Politics, Architecture, and Complexity: The Trial of Explication
So, after Tuesday’s class, and the somewhat dismissal of my disgust at the Zaera reflective monstrosity, I broke down and finished the reading in entirety, primarily seeking my own affirmation. To my surprise, I found myself agreeing with the core of Zaera suggestions, that the inherent properties of the envelope as a boundary or barrier create undeniable opportunities related to politics and representation. I also find truth in the idea that the architect and his/her/it’s influence is being dwindled down to a catalogue of pre-approved façade options His paper continues and makes a hard left at explication,
As an alternative to the superlative rhetorics of the politically correct, the practice of the politically incorrect is an altogether more compelling and transformative practice, if it is directionality we seek… Rather than rejecting the political in architecture, the attack on political correctness is an attempt to avoid architecture becoming simply a vehicle for political representation and to become instead a viable political instrument.
I think it may be a cultural saying, but the phrase, “throw it at the wall, and see if it sticks!” comes to mind. The insertion of complexity and attention to the envelope, it would appear to my understanding, as an actual shot in the dark, experimentation for the sake of political transformation… for the better, or for the worse, or not at all, who knows! More importantly, Zaera’s expressed dis-interest, in my opinion, in the real political effect is alarming, as long it’s different, that’s enough. I can rest easy and call myself a true architect if it’s different, and innovative.
I ask, has brick and mortar never accomplished political relevance? Doing something new and crazy just for the hell of it, in my humble opinion, is irresponsible and diminishes an architect’s obligation as a social servant. Reading this I kept picturing, in my head, the cartoon witch dropping ingredients from an indiscriminate vile into a large black pot… and poof! Something happened.
Although architects obviously have a strong and long education in architecture history, theory, and principles that ultimately drive design, in many ways any "innovative" architecture project is a shot in the dark. Architecture, like art, is perceived and experienced differently by everyone. Some people love it, some people hate it. If architecture (or the envelope) is being used as an experiment to create political change, or do something that has never been done before, there is no way of really knowing how it will be perceived by the community or change our culture and social interactions.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I am less critical about if it is a good or bad architecture. I agree, and this project is a perfect example/illustration of the article: type of the envelope, initial political intention of the project.
ReplyDeleteWhat I think, the article is not only a critic, it is an analysis. As when Koolhaas explores and "criticizes" something but in reality, he is illustrating the same by his work. Maybe it is inevitable for the architects, but it is also important to fully understand what you are doing and why.
Kudos on going back to read and readjusting your opinion, Unfortunately a lot of people are unwilling to do this. however, I don't believe it has to be a "shot in the dark". I don't believe that evidence based design is an air tight solution, but I think it sheds light on possible solution and possibly some paths that we don't need to go down again. Of course there are going to be differences between contextual settings and cultures, but to completely neglect projects of the past that clearly made an impact in some way would be irresponsible.
ReplyDelete