Is architecture bad if it doesn't create Doppler?
"...a Doppler architecture acknowledges the adaptive synthesis of architecture's many contingencies. Rather than isolating a singular autonomy, the Doppler focuses upon the effects and exchanges of architecture's inherent multiplicities: material, program, writing, atmosphere, form, techonologies, economies, etc."
I found this quote interesting because we talk about how an architect knows a little about a lot of things and it seems to me that that idea stems from projective thinking. I understand the Doppler to be this idea that one piece of architecture should radiate through a city creating a multi-faceted effect that stems from the architect's knowledge of 'a lot of things.' I guess my question on this is does a piece of architecture become bad architecture if it doesn't create this Doppler effect that projective architecture is promoting? Obviously projective theory is not the one and only way to think about architecture these days but it certainly seems like "form for the sake of form" is frowned upon. Would BIG's factory building in Copenhagen have been just as effective as a piece of architecture if it didn't have a ski slope on top?
I found this quote interesting because we talk about how an architect knows a little about a lot of things and it seems to me that that idea stems from projective thinking. I understand the Doppler to be this idea that one piece of architecture should radiate through a city creating a multi-faceted effect that stems from the architect's knowledge of 'a lot of things.' I guess my question on this is does a piece of architecture become bad architecture if it doesn't create this Doppler effect that projective architecture is promoting? Obviously projective theory is not the one and only way to think about architecture these days but it certainly seems like "form for the sake of form" is frowned upon. Would BIG's factory building in Copenhagen have been just as effective as a piece of architecture if it didn't have a ski slope on top?
I think a work of architecture on its own can be successful in its own context; as purely a building/space, it can be considered successful for what it accomplishes. It's not necessarily "form for forms sake" just because it doesn't have a higher societal purpose. But I think it's interesting and much more significant when architecture can become multifaceted, like BIG's power plant ski slope. I'm sure Bjarke Ingels could design a really successful power plant on its own merit, but the fact that he does take into consideration those other facets makes the project so compelling.
ReplyDelete