Challenging Theory in a BIG way
Theory comes from people generalizing how things in nature works and then start to think it can be more than just a generalization. Theory is something that can be talked about for hours on end without making any headway in a single topic. I think it is about testing one's theory in their work to see if it can change the theories or generalizations of other people. That is just what Bjarke Ingels does with his work.
This is one of the many things that make me admire BIG and Bjarke Ingles and the work they do. They work to challenge the way we view typologies of architecture. A power plant does not have to be a cold unwelcoming building. In BIG's eyes it can be a ski slope. Shipping containers do not just have to be used for shipping products across country or across the world. In BIG's eyes they can used for student housing, on the WATER! BIG challenges the restraints that ourselves and society have put on building typologies and succeeds in changing the minds of some people what a space can hold.
This is something that I think has to be the future of architects in order for designs to be built. I am not saying that BIG is finding loopholes, but instead pushing the restraints to the point that they are allowed to do what they want for their design. This is something that I want my designs to do. In theory the goal is to challenge one side. If that does not happen then why even learn your own way of design or the variety of tools required for the field?
I think one of the most successful part about BIG is the environmental impacts that their projects has. Copenhagen, or BIG City, is the greenest city in the world, and that has a lot to do with Bjarke Ingles. His projects yes push the norm, but they also expose the huge impact architecture has on the environment. I think without this huge factor, BIG would not be as reputable.
ReplyDeleteHey Rachel, I don't think that our dear Bjarke is the reason why Denmark is so green. I think it rather has to do with Scandinavian culture as a whole and the importance of the collective before the individual. Norway, with no Bjarke, is not very different.
ReplyDeleteThis was something that I was questioning during class today - would BIG's work be considered 'hot' architecture? It has always seemed so dependent on the 'image' to me, the curation of a persona that sells. Concepts that shock and excite, but perhaps do not consider the 'user' as much as the 'viewer.' Or is this something else altogether?
DeleteLindsey,
DeleteI had this very same dilemma of generalizing BIG to 'hot' or 'cold' architecture. I think they are lukewarm, but it depends on the audience. Architects and Designers - they'd be 'hot'. General masses - 'cold'. I think BIG's marketing and "shock and excite" strategies make sustainability and design look simple and easy for the general public. I think critical designers could argue their concepts are 'hot' architecture - an architecture that is difficult to comprehend or flashy. I think BIG sometimes skips theory, and the language of theory, to jump to the next marketable big idea. Then, retroactively, argues that it is a profound revelation - creating an allusion for 'hot' architecture to fit in with colleagues.
David,
I agree with your perception of Bjarke. I think his goal is to make sustainability look easier and cooler so people will like it more, but I do not consider him influential in sustainable, regenerative, or resilient environmental thinking. Still, he is a pretty smart and likeable guy full of interesting ideas.