Afraid of Autonomy?

In this week’s lecture we talked a lot about how the ‘autonomous architecture’ of Peter Eisenman and Daniel Libeskind calls into question the meaning behind the work architects create. Some architects start projects with a foundation built strong on meaning, but many others, often including ourselves as architecture students, post rationalize our projects into some deep concept that justifies our decision for that weird angle we think is cool. Why should we try to justify our work if there is no actual meaning behind it and how many built projects out there fall into this category? I wondered this a few months ago when our class visited the MAXXI by Zaha Hadid in Rome. The main exhibit on display was in homage to the late Zaha and was nicely put together, displaying models, product design, drawings, and videos. While it was very interesting to see so much of what her work consisted of and the early developments of projects, there was a good deal of questioning why certain things were done or if the overall meaning was there from the beginning. I was intrigued by the forms and creations, and don't completely agree that every detail or cantilever must have a meaning other than to just do it. Do we as architects feel that we cannot sell our projects without appealing to the sentiment of our client? I believe this is the main reason for post rationalizing, but after our class discussion am still left wondering why. It does seem generally more appealing when we have a meaning behind our project, but is that because we are afraid that meaningless projects are a waste or selfish architecture that will not be accepted?

Models on display in the Zaha Hadid exhibit at the MAXXI in Rome, Italy

Zaha Hadid product design

Visitors watching videos of different projects by Zaha Hadid

Photos from: http://www.maxxi.art/en/events/litalia-di-zaha-hadid/