Architecture Creates Utopia Socially and Technologically
Technological utopia and social utopia are two end goals that define modernity and lay a foundation for the criticism of modern architecture. Utopia is a state of things in which perfection is reached. As the development of building technologies speeds up, the line between what is a social utopia and what is possible to design and create technologically becomes blurred. While technology evolves in the future, will the possibilities presented by engineering and materiality dictate the way architecture is designed and built, or will the social considerations be the point of departure for design?
Peter Eisenman believed the real modernity was backup by art instead of technology or social considerations. Instead of being derived from functional needs, Eisenman says modernism is “work on the language itself… it fundamentally changed the relationship between man and object away from an object whose primary purpose was to speak about man to one which was concerned with its own objecthood.” This thought may have been driven by the theoretical assumption of functionalism and its relationship to culture. Functionalism cannot be universal because of the direct considerations at the scale of the site. Although Eisenman backed up art as the influence of modernity, I think today’s technology provides an opportunity for architectural projects to significantly impact the social needs of a site and move a region towards utopia.
The Nazi's also thought technology would allow them to move towards utopia. Let's focus more on teleology than technology.
ReplyDeleteWhat they thought ! vs What we are thinking !
ReplyDeleteWhat an excellent approach to highlighting the readings this week. Although I acknowledge the fact that utopia is not as widespread during our times as it was during the Renaissance and post world war era by example, I am finding myself in a position to comment on the mere fact that a sustainable architecture can’t be dominated with nature all over our buildings ( that is an utopia in itself ) The idea is to rethink how nature can be used effectively to revive our planet and I’m pretty sure you already know that my friend. So I would disagree that there is a difference between « what they thought ! And what we are thinking ! »Nevertheless, I am bound to acknowledge your overall comments and understanding of the readings through a socially oriented context that raise awareness on technological limits as opposed to social needs. However, it is important to note that technological advancements although disadvantageous to our social well being at times, is and will still be an important tool in the way we rethink our built environment. Social distancing measures and virtual learning during the pandemic by example have proven that architecture can be socially responsive to human needs no matter the challenge at hands, but as long as its purpose is to serve the common good, we will need to retract ourselves from reality and question utopia, it is a necessity for change. However, we should do that through a critical approach that raise questions, not give answers.