Who's it really for? Who should it be for...

 

I’ve never been one to blog or journal, so this will be interesting and very new to me, but can you really remove the human aspect of architecture? It’s a reflection of culture, society, economics – all things that impact and are impacted by, none other than, humans. To me, it seems as though the more an architect “removes the human aspect” from their design, the more it becomes a sculpture. I believe it’s great and welcome to push the boundaries of design and what we know as our truths - that’s how we open the conversations on how to move forward - but a world filled with “human-less” buildings sounds plain depressing. Also, it almost comes off as selfish to design a building, meant for people, and completely leave them out of the process. If a building is designed not for the user, then who is it for? The birds and other local critters? Aliens?...Looks more like it’s for the architect themselves.

Unlike Eisenman, who touts that form precedes function, I believe that the two work should work in harmony with one another. There are clear limitations with certain functions along with code regulations, but once those needs are met, the architect (along with the client and/or community if applicable) has the authority to manipulate the form. For example, the exterior of the Denver Art Museum may look (quite literally) sharp to the eye, but it is a cultural center. The primary function of art museums is to display works of art. If a painting simply needs to be hung upright, and that can be done by hanging it from the ceiling, then does the wall really need to be at a right angle? Overall, for a design approach to become standard, I believe the human aspect cannot be removed, and as we move forward, we see more and more that humans aren't the only end user, but the earth as well.