Rem, Dinosaurs, and Tuna Melts
After reading Koolhaus’s Junkspace, I was reminded of the
words of another important thinker of the modern era:
“I’ll tell you the problem with the scientific power that
you’re using here: it didn’t require any discipline to attain it. You read what
others had done and you took the next step. You didn’t earn the knowledge for
yourselves, so you don’t take any responsibility for it. You stood on the
shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before
you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a
plastic lunchbox, and now you’re selling it, you want to sell it.”
--Ian Malcom (Jeff Goldblum’s character from Jurassic Park)
OK, so Ian Malcolm isn’t real, but his sentiment rings true
in regards to junkspace and the
cloning of prehistoric animals. I think they are a few big ideas hidden in Rem’s
rant of frustration, but one that really spoke to me was the lack of identity
of junkspace.
The architecture of junkspace occurs in a globalized world. Borders,
ethnic identities, governments blur in one global soup of humanity. Koolhaus
imagines that this process has left people disenfranchised, struggling to find
something to identify with, something easily understandable and classifiable.
Enter junkspace. Junkspace cherry picks the architectural languages of the past
and hastily pastes them on in a contextual vacuum. Junkspace reaps the benefits
of public connotations of architecture it did not create by simulating its
appearance. It “stands on the shoulders of geniuses” to create an image vaguely
familiar to the public, but far removed from its original intention and
required discipline. What took years of hard work and experimentation from
architects and builders from around the world is now free to pick from and
combine without thought, without contribution, and without the authenticity
that made it compelling in the first place. It is easier to take advantage of
what people already understand than to try to communicate something new. Like a
24-hour diner, Junkspace’s menu is filled with dishes from all over the world—a
menu so fast, and so broad, it is impossible to deliver on any of them. No matter
what you order, it kind of tastes like a tuna melt.
Is any of this wrong? What’s the threat to architecture?
Well, as I understand Koolhaus, the frustration with junkspace is the lack of
required discipline. To push the conversation of architecture forward, we need
time. We need to experiment. We need to push towards the unfamiliar at great
risk. Junkspace isn’t hard to design. The systems are in place, the languages
are there. A kit of parts to assemble, sell, demolish, and repeat means that we
have no need for architects and architecture, at least as Rem defines them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDoes the average consumer (the non architecturally minded individual) even understand this alphabet soup of architecture we have today? Would they know architectural authenticity if it danced naked in front of them? We, the architecturally minded of us, get frustrated when we see corinthian columns slapped on the front of a haphazardly constructed bank in Clemson South Carolina... because we know they have no place being there. But to the average Joe this is a representation of the old, it immediately tells him that this is a bank, and furthermore the classical language mistakenly reassures him that his money will be safe there. If the architecture of this bank were purely invented and not borrowed, if it were architecture with a capital "A" he wouldn't know what to do with it, most likely wouldn't trust it or ever walk through the door. Even if he did he wouldn't appreciate the time, money, and effort that went into its design. What Koolhaas doesn't get is that architecture with a capital "A" doesn't work in the real world. That it is impossible and unaffordable by todays society. There will always be the McDonalds of the world... and everything is borrowed unless invented. Our society would come to a grinding halt if everything we made was purely invented. We don't have the time, resources, or even brainpower to do so. And just because it is borrowed, does that make it bad? I don't think so... Lets take a look at the Porsche 911, It hasn't changed in 54 years and its fantastic. Its gotten a few more horse power and wider tires, sure. But its the same shape, the same layout, and sold in the same colors as the day it rolled off the assembly line in 1963. Porsche stuck with what works and has had fantastic success. It comes down to the level of craft and care. Sure space junk is produced every day, its made of crap, looks like crap, and bought by crap. But thats not it, we cant see the space junk and deem everything space junk. There will always be the VW Beetle, but there will also always be the 911... not junk at all.
ReplyDelete