on autonomous architecture

In many cases of autonomous architecture, intrigue in the project is derived from generating a controversial form - but why? Controversy attracts attention. There exists a school of thought that asserts if an idea is controversial, then it must be approaching an uneasy or hidden truth. This idea is not at all limited to architecture, and is often found in conspiracy theory circles - but I won’t go into that right now. As it relates to architecture, when an architect is given free reign to design without consideration of context or public’s interest, they are no longer beholden to social norms and expectations. As a result, the design cannot be ‘wrong’ because [insert abstract connection]. Much like modern art, it is not the artist’s[architect’s] job to interpret meaning in their own art[design], that is the challenge for you, the observer[user]. 

I cannot buy into this notion that the onus should fall upon the user to unearth rationale and devise a self-determinant understanding of the architect’s intentions. This is simply egoist onanism on the part of the autonomous architect. But as long as there are so many lauded labors of self-love, this controversy-driven design will perpetuate.

Originally, I wanted to use this post to shit on Eisenman or Libeskind for their various eyesores around the world, but I’ll just refute this one point: in class, a comment was made that the design of the Jewish Museum was successful in creating a melancholic atmosphere - but I would argue that the subject matter does a sufficient job of that on it’s own. The architecture is largely immaterial - Libeskind knows this, and his design serves to bring more attention to himself than the subject matter contained therein.

This is a real house. 

Bioscleave House. East Hampton, New York.

y tho?