Why Weird Sh!t Matters.
The iterative process is the most important lesson that an architecture student can gain from our education. This idea celebrates the notion of new ideas, those ideas failing, and the revisions it takes to make those ideas better. This is why the field of architecture is a practice, and the adaptations to new emerging technology and a changing world should influence design and construction.
A good example of this from class was the Denver Art Museum's Hamilton Building. Libeskind's design imposes a language of new geometries and materials that contrast from the surrounding context. Some may argue it is unnecessary and should be in a more classical style that blends into the Civic Center area. "I mean just think of those poor souls who have to witness such complicated angles 😢". I completely disagree. The DAM is an incredible building that has managed to embrace a form that drives the function so seamlessly. The significance this building has had is nothing short of the "Bilbao effect" and is proof that the typical person enjoys seeing outrageous architecture. Yes, architects like to complain that anyone can mash triangles together, but that isn't the point. Even if you dislike the appearance, the incredible coordination and technological advances that this building showcases in its details is a work of art alone. Even the scaffolding during construction won an engineering award. For a comparison, let's take a minute walk down the street and look at the Denver Public Library designed by Michael Graves.
It might be surprising to find out that these two buildings were only finished 10 years apart, despite the dramatic difference in style. I will admit I am not a fan of Michael Graves and although this isn't his worst postmodern building, I don't like it and it seems out of place. I understand the ironic gestures of postmodern design, but I am drawn to the retro-futuristic thinking of "nothing is more dated than yesterday's vision of tomorrow". There is a time and place for classical, rococo, and neoclassical architecture and that time and place is yesterday. We don't build the same way and honestly lost the skill to perfectly recreate. Today we need to be pushing technology and analyzing theory to push architecture. Yes, the DAM is not perfect and there are bound to be issues, but the form's artistic resemblance to the peaks of the Rockies and the well-detailed titanium facade have a respectable contribution to the practice of architecture and society.
Bjarke Ingles had a great point in his lecture when he touched upon the idea that he pushes the traditional way of thinking so that the next generation can push further. The idea that our generation will have the ability to create normative ways of living and designing that we can't even comprehend right now. Architects need to embrace the changing world and start taking more chances of risk and failure when the projects allow. Our failures and the weird sh!t to come is what gets me excited.
That's an excellent post, Garrett. I cannot agree more with you. Trying to push the limits is how society evolves. Buildings like the DAM could change the basics of structures. Contemporary Architecture may be the starting of radically different.
ReplyDeleteExcluding the function and the building's value, appearance could be very subjective. Few may like Denver Public Library too. Art can never satisfy impress all.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would agree 1000x over. BUT I still find myself nose up with some architecture that pushed the envelope a little too far - buildings that are completely form and absolutely no function. These building are hard to come but but still exist, not to say that aren't teaching us valuable lessons. I also think there are a ton of form buildings that conquer function as well. These I find are the most accused because those accusing don't take the time to understand the functions inside (Disney concert hall). Either way - whether I think its beautiful or not - I appreciate those bold enough to try new things so that we can all learn and push into the future of design!
ReplyDeleteI think what your saying is correct. There is room in architecture to create weird shit*. I think the common misconception of people who believe in form over function is that they believe the "functional architect" does not want to create an interesting form that challenges the limits of modern day construction. On the contrary I believe most functional architects would be fine with creating an illustrious form as long as it still satisfies the necessary needs of the area and people.
ReplyDelete