Koolhaas: Anti-Manifesto?
“The Urbanism of the 3 episodes was subconscious and spontaneous, not the result of an explicit doctrine. It was followed by an interval in which the architecture of the Metropolis has regressed, or at least fallen under the domination of official architecture.”
After reading this it is my thought that, as young architects, we have to be willing to call to trial the traditions and techniques that have encompassed our education and even the history of a profession, which kind of sucks. Koolhaas is explicit here in the urban suffering that is endured under an “official architecture”, the damages of a doctrine. Releasing from these standards and again embracing pure spontaneity seems to be a tremendous task. It would be better, perhaps, to abandon any formal notion of an architecture. In my personal opinion this challenge leans to a borderline extremist understanding of the role of architecture and lacks a certain holistic view of our profession. Provocative architecture, albeit, ideally does hold a place and carry a significance, but discerning the gimmicks is also important.
Perfect ending to a great summary, Mr. Whitt. Like Koolhaas, there is a confidence in your analysis that is super enjoyable. When you say, " leans to a borderline extremist understanding of the role of architecture and lacks a certain holistic view of our profession". That rings true for me in the CCTV building. The Irregularity of the form provokes emotion. Perhaps disgust, perhaps wonder.
ReplyDeleteIf you are able to move your eyes beyond the form of the "pants" you will be able to following the detailing slats which wrap the facade in a seemingly irregular pattern. A closer inspection of the same detailing you will find that it reads as a structural diagram of the stresses on the given form. As a simplification of such a sophisticated structure, I find it truly remarkable.
Agree! The architect try a lot of "new things" which is his dream or design principle. The come out is expensive. The architect make the dream by client's money.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely love the juxtaposition of the two pictures you selected and the discussion between provocative architecture and design full of gimmicks. However, I will come to the defense of "official architecture" as you have described it. When you talk about "official architecture" you make it seem suffocated to a creativity and design process of architect, therefore needing to abandon it to reach this spontaneous and provocative design. I would disagree. I see this "official architecture" as a stepping stone. If we can master this form of architecture we can then take it an alter it, add new concepts or technologies, and create something new. I think the problem with the perception of this "official architecture" goes back to this idea of gimmicks. So many "architects" (designers/builders) ruin this idea of a mundane but fully functioning architecture, full of gimmicks or such that we as architects are more keen on avoiding for the sake of design.
ReplyDeleteI think that it wouldn't be a black and white decision. While we're trying to embrace spontaneity in our design, it is not equal with abandoning all the standards and rules. First I think we need to know them carefully and educate ourselves and then with a strong and well-thought position they can be challenged.
ReplyDelete