What Kind of Architect Will YOU Be?
Although many may find it questionable, I frankly find what Santiago Cirugeda does inspirational, maybe even a little emotional. It is a powerful thing to take a stance as an architect with potential liabilities and do what he does, “shunning the glamour of massive, multi-million-dollar commissions to tackle the world’s urban, environmental and social crises.”
I know we all personally wonder and as a group have questioned and debated what it means to give more power to the people architecturally. How can we balance not “losing our profession” but enabling and empowering people? This is the question we usually ask. But what I truly wonder is, what is our profession? What do we stand for? What do YOU stand for? I see a point in which, like many other thin-lined professions socially and politically, the people are frustrated with our lack of doing what needs to be done and then… well, we lose our profession in a different way and maybe a bit of our human-ness.
I stand in light of seeing what Cirugeda does as a working in balance of NOT losing the profession, but still enabling people. He is doing what others will not, he is doing what needs to be done for the place he is in and the people around him. He is taking his knowledge and skills and leveraging those with other passionate or design/build related individuals. It may not be your traditional “beauty” but like he says “who doesn’t have an ugly friend?” There is a different kind of beauty in his work as a whole, because to not lose that different aspect of the profession, he words with a different approach. One that is not a quick fix, but an alternative model.
His methods may not be for everyone everywhere, but there is immense validity and much to learn from in my eyes. We cannot tackle everything and solve every issue laid before us but who are we to sit back and do nothing? No matter the profession, I believe in taking a stand and if I had to choose in today's world, I stand with the Guerrillas.
I know we all personally wonder and as a group have questioned and debated what it means to give more power to the people architecturally. How can we balance not “losing our profession” but enabling and empowering people? This is the question we usually ask. But what I truly wonder is, what is our profession? What do we stand for? What do YOU stand for? I see a point in which, like many other thin-lined professions socially and politically, the people are frustrated with our lack of doing what needs to be done and then… well, we lose our profession in a different way and maybe a bit of our human-ness.
I stand in light of seeing what Cirugeda does as a working in balance of NOT losing the profession, but still enabling people. He is doing what others will not, he is doing what needs to be done for the place he is in and the people around him. He is taking his knowledge and skills and leveraging those with other passionate or design/build related individuals. It may not be your traditional “beauty” but like he says “who doesn’t have an ugly friend?” There is a different kind of beauty in his work as a whole, because to not lose that different aspect of the profession, he words with a different approach. One that is not a quick fix, but an alternative model.
His methods may not be for everyone everywhere, but there is immense validity and much to learn from in my eyes. We cannot tackle everything and solve every issue laid before us but who are we to sit back and do nothing? No matter the profession, I believe in taking a stand and if I had to choose in today's world, I stand with the Guerrillas.
“Wouldn't it be easier to do a normal job? You do your work and you get paid… but it wouldn't fill your life. Your political or social life.”
After understand Santiago's thoughts, I too agree with what you are saying. I constantly ponder the idea that the narrative to a design is more significant then the design itself. Sure, I do not find his architecture appealing, but what the narrative behind it changes the way I see it.
ReplyDeleteI do feel that the profession is taking a huge leap into a design/build focused profession. By doing so, architect's are not taking back what they did before (engineering, landscaping, urban planning, etc.) but we are reinventing ourselves into something better. Through a more holistic approach.
"What Kind of Architect Will YOU Be?" I think the beauty of the architectural field is the diversity of design and thought that is allowed and encouraged within our profession. I certainly agree that there is a place within the profession for architects such as Santiago Cirugeda as well. By having the Santiago's design process you are enriching the field of design for the better, allowing you the choice, what kind of architect do you want to be.
ReplyDeleteIt was easy to admire Santi Cirugeda and his fellow collective members; but as I watched the report, I thought about the waste of time, talent, money, and material resources in this situation. When the collective architects returned to their cement factory project to discover that the local government had spent a relatively large amount to add sidewalks, lights, benches, and bins to the site, they were displeased with the changes and how officials had prioritized spending. This instance—along with examples that we have seen and discussed in class—highlights hidden costs that emerge when groups fail to cooperate. Consequently, a valuable skill of architectural leaders will be to influence those in powerful positions to engage others in building and city planning.
ReplyDelete"Wouldn't it be easier to do a normal job"... A question that has provoked both of us in the recent light of career hunting. Clemson has taught us to be "Citizen Architects" and this may just mean engaging the public in ways of design feedback - or like Santiago, it means stepping around the authorities to make a difference. I really appreciate his outlook on what architecture should be. "It should be function, cheap, and the reason to come together".
ReplyDeleteI really appreciated Santiago's outlook and view on architecture - taking it back to the people which is what we are called to do in the first place. I also liked that he involves the people in the constructions process - in a way architecturally empowering the people he is building for& with by giving them the knowledge. Now whether it is waste of time is another question because I definitely think there are arguments to be made on both sides of the issue.
ReplyDelete