"De Niro Architecture"

    Notes around the Doppler Effect and other Moods of Modernism by Somol & Whiting is a refreshing read - post reading Tafuri and Eisenman respectively. The analogy of 'hot' vs. 'cold', or 'De Niro' vs 'Mitchum' (Cape Fear) architecture expertly describes the notion of projective architecture while highlighting the relevance and shift from architecture criticality.

I find the discussions on architectural theory – modernism, functionalism, criticality, language – as inevitably polarizing. What I like about this notion of projective architectural theory is that it frames criticality within a fair context. Thus, we no longer need subscribe to modernism, post-modernism, etc. as perfect or great architecture, thanks to Somol, Whiting, and Koolhaas. They provide an argument on how architectural thinking can now (or going forward) be useful in practice - how the product of architecture discourse can now be understood by non-architects. Architecture can be critical while also being rooted in context.

The criticism of modernity and developing architecture as a language evolved into an age of projective architecture and, as a result, opened a new reality where context and all of the critical notions in architecture theory can maintain a relevance to each other in architecture.

“De Niro Architecture” is ‘hot’ design. It is convoluted, difficult, and crafts another competing figure against the final product – the film. If architecture is De Niro then we are subjected to an architecture that cannot be separated from the designer and their rationale. ‘Cold’ architecture’s narrative should be independent from the architect and be a piece on its own.

Our goal as designer should be producing ‘cold’ architecture inspired by ‘hot’ architectural thinking. Basically, I want to be thinking about the difficult theories, ideologies, and discourse on architecture as inspiration and guidance but produce an easy and relatable architecture – which is still complex and experiential.