of program, technology, or from.” (Somol Whiting, 76) When I look at Koolhaas, he was the revolutionary who helped to transition our state of mind from critical to projective architecture. Now we find post-utopic architecture being explored in the likes of Bjarke Ingles, where hyperbole is reality, and the human condition is at its source.

Through these readings, I feel that in the past we have used architecture as an expression of: this how you make us feel versus this is how we want to feel. And that it reacts to the quality of life as opposed to shaping the life that we want to have. This is where projective architecture inserts itself.

                                          Boston City Hall, Kallmann McKinnel, 1968

                                                                     Tallinn City Hall, Estonia, BIG, 2009