Autonomous Architecture: A Rebel or Miss-understood Space?

A painter begins with a blank canvas, a sculptor starts with a block of stone. A writer starts with a sheet of paper and composer with silence. However, in the practice of practical architecture, the architect has to create a space on top of a something present on site.

All practices of art act as both an expression for the artists, and to develop a deeper understanding of the human emotion for the viewers. To raise questions about the status quo that society sociologically seems to always fall back on. I believe architecture should be doing that just as much as any other form of art. Breaking the existing rules while creating new ones to be tried and tested.

All architects have rules in their design; they just might be different than societies. I think this is where we begin to feel split on good and bad (aesthetic) design. When an architect produces something that we cannot make an association with, we fail to understand the “why” of the scheme; this could be a failure of narrative from the architect or a sense of unawareness from us. In the case of Peter Eisenman, most of his projects lack a sense of connection with their site. We do not see a linkage with his design and the structures alongside it; so we begin to dissect, looking for the meaning. It seems to me that Eisenman is more focused on the approach of architectural design in a way to forces the viewer to question the design. Yet the issue with autonomous architecture is we become obsessed with the boarders of the design and how it frames itself to its surroundings, we miss the point to look for a meaning with the design itself.

Rather than critiquing architecture as a comparison to its neighbors using only the sense of sight, we miss the point of the total phenomenal experience and give a premature judgment. In class we discussed Daniel Libeskind’s Jewish Museum in Berlin, and criticized its overall form in the visual sense. We analyzed the floor plans and the window slivers, slicing through the sheet metal; asking where did these decisions come from and why aren’t they more clear? While I think context is important, it should not be the only factor in design. Phenomenology should drive the design, the experience while wondering the space and form. The first time I had visited the museum I had no knowledge of the building prior, I was experiencing the space as it was intended to be. I vividly remember the dark voids, the slightly offset floor slope, and the chaotic madness of trying to figure out how to move through the space. I had no idea how the building was actually formed and what it looked like, what mattered more was the human scale, and how I transitioned within and around the building. Once inside the architecture speaks its own language to the viewer, and the only context is itself and the story it is telling.

In a way, autonomous architecture cannot be defined without a comparing subject, which we immediately resort to, and perhaps is unfair or even bias. Context and relevance to an idea should be present in any design, but I do not think it should always be taken literally from the surroundings. The experience in the design should bring the user to a sense of enlightenment, whether it be philosophically life changing or subconsciously comforting. The point of design is to get a response from the viewers; ideally it’s the response you intended.