Is capitalism the problem with our architecture?
In the editor's note at the beginning of the reading 'Architecture's public' he states:
Near the beginning of his writing, De Carlo writes:
I believe this quick note, however brief, that De Carlo mentions is critically important. These students realized that fundamentally the problem was not just in the organization of their political authority, but more largely a question of the purpose of their role.
I enjoyed our discussion in class on Tuesday and the reading by De Carlo, because he explains the importance of architecture being for the public. In reading his writing, I began to think about the following questions:
These are all relevant and important questions to ask. As architects, we should not passively submit to the demands of a developer or ruling authority.
Where I find a problem is that in this writing and the discussion in class, there have been indirect comments blaming this issue with architecture on capitalism. I do not agree that capitalism itself takes the blame for this problem. No matter the government system, capitalism, socialism, communism, dictatorships, free societies, or a mix - all have seen examples of architecture that is not built for the people. Ultimately the responsibility rests on individuals to design for the greater good, no matter what society he or she finds himself in. Of course, I would be shortsighted to not agree that the societal norms of any place push ideas, but to blame an entire problem on a certain system is also shortsighted.
"Its strongly political tone recalls a time when the impact of global capitalism was beginning to be felt, and the political implications of the aesthetic were being exposed... the tendency for academic architecture to isolate itself in its own discourse, for example, has increased."
Near the beginning of his writing, De Carlo writes:
"They [the architecture students] had realized that it was not just a matter of organizational structures and teaching methods, but a more fundamental question about the purpose of their training and social role."
I believe this quick note, however brief, that De Carlo mentions is critically important. These students realized that fundamentally the problem was not just in the organization of their political authority, but more largely a question of the purpose of their role.
I enjoyed our discussion in class on Tuesday and the reading by De Carlo, because he explains the importance of architecture being for the public. In reading his writing, I began to think about the following questions:
- Why are we creating architecture?
- Who is this architecture for?
- What responsibility as architects do we have in pursuing social justice?
- Do we consider the poor?
- What about fighting for the right of low income housing?
These are all relevant and important questions to ask. As architects, we should not passively submit to the demands of a developer or ruling authority.
Where I find a problem is that in this writing and the discussion in class, there have been indirect comments blaming this issue with architecture on capitalism. I do not agree that capitalism itself takes the blame for this problem. No matter the government system, capitalism, socialism, communism, dictatorships, free societies, or a mix - all have seen examples of architecture that is not built for the people. Ultimately the responsibility rests on individuals to design for the greater good, no matter what society he or she finds himself in. Of course, I would be shortsighted to not agree that the societal norms of any place push ideas, but to blame an entire problem on a certain system is also shortsighted.
 |
| The Pyramids in Egypt |
 |
| Palace of Versailles in France |
Great post! I agree that it is not only about official ideology/political system, whatever it is (capitalism, socialism etc.). It is about people and their intentions. But then, how to decide which intentions are "good" or "bad"? And who should do it?
ReplyDeleteThe more and more I thought about the question you just posted the more and I more I have come to the conclusion that each society and culture has an answered to which one is good or bad for them. I know this is suuuuuper dangerous to say because societies and wholes sometimes, most of the time, don't know what they need or want but it seems to me that historically there has been people to help them figure it out. I know that some political systems or architectural approaches wouldn't work best in Mexico but I also know that others might. Which one is right? Idk, but it seems to me that maybe it is hidden behind their "DNA". I don't know what I am saying haha I just think your question is very good and very difficult to answer.
DeleteAgree. And probably nobody knows)
DeleteYour post makes me think about what David said regarding building a Hospital in a rural neighborhood of upstate SC when healthcare isn't universal. It makes you question the type of hospital that should be designed all together. Politics aside I have never even challenged the notion of a hospital because...well it's a hospital. Even though it is a necessity, it's the perfect example of questioning 'why are we creating architecture' and 'who is it for' (and probably some social justice/political questions, too).
ReplyDeleteAgreed! The right solution for a hospital in rural South Carolina is not going to look the same or act the same as a hospital in another country.
DeleteSure, the responsibility rests with the individual, but that same individual is still a product of their environment. Meaning that the political realities under which they live are going to have an impact. The thing to realize is that there is never one sole impactor on a design, but it is the culmination of many factors.
ReplyDelete