The Dangers of Solipsism
Or: The Arrogance of Architects
I guess I am mostly a one-note record at this point, but I will keep yelling into the void. A fine line between persistence and Sisyphean futility it seems.
It's interesting with all this theory we read, there seems to be very little design theory. We talk a lot about "successful" architecture, or "interesting" or "cool", or "critical" etc etc etc. Essentially we talk a lot about ARCHITECTURE but very little about what architecture, ultimately depends on - appearance. One can have all the theory in the world and design very, very (impressive really) ugly buildings. Stirling seems to be a darling of architectural theory, but imagine living surrounded by his buildings. Did you know that there have been three suicides already at "The Vessel" in Hudson Yards? I will quote one of my favorite twitter accounts speaking on this...jewel:
We need to return to trying to understand what human people (from which I exclude architectural theorists) actually like about buildings. Take a look at the below.
Do you really think the mediocrity on the right is an improvement? If you do, you are wrong. And if you say, but Lee, it's all just a matter of taste. No, it isn't, and beauty isn't subjective. But even accepting the (absurd) premise of 'it's all taste', then what right do you have to impose your taste on the public. Classical architecture is far, far more popular than modernist architecture. (Also more sustainable, durable, etc etc but I'll save that for later.)
All this is to say, let's not get lost in the world of theory. Let us remember our buildings impose themselves on the public eye - let's not add ugliness to the world.
Don't focus so much on the diagrams - people don't see diagrams. People see elevations - the building itself. (All critics ((and professors)) see is the diagram, because they've lost the ability to understand elevation, but who cares what they think)
PS
Interesting article on glass facades.
This is an honest and thoughtful answer about achitecture, but more about theory itself and how it can better or break the discipline.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with everything (not just a few points, but everything that you just said), can we for a moment exclude "taste" and orient ourselves towards beauty?
If we agree to do that, truth is that we all would be on the same train because yes Classical architecture alone is beautiful and it has its own force and power that a taste or surrealistic architecture doesn't.
However, what do you think would happen to this discipline if theory was unexistant, and diagrams weren't part of the process in making spaces?
My answer is that we need both because they are critical in making us rethink spaces not shapes, human needs not human desires (desires include beauty, aesthetic, form, and lack of order). So there is that tangent between architecture and theory and they both coesixt through a mutual relationship that challenges them continuously, and the only time architecture is successful is not because theory wasn't in the picture, or diagrams did not take part in the process, it is merely because common ground was found between them, and thats where we as designers fails, a lot of times.
It is hard to find that critical spot in design and henceforth make us question if theory is really important or not, are diagrams useful or not. Guess what my friend, they are important, more important than we think, and we need to use them just right, not too little nor at the extreme(like the building you pictured on the right).
Only if we get better at that process of using these elements right ( keep into account the fact that this has nothing to do with traditional and contemporary architecture, but everything to do with the place of the architect in the world because we live through time and we come and go but buildings can last, not forever but longer).
Once we understand how to use these tools and critically appreciate the power they have when blended, we will be able to help architecture serve the common good. So far, very few architects have been able to find that balance and that is the reason why there is a controversial symphony between beautiful, unrealistic, or useful spaces.
PS: Don't also forget that classical buildings were an utopia that came to life through theory and diagrams.
(The discussion is open)
Lee, your argument is not original. It is very much the critique that postmodern architecture (Venturi, Graves, and others ), brought over modernist architecture on the 80s. The thing is that when they tried to repeat the virtues of classical architecture the result was terrible (i.e. the Portland building). Sorry I don't think the answer is so simple. That is why as architects we have to also understand the language of theory.
ReplyDeleteI think something like https://cgdarch.com/work/prince-of-peace-catholic-church/ is another possible answer, that doesn't seem (to me) to be postmodern. I doubt it's very interesting theoretically though.
DeleteThat said, I fully agree that the Vessel is a poor exercise in both public space and architectural design.
ReplyDeleteI will never make a claim to originality haha, I just repeat what I gleam from other places. But just because the postmodern solution is wrong does not mean that their identification of the problem is wrong. Have you read any Christopher Alexander - The Timeless way of Building?
ReplyDeleteI am with Alexandr in that we should give more space to people's action when thinking about space. We will talk a lot about that during the second part of the semester. However, the notion that there are certain 'patterns' that configure a fundamental language of architecture, almost implicit to the way humans use the built environment, seems too deterministic and detached from social contingencies. You probably know that Alexander studied chemistry, physics and math before getting interested in architecture. Maybe he was trying to explain architecture a non-messy, objectified practice...
ReplyDelete