The End of the Architect
While I don't agree 100% with Zaera's argument that architects should focus solely on the facade as is it the last realm in which we as architects have control over, I think it is really interesting to consider this option and play devil's advocate.
No one is learning to be a Renaissance man or a master mason anymore. No one person is responsible for the "monuments" being erected today, despite common misconceptions that Fallingwater sprang from Frank Lloyd Wright's head one night or Zaha Hadid designed MAXII all by herself. Why are we so reluctant to admit that the architect's role has diminished and will continue to do so? We learn in school that architecture is collaborative, but we're still expected to consider every aspect of the building in the time we're given. We have to think about program and space and tectonics and materials and structure and everything else and there's absolutely no one way we can go beyond just scratching the surface on any one of these topics. In practice, we're always going to have to consult an expert. Why kid ourselves in school? Would it be better to do really well at one specific aspect of building design instead of stretching ourselves too thin and then getting frustrated when experts change our designs because we didn't know enough in the first place?
I also think our society has changed the role of everyone involved in the design process, not just the architect. I mean, most people not involved in architecture think architects just design pretty buildings anyway. While the role of the architect may have diminished, the role of others has increased. Design has become more democratic; while I think there's value to fighting against this trend, who can say for sure that the fight will be worth it? What if we accepted a more focused, albiet "diminished", role on facade design and played nicely with structural engineers and space programmers to design really great buildings. Isn't it a little naive and nostalgic to think we can keep control over the whole design process and learn a little bit of everything involved in building design and construction?
No one is learning to be a Renaissance man or a master mason anymore. No one person is responsible for the "monuments" being erected today, despite common misconceptions that Fallingwater sprang from Frank Lloyd Wright's head one night or Zaha Hadid designed MAXII all by herself. Why are we so reluctant to admit that the architect's role has diminished and will continue to do so? We learn in school that architecture is collaborative, but we're still expected to consider every aspect of the building in the time we're given. We have to think about program and space and tectonics and materials and structure and everything else and there's absolutely no one way we can go beyond just scratching the surface on any one of these topics. In practice, we're always going to have to consult an expert. Why kid ourselves in school? Would it be better to do really well at one specific aspect of building design instead of stretching ourselves too thin and then getting frustrated when experts change our designs because we didn't know enough in the first place?
I also think our society has changed the role of everyone involved in the design process, not just the architect. I mean, most people not involved in architecture think architects just design pretty buildings anyway. While the role of the architect may have diminished, the role of others has increased. Design has become more democratic; while I think there's value to fighting against this trend, who can say for sure that the fight will be worth it? What if we accepted a more focused, albiet "diminished", role on facade design and played nicely with structural engineers and space programmers to design really great buildings. Isn't it a little naive and nostalgic to think we can keep control over the whole design process and learn a little bit of everything involved in building design and construction?
Comments
Post a Comment