Spatial Injustice, austerity and scarcity, and "dishonest" architecture: these are all problems that plague the profession today. There is not one more important than the other, and each problem has many different solutions. While it has been stated that spatial injustice is a part of all architecture, always; and as austerity and scarcity of materials and resources is a newer threat, where does the third issue come into play? Has architecture always had the problem of dishonesty, have we only worked for our own selfish ambition? Mockbee mentions this gift we possess as architects - a second sight - and the responsibility it entails. Throughout our education, and through years of practice, we have come across the ability to see beyond architecture as just architecture, and more of a vessel for social change, political statement, and emotional metamorphosis. The list goes on. Mockbee continues to question why architects today do not feel the responsibility to design to make a difference, design with a "moral sense," to help the people we are designing for, instead of our own selfish ambitions. To each and every architect it comes down to a matter of opinion. All issues relating to the field are prioritized. In my opinion, scarcity will always be an issue, as it affects more than just architecture; austerity will always fluctuate, as much as it is a part of a movement as it is a solution; and spatial injustice is something that cannot be controlled. There are too many factors to consider. To me, dishonest, immoral architecture is a problem that can be fixed from the grassroots level. It begins with you and me, it spreads to all of us. Design like you give a damn, because if you don't, why should anyone else?
 |
| Rural Studio's first project "Bryant (Hay Bale) House" |
Spatial Injustice, austerity and scarcity, and "dishonest" architecture: these are all problems that plague the profession today. There is not one more important than the other, and each problem has many different solutions. While it has been stated that spatial injustice is a part of all architecture, always; and as austerity and scarcity of materials and resources is a newer threat, where does the third issue come into play? Has architecture always had the problem of dishonesty, have we only worked for our own selfish ambition? Mockbee mentions this gift we possess as architects - a second sight - and the responsibility it entails. Throughout our education, and through years of practice, we have come across the ability to see beyond architecture as just architecture, and more of a vessel for social change, political statement, and emotional metamorphosis. The list goes on. Mockbee continues to question why architects today do not feel the responsibility to design to make a difference, design with a "moral sense," to help the people we are designing for, instead of our own selfish ambitions. To each and every architect it comes down to a matter of opinion. All issues relating to the field are prioritized. In my opinion, scarcity will always be an issue, as it affects more than just architecture; austerity will always fluctuate, as much as it is a part of a movement as it is a solution; and spatial injustice is something that cannot be controlled. There are too many factors to consider. To me, dishonest, immoral architecture is a problem that can be fixed from the grassroots level. It begins with you and me, it spreads to all of us. Design like you give a damn, because if you don't, why should anyone else?
Comments
Post a Comment