You can't define me
Somol’s and Whiting’s reading for this week proved very difficult
to follow. However, there seems to be a clear notion towards the practice of
architecture transitioning from Critical theory to Projective theory. I’m still
not quite sure I can wrap my head around it, but I’m interested in their use of
referencing the Doppler Effect.
Critical theory seems to say that architecture can be defined as
an autonomous profession that stands alone, irrespective of “material, program,
writing, atmosphere, form, technologies, economics, etc.”. In my mind, this
theory seems to leave a stagnant situation that succeeds in distancing
architects (even more so that they already are) from society and the constantly
changing world. An autonomous practice provokes confusion and worry. How is
this a good thing?
I believe that the Projective theory, that emphasizes a profession
of “performance or practice”, is a much more beneficial concept that permits an
endless supply of creativity. As it relates to the Doppler Effect, architecture
must be aware of the moving forces around it. We need to be a profession that
responds and reacts to the environmental, economic, and social needs of
society. The Doppler Effect only exists because there are 2 objects acting
together. An architecture of this nature allows for the Architect or the
profession to have relevance and importance with relation to the ever changing
world around it. The potential with this mindset is infinite.
If we become a profession that is constantly adapting to society,
then can we really have a theory that defines us? Do we even need to have a theory
that puts us as a chapter in a book? Let's just design accordingly, call it Doppler architecture, and move on to more important issues. Architectural theories seem to be ideas
that keep the schools’ pockets full and people who just want to practice
annoyed.
Image: Eisenman's House II seems to be void of any reasoning. As seen in this image, contextually, it is non-responsive.
Image: BIG is able to represent, through diagrams, the relevance of design decisions and is able to respond contextually and environmentally.
I expressed similar thoughts in my blog as well. There are too many labels, or theories, in architecture. If we boil it all down, I think the discipline of architecture should always seek to add value to our society and help shape it going forward. In this journey, some architects are more successful than others, and others just don't even try. And it's those, like Eisenman, where theory fails for me. However, I do believe theory can sometimes help us recognize what we value as architects and to take bits and pieces of it that are congruent with our values and philosophy so we can expand on it.
ReplyDelete