Arrogance in Architecture
Though Koolhaas raises some interesting points about the ability of the Metropolis to create previously impossible combinations of program spaces, it is ultimately a misguided and tragic strategy that aims to use architecture as a means to fabricate artificial environments designed to be "superior fantasies" more desirable than nature itself. The twisted logic of this approach demonstrates an arrogance on the part of the architect who presumes that he himself is capable of creating a world that is better than what is offered by nature.
Koolhaas describes the ambition of the Metropolis as being "to create a world totally fabricated by man, i.e, to live inside fantasy." Unfortunately, nature is not always able to act as "an ultimate safety net," as Koolhaas puts it, to save us from the unpredictable consequences resulting from these high-stakes experiments in fantasy.
Koolhaas describes the "performance" of the Metropolis as "a spectacle that features a neck and neck race between an astronomical increase in the potential for disaster that is only just exceeded by a still more astronomical increase int he potential to avert disaster." He is correct in the first part of his conclusion - that "fabricated fantasies" do in fact greatly increase a potential for disaster. However, his confidence in the ability of these creations to simultaneously protect against the very disasters that they themselves threaten to cause only reveals an attitude of arrogance and naive faith in the ability of man-made structures to save the world from nature itself.
Instead of aiming to ignore, defeat, or replace nature, architects of this generation must try and learn from the natural, and work to protect and preserve what is left of it. Nature will not act as Koolhaas's "ultimate safety net" on its own - it falls in part on the architects in this and future generations.
Koolhaas describes the ambition of the Metropolis as being "to create a world totally fabricated by man, i.e, to live inside fantasy." Unfortunately, nature is not always able to act as "an ultimate safety net," as Koolhaas puts it, to save us from the unpredictable consequences resulting from these high-stakes experiments in fantasy.
Koolhaas describes the "performance" of the Metropolis as "a spectacle that features a neck and neck race between an astronomical increase in the potential for disaster that is only just exceeded by a still more astronomical increase int he potential to avert disaster." He is correct in the first part of his conclusion - that "fabricated fantasies" do in fact greatly increase a potential for disaster. However, his confidence in the ability of these creations to simultaneously protect against the very disasters that they themselves threaten to cause only reveals an attitude of arrogance and naive faith in the ability of man-made structures to save the world from nature itself.
Instead of aiming to ignore, defeat, or replace nature, architects of this generation must try and learn from the natural, and work to protect and preserve what is left of it. Nature will not act as Koolhaas's "ultimate safety net" on its own - it falls in part on the architects in this and future generations.
Your post reminds me of the discussion we had in class over Koolhaas. While yes, he is very arrogant and egotistical, I believe he still deserves some respect, just for the fact that he's made himself into a household name. After the economy crash, architects were no longer seen as a necessity and projects were going forward without architects on board. Koolhaas has made himself into a rock star and regained the attention of the architecturally uneducated public.
ReplyDelete