Is Projective Architecture Creating Junkspace?
In "Notes around the Doppler Effect and other Moods of Modernism," Somol and Whiting write, "A projective architecture does not shy way from reinstating architectural definition, but that definition stems from design and its effects rather than a language of means and materials." It is interesting that the pair not only discusses the difference of projective from critical, but makes sure to enforce that "architectural definition" is not lost through this. Bjarke Ingles speaks directly to this as he describes the formation of his buildings as reading from their surroundings. 
BIG focuses to create Information Driven Design allowing the environment to effect the form of the building with little interpretation, but at what point does the information make the role of the architect irrelevant? To draw from previous discussions, it seems like the reliance on technology to generate form or facade articulation could be transforming much of architecture into the junkspace, removing the need for an architect all together.
I agree Kindall. Reliance on technology could be steering us away from needing an architect. However, I think we make our practice relevant through the use of technology and critical thinking.
ReplyDeleteUntil we have a machine that is able to "think" the way a human can there will always be the need for an architect. Information is a stagnant way of designing without the interpreting power of the architect.
ReplyDelete