We don't owe anyone anything...or maybe we kinda do
After doing my best to understand the topics in readings for this week it seems clear that Peter Eisenman and some other postmodern contemporaries argued that the language of architecture has existed for hundreds of years including the detour through modernity. Eisenman's main critique is that modernity focused too much on functionality, corrupting the pure language of architecture. Selfishly he argues that as long as design follows the already long discipline established by the past, it doesn't need to answer to other exterior influences such as context or functionality. As architects we should love this right?? No more restraints, no more bowing down to programmatic logic, just pure design. Welcome to the wild wild west of design! However, as tempting as this seems, it feels dishonest. It may even lead to amazing works or architecture that further the language and push the envelope, but to ignore our fiduciary duty to our clients and society is something that all architects can not and should not do. We can lead those that we work with towards good design language, but leaving them behind to only oblige our architectural formal desires seems wrong. Ironically it seems that the theory of postmodernism is much like modernism...it holds a scared place in architectural history + Theory but its not meant to be the end all be all solution.
Modern architecture, regardless of Eisenman's etymological nitpicking, is clearly a break from the past. I highly recommend "A Timeless way of Building" by Christopher Alexander as a place to start learning real design language.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree that architects just doing whatever we want is bogus - and leads to hideous glass and steel monstrosities that are super expensive - and then are torn down in few decades to be replaced by something equally hideous and expensive.
The "Wild West of Design" seems like a terrifically exciting place to be and I know it is for many, but it bums me out: in a world where, to quote innumerable and unnamed sources, "you can 3D print anything", I find myself, to my genuine surprise, relatively uninterested in autonomous forms and much in more those that respond to an external condition.
ReplyDeleteI'm not disputing the theoretical validity of the exercise of autonomous design or even saying that I don't like many of its artifacts, I'm just saying that an inside joke isn't as funny (FWIW, though, lucky number 19900420 was funny as hell) to as many people as a pop-culture reference and that I'll never be as excited to learn how many zillion horsepower the next McLaren will have as I will be curious to know what VW is going to do with the next Golf.
Good design that's accessible, scalable, and sustainable is inherently beholden to, and driven by, external conditions, and it's my opinion that we should be considering these constraints first and foremost, and that we should be operating in a post-post-functionalist capacity, wherein autonomous design is a formfinding utility that's prioritized secondarily. I realize that this is inherantly anti-post-formalism and I'm just proposing post-formalist flavored stuff, but I guess that's just how I feel about all this.
I think you are right Kevin. Like people have said already, design has to be a balance between furthering the profession, and keeping ourselves grounded in reality. We love to further the profession and dialogue on architecture because it is much like trends in art or music, we like to explore new ideas as we try to create the best versions of our work. But, we live in a world of limitations. Architects who combine these two attributes together are the most successful in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteReading your thoughts made me think about how our field of work is a strange one, considering that our work could be considered as "art." However, we do not have the freedom that artists do. Artists can create art for clients who hire them, but they also have the ability to create their own pieces that interest them on their free time. However, it is really unrealistic, some would say impossible, to have true freedom to design whatever we wanted. We do not get that access to express ourselves like artists do, which gives us the only avenue through our hired work. This then creates the tension between architect and client that you talk about in the "wild wild west" area of architecture. I think the solution, theoretically, is to find an avenue of expression through design that architects can pursue outside of their career.
ReplyDeleteVery intriguing analysis! I believe there is a very peculiar dichotomy to the role of an architect. On one hand, architects should question the boundaries of their artistic freedom and test new forms of expression. However, architects have a duty to serve their clients and meet their needs with regard to programming and context. It's not that we necessarily owe anyone anything, its simply recognizing the dichotomy that comes with being an architect.
ReplyDeleteKevin I agree! I think that having the constraint of a program or other aspect of the project is what makes the project unique or special. It seems that the projects that take this stance seem lost within their landscape.
ReplyDelete