I guess ARCHITECTURE is ideology. Count me out.
"Despite the envelope’s original role, the political performances of architecture
have conventionally been located in the plan or the section ...
...For example, centralized or symmetrical plans have been thought
to contribute to the stability and hierarchy of political structures, while distributed,
clustered or labyrinthine plans are supposed to preserve the independence of localities
from a central, panoptic structure..."
This is the quote of madman. If you reduce architecture to a political tool, you are lost. Lost as an architect at least, maybe a great fanatic. (Not to say that one can't use architecture as a political tool, but that one shouldn't.)
The goal of architecture should be: to create beautiful, useful buildings. It's very simple. There are even rules to help you accomplish that. This is not an individualistic claim that our buildings don't impact others, but rather a rejection of an all-consuming political ideology.
Modernism has indeed been wielded as an ideological club with which to beat populations into submission - but seems like we should probably not do that.
 |
 |
 |
| Civic Architecture |
I'm sure some of you will argue "But LEE IT IS ALL POLITICAL". I would define political architecture as an architecture intended to make a political or ideological statement. Civic architecture would be architecture that intends to embody an ideal. But fine, if every single public human act is political, then it's political. Can it be at least less ugly and oppressive?
PS the meaning of the title is that if in order to be all-caps ARCHITECTURE (as Dan likes to say), it has to make some sort of STATEMENT and be ideologically driven, I'm out. I am more than content to design little buildings for people that just want a decent looking building (I would never claim beauty) that works, at a decent price.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLee your argument is strong and I believe that you know what kind of architecture you want to build, which is wonderful. However beauty isn't static and when it comes to architecture, human beings have different feelings concerning what they think is beautiful, what they think is old, and what they think is useless. The reason why I am bringing that up is not just because of capitalism and politics, but also because architects are humans and they have capabilities to explore and make forms that will be not only pleasing to the eyes but also innovative at their core. Just to say that as a designer you have choices and you have boundaries and limits and codes to follow but again we shouldn't always stick to these boundaries all the time. It is important to break barriers, look beyond spectrums and use our sense of wonders and exploration to keep making things that challenge the profession and help the profession evolve. Also, I like simple, traditional buildings but then again the world is so big and complex, and different places have their own definition of simple and beautiful. That is one of the main reasons why, I think architecture should be reflective and mindful of those differences of landscapes, places, cultures, and lifestyles in order to stand up to its ideal and purpose. Nevertheless, I very much respect your stance on this but I feel like architects have so much to give that they shouldn't not just stick to what is already there. Why can't they build something new and teach us something we don't know to keep our sense of wonder and exploration alive? That has nothing to do with ideology, it is our natural instinct and we should cherish it by making crazy buildings if the opportunity arise. To me that's ok as long as it can teach us something new and help drive innovation a little further.
ReplyDeleteThey say everything is political... even the coffee we drink. Starbucks vs. McDonalds. The question is WHY?
ReplyDeleteWhy is everything political? There is no need for such division.
Did Frank Gehry design the Walt Disney Concert hall the way he did just to create division? No... but I very much doubt he was a good negotiator either.
I've probably been one of the ones to claim that everything's political, and in a way, i believe it is, or at least that it could be, but I'll also be the first to admit that it's just too exhausting to actually live that philosophy. Sometimes things just happen the way they happen, or you just don't want to spend your whole life living out the "is the chicken local?" scene from Portlandia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G__PVLB8Nm4). I rolled my eyes kinda hard at that part of Politics of the Envelope, too, though. I mean, it might actually be right, but i'm also reluctant to engage in this sort of plans-as-mind-control thinking. Plans as poetry, maybe, but I also thought that claim a bit extra.
ReplyDelete