we're all in this together
It’s pretty obvious to me that architecture should have the
user’s best interest at heart. Shouldn’t that be the mindset for everyone who
contributes to society? ….but that’s definitely not usually the case given the
amount of business leaders looking to maximize profit from the unsuspecting consumers
(ex: Fyre Festival, Amazon counterfeiters, food companies who sell bags of air
with some snacks included).
So yes, having input from the regular people who will be
using a building you design produces so many benefits. It’s democratic,
informative to designers, and allows people to take ownership and pride in the
buildings they frequent. Win-win.
That being said, I don’t think it’s entirely fair to
discredit so-called “elitist” or “capitalism-oriented” architecture. Though I’m
sure a lot of the architects behind the projects thought far too highly of
themselves, they were, like any other artist, exercising their right to
creative expression. But, enviably, they had more resources to do so.
For examples, classics like the Getty center, Casa Batillo, the
Sydney Opera house, Seagram building, the Kreeger Museum, and recent projects
like The Shed or Elbe Philharmonic hall. These projects are products of “starchitects,”
funded by enormously wealthy patrons, and are not necessarily
community-oriented. But nevertheless they are incredible, awe-inspiring,
joy-provoking creations. Where would today’s architecture be without these
innovations?
All of this is to say that I don’t believe that “architecture
for capitalism” is no less important that “architecture for common people.” I
would argue that there is a need for both and that they can thrive together. Personally
speaking, I would want regular people to feel that a building I’m designing is
as much theirs as is mine – but I would also not turn down a wealthy client
looking to build something extraordinary.
I find your decision to use the Sydney Opera House as an example very strategic. Even though it is a capitalistic project that is built for people with enough money to buy a seat for a show, I think it reaches the commoner. Its fantastic form became the undisputed icon for the city. The exterior is designed incredibly well as a public space and can be used by anyone. Just because not everyone has the privilege to enter, doesn't mean that it can't belong to everyone.
ReplyDeleteI think architects who work in the realm of 'architecture for capitalism' need to work with an 'enemy behind the lines' mindset, where they can leverage their position as a star designer to shorten the distance between elitist and ubiquitous architecture.
I agree with you, capitalist architecture definitely has a place in this world. Even though sometimes it seems a bit elitist, it has allowed for great architectural advances that helps push creativity in the profession forward. I do also think that starchitects or anyone designing this kind of building can use that privilege to allow for regular people to experience their designs. Which I think is the case for the Seagram building & Sydney Opera House.
ReplyDeleteI agree that “architecture for capitalism” and “architecture for common people” need to coexist for a well-balanced built environment. The elitist attitude benefits the advancements of architectural design, as well as, gives the everyday person a visual and spatial experience through design. Those extravagent buildings referenced create an iconic focal point within the city and offer qualities that can be equally experienced within a space based on the user's interest or suggestions; just at a more intricate level.
ReplyDelete