Framing the Issue
As a class on Tuesday we were continually asked, "why is this relevant to you guys?". My answer was that everything is always relevant to architects because we work for everyone. I would like to argue that this IS a valid opinion.
It is interesting how the two videos framed conflict within a city this week while they were basically doing the same thing. In the Rebel Architecture film, rogue architects have decided to take over existing structures and improve them for people to use. If you listen to the interviews though, it seems the architects are making illegal architecture not primarily to improve the lives of people but mostly in spite of the state. They are angry that the state can't pull it together and take care of them so they are building illegally to cause a rise. Santi said everything he did was not for profit. But its probably not for profit (in part) so that he doesn't get caught by the state. I love the concept of Santi's designs but most of it exists in protest.
The Architecture of Violence should actually be called Architecture Caused by Violence. I see all of the motives behind Israel's "violent" building practices as defensive. Walls are usually a defensive mechanism, with the exception of prisons, but I don't think Israel is choosing to imprison themselves. The film is framing Palestinians as victims and it never explains WHY Israel feels the need to build defensive walls around their newly-annexed borders or WHY they feel the need to send in the army before they bulldoze a building. It frames the new Israeli hilltop communities as defensive military watchtowers but never questions WHY existing Palestinians villages only exist in the valleys between these hilltops. Maybe Israelis were building on hilltops because it was the only landmass that wasn't previously occupied? All I am saying is, these questions were not answered. Issue was not accurately explored and this film was extremely biased.
Studying the city as a space of conflict is relevant because it doesn't matter what you side with or how you view issues, conflict will always exist in cities. The structures we build could be occupied. WE could be leading the conflict with our designs too (in the case of Santi).
It is interesting how the two videos framed conflict within a city this week while they were basically doing the same thing. In the Rebel Architecture film, rogue architects have decided to take over existing structures and improve them for people to use. If you listen to the interviews though, it seems the architects are making illegal architecture not primarily to improve the lives of people but mostly in spite of the state. They are angry that the state can't pull it together and take care of them so they are building illegally to cause a rise. Santi said everything he did was not for profit. But its probably not for profit (in part) so that he doesn't get caught by the state. I love the concept of Santi's designs but most of it exists in protest.
The Architecture of Violence should actually be called Architecture Caused by Violence. I see all of the motives behind Israel's "violent" building practices as defensive. Walls are usually a defensive mechanism, with the exception of prisons, but I don't think Israel is choosing to imprison themselves. The film is framing Palestinians as victims and it never explains WHY Israel feels the need to build defensive walls around their newly-annexed borders or WHY they feel the need to send in the army before they bulldoze a building. It frames the new Israeli hilltop communities as defensive military watchtowers but never questions WHY existing Palestinians villages only exist in the valleys between these hilltops. Maybe Israelis were building on hilltops because it was the only landmass that wasn't previously occupied? All I am saying is, these questions were not answered. Issue was not accurately explored and this film was extremely biased.
Studying the city as a space of conflict is relevant because it doesn't matter what you side with or how you view issues, conflict will always exist in cities. The structures we build could be occupied. WE could be leading the conflict with our designs too (in the case of Santi).
Comments
Post a Comment