Balance

"...the architect became a representative of the class in power."

As eluded to in our readings, the very definition of architect is under scrutiny now. How we arrived here is a complex history which more or less relates directly to architecture's inability to form a proper relationship to greater society and it's people. Has architecture become so far separated from society that we are no longer necessary? Wouldn't architecture in the United States be about the people since our source of political power is theoretically the people? While this is a complex problem, it is clear that we put ourselves in this situation.

"In reality, architecture has become too important to be left to architects."

 Architects once were master builders, but as the complexity of the problem grew, and architects receded further into architecture and away from reality and society as a whole. Contractors, builders, chose to take up the reality we shunned so fiercely, and now contractors are building structures, for good or bad, without us because they are willing to work within realistic constraints. The buildings are not necessarily beautiful, but do satisfy something basic in the needs of the people who use them regularly, not necessarily the client. "Pure" design yields nothing connected to reality, and "pure" building for necessity yields nothing except a raw extraction of reality. Balance becomes necessary, whether it's between design and build and/or an architect and a builder.

 "... but always leaning out of their elite positions, never stepping out to stand on the other side: the side of the people - those who use and bear architecture."

"...to be confronted with contingency at the start of the design process represents a serious disturbance to purist architectural production."

Participation was the solution to our break. What a lovely idea, let's take ideas from those who use the space, but even that became an avenue for architects to impose their ideas, an excuse. As our readings put it, too little participation ends up being no worse than just not having it. On the opposing front, to much participation is pure chaos and almost unmanageable. What's the solution? Bipartisan Representative Democracy was the solution for the federal government, why not for architectural participation? We now take a small sample size and overlay their ideas with our own, is this correct?

"Experts feel most comfortable when the object of their scrutiny is abstracted, because then their specialist knowledge can be applied without disturbance."

"...the architect will do everything possible to delay the fateful moment when reality bites."

Perhaps the solution is for architects to come down some social ladder rungs and remember what it's like to be a person in society or a community. Empathy not sympathy, first person not third person, maybe architect not Architect is the solution? Either way, architecture must accept it's fate or wither and fade. It is okay to be a commodity people consume, but the key is for it to be positive and reactive. Whether you design for the process or the diagram (essentially the end result of a process), you absolutely must remember the most important part of architecture, it exists in reality, not in a drawing, book, or computer.

Eisenmenns House VI - Master Suite - What could be better?

I firmly believe in the transformative and experiential power of architecture, but it is powerless if confined to only a select few or to paper. Balance between reality and design must be achieved.