Self vs. Service
Whether through Jeremy Till’s explanation of “scarcity,” Samuel Mockbee’s assertions of courage, or Edward Soja’s drive to eliminate unjust geographies, they all have one thread in common – absence of the architectural ego. One common thread we see with most famous architects is their immense passion for either themselves, their work, or both. Especially with the Starchitects of today, it’s more about the prestige of the commission and their out-of-the-box design solution than the actual people that the project should influence.
Samuel Mockbee’s text on the Rural Studio is probably one of the most beautiful odes to our role as a servant leader I have ever read. His focus on the virtues of the architect – honesty, courage, morality, social responsibility – so clearly contrast his version of “most practicing architects,” who narrowly accept the boundaries of their role, then sit back to accept the decisions of many other stakeholders.
Mockbee continues to state that the personal devotion to bringing design to the less fortunate “probably had more to do with [his] nature than with any convictions,” showing that we choose service over self-importance most likely because of our inherent virtue rather than any broader responsibility of the profession. Should this not be the other way around?
Our education while at Clemson, and in particular our studio experiences, were geared specifically toward establishing many of the traits Mockbee emphasizes. Our first and last studio projects were all exercises in defining spatial justice for a community in need. Our professors, with their choices of studio projects, seem to recognize this division between the search for fame and the search for justice. However, most other students are designing fantastical museums rather than budget student centers.
As Mockbee realized, changing the profession starts with our young people, and in that sense, I feel our school is doing a wonderful job of creating that sense of social conviction the profession currently lacks. However, what we need to figure out is how to take the fantastical museum, eliminate the ego, and use it as a tool for spatial justice just the same.
Samuel Mockbee’s text on the Rural Studio is probably one of the most beautiful odes to our role as a servant leader I have ever read. His focus on the virtues of the architect – honesty, courage, morality, social responsibility – so clearly contrast his version of “most practicing architects,” who narrowly accept the boundaries of their role, then sit back to accept the decisions of many other stakeholders.
Mockbee continues to state that the personal devotion to bringing design to the less fortunate “probably had more to do with [his] nature than with any convictions,” showing that we choose service over self-importance most likely because of our inherent virtue rather than any broader responsibility of the profession. Should this not be the other way around?
Our education while at Clemson, and in particular our studio experiences, were geared specifically toward establishing many of the traits Mockbee emphasizes. Our first and last studio projects were all exercises in defining spatial justice for a community in need. Our professors, with their choices of studio projects, seem to recognize this division between the search for fame and the search for justice. However, most other students are designing fantastical museums rather than budget student centers.
As Mockbee realized, changing the profession starts with our young people, and in that sense, I feel our school is doing a wonderful job of creating that sense of social conviction the profession currently lacks. However, what we need to figure out is how to take the fantastical museum, eliminate the ego, and use it as a tool for spatial justice just the same.
Richard Meier at the Getty Center
welt.de
Samuel Mockbee with students
ruralstudio,org
Comments
Post a Comment