Noveau America
I appreciate Denise Scott Brown's analysis of what many other architects and urbanists today (and maybe even during the 1970's) would view negatively as "noveau," or distasteful: cities like Las Vegas, golf resorts, bilboards, or "residential backgrounds of soap operas." I feel like the design community has typically been condescending to this kind of architecture, so I am glad that Denise Scott Brown brings them into the conversation. It's important that architects consider these types of environments just as much as the metropolis or ideal old European city, because they make up so much of the norm of America, and speak of its cultural condition: "The forms of the pop landscape are as relevant to us now as were the forms of antique Rome to the Beaux Arts, Cubism, and Machine Architecture" and "they speak to our condition not only aesthetically, but on many levels of necessity." These buildings are telling us something. We need to listen to be able to properly respond as designers who design for the public.
I think that the opposing ideas from John Kenneth Galbriath were important to bring in. I - and I'm sure many other architects today - agree with his sentiments that the amount of cars should be reduced in cities, and that bilboards, gas stations, and telephone poles are eyesores that we could benefit doing away with. However I think it's important to consider Denise Scott-Brown's critique that he does not consider economic need. Sure, we may agree with Galbriath - but are they really urgent concerns for society? We need to make sure that design is meeting the needs for all levels of society.
I think that the opposing ideas from John Kenneth Galbriath were important to bring in. I - and I'm sure many other architects today - agree with his sentiments that the amount of cars should be reduced in cities, and that bilboards, gas stations, and telephone poles are eyesores that we could benefit doing away with. However I think it's important to consider Denise Scott-Brown's critique that he does not consider economic need. Sure, we may agree with Galbriath - but are they really urgent concerns for society? We need to make sure that design is meeting the needs for all levels of society.
We often strive to make superficial changes such as removing billboards, telephone poles, and gas stations to make OUR idealized world. We can make this changes that would be a visual improvement everywhere but not a meaningful change to the actual community or have a significant impact on any individual. To me it is a way of making a change without having to get up close and personal with a challenge, place, or group or people in need or change.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Galbraith's assessment is more of a utopian world, that is divorced from the reality of the inequalities that exist. I think an important thing that Brown mentioned was that we should listen to needs rather than ask. As for business signs that dot many of our highways, I've never considered them as architecture, but maybe we should and start doing something about them.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that you decided to include both sides of the coin in your critique. I would agree with you as well as Ms. Brown in that to create a truly responsive architecture we have to respond not only to our own thoughts of a project, but also to what is already there.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Aaron, Galbraith, like many of us is hoping for the Utopian movement which had been talked of between Architects for years, if we design for a world which does not yet exist, then the architecture may not function. However I feel that Brown is being equally unreasonable, designing for the world that currently exists will inspire no change. If we continue to design in a suburban way, to support the society in which we live, the human population will continue to sprawl regardless of our supposed attempts to prevent it.
ReplyDelete