The Architect as a Conductor
I tend to think of myself as a relatively optimistic person. In the midst of all of the chaos we are currently in I find my belief in mankind to have grown even more. Saying this, its hard for me to listen to the argument that the architects role and area of influence is really just in the design of the envelope and facade.
Our roots are as the master builder. So how did we fall so far?
I find the idea that our role is so limited in scope to be defeatist. I know that architects cannot possibly be the master builders of old but can we be something else. Can we become more like a conductor. Having expertise in the whole rather than a singular instrument and be the unifying force? With the high levels of expertise and specialization in the world it is certainly impossible for the architect to be a master in all realms of the design and building processes but I don't think that means we should give up.
The second part of this idea of the architect as the designer of the facade that troubles me is that it means the interior of the space is meaningless to the architect. To me the interior is the richest part about architecture. As I write this I am looking out at Lee Hall. Lee Hall is an amazing project but what makes is so special is not the exterior but what is housed within. From the exterior it is very modern which is interesting in comparison to the rest of campus but what really makes it such a distinguished building is the interior. The layout of the interior is something that could only work for the school or architecture. It would not work well to move the science department into Lee III. The interior with complex circulation, large overlooks to below, and minimal walls creates a truly unique space. The exterior is very nice but is not life altering. What makes Lee III and many other memorable projects special to the users is their interactions with the interior and the memories both good and bad that these form.
By promoting the idea that the architect should only be relegated to work on exteriors because that is the only area they have control seems to be a cowardly retreat. Again, we cannot become the master builders of old but we can still shape the future of architecture and peoples relationships with architecture and that is not done by giving in and retreating.
Our roots are as the master builder. So how did we fall so far?
I find the idea that our role is so limited in scope to be defeatist. I know that architects cannot possibly be the master builders of old but can we be something else. Can we become more like a conductor. Having expertise in the whole rather than a singular instrument and be the unifying force? With the high levels of expertise and specialization in the world it is certainly impossible for the architect to be a master in all realms of the design and building processes but I don't think that means we should give up.
The second part of this idea of the architect as the designer of the facade that troubles me is that it means the interior of the space is meaningless to the architect. To me the interior is the richest part about architecture. As I write this I am looking out at Lee Hall. Lee Hall is an amazing project but what makes is so special is not the exterior but what is housed within. From the exterior it is very modern which is interesting in comparison to the rest of campus but what really makes it such a distinguished building is the interior. The layout of the interior is something that could only work for the school or architecture. It would not work well to move the science department into Lee III. The interior with complex circulation, large overlooks to below, and minimal walls creates a truly unique space. The exterior is very nice but is not life altering. What makes Lee III and many other memorable projects special to the users is their interactions with the interior and the memories both good and bad that these form.
By promoting the idea that the architect should only be relegated to work on exteriors because that is the only area they have control seems to be a cowardly retreat. Again, we cannot become the master builders of old but we can still shape the future of architecture and peoples relationships with architecture and that is not done by giving in and retreating.
I'm with you on this Gray, I really like 'the architect as a conductor' simile. I too see the retreat to the facade movement as an act of defeat. I think it's important for architects to maintain their current position in the design of the built environment. Students and young architects need to embrace the technological advances in the industry to remain at the helm.
ReplyDelete