| Where is the line? |
The class discussion on autonomous and projective architecture left me questioning a couple things about the practice of architecture. I will start by saying that I agree that sometimes autonomous architecture can sometimes feel like it is stretching and pulling meaning out of anything while at the same time following its own rules and standing out. However, I want to make the case for artistic expression in architecture. Given that we are in a profession that stands at the crossroads of art, science and perhaps ‘sociology’, I think that it is okay to have differing styles/ types of architecture. Autonomous architecture, in my opinion, is then just an artistic expression of the designer - meant to be exhibited and stand out for not fitting in.
If all architecture was the same, I am afraid that we would truly loose the value of architecture which is why I also do not think that we always need to make a statement. Like always, we need a balance - we need formalism, criticality, autonomous, projective and parametric. We need Zaha Hadid just like we need Peter Zumthor and Bjarke Ingels.
With that being said though, I do think that we need more projective/ critical architecture as it is more sustainable if you will. This kind of criticality makes the building more for the community than another work by the architect. It allows to respond to context, culture, and continuity which in many cases also anticipates the future.
The question then becomes: where is the line when we decide one is appropriate over the
other?
I like how you see things both ways. Design has such a wide spectrum on how to approach it and to say one is better than the other can differ from person to person. The differences between formalism, criticality, autonomous, projective and parametric architecture are needed to create the dialogue that architecture is meant to be.
ReplyDeleteit's andrea btw
DeleteI agree we do need to leave room for artistic expression in architecture, but I also believe the criticism that we've been talking about with autonomous architecture is valid as well. I think you can be critical of the flaws of autonomous architecture while still at the same time recognizing its value as a legitimate architectural movement
ReplyDeleteI agree that we do need a balance, which I think depends quite frankly on the type of project and context at hand, otherwise we wouldn't have the diverse architectural dialogue and discourse we have to today to learn from. However, although I can't think of a project off the top of my head right now that would be a good example, I wonder if it's possible to have a combination of the two, both autonomous and critical architecture, in a way the best of both worlds?
ReplyDelete