Falling off the (pop band)wagon
"However, an old aesthetic formula, even though it is shown to be obstructive, will not be relinquished until it is replaced by a new one, since, as we have seen, form depends on form for its making. And, for the architectural establishment, the new vocabulary must have respectable lineage. Hence, if the popular environment is to provide that vocabulary, it must be filtered through the proper processes for its acceptance. It must become a part of the high-art tradition; it must be last year's avant garde. This is another reason to submit the new landscape to traditional architectural analysis; for the sake of its acceptance by the establishment. They can't learn from pop until Pop hangs in the academy."
Excerpt from Learning from Pop
I would like to start with a question: what is the responsibility of the architect? Is it, as posed here, to bring respectable lineage and validation to current building trends? I hope not. I believe that the responsibility instead lies with what we validate rather than in the act of validating. It is no surprise that s designers of the built environment we have an enormous impact of the welfare and wellbeing of both people and the environment. Because of our potential impact, we have a responsibility to only bring respectable lineage to respectable architecture. While the definition of respectable architecture varies from person to person, I believe that having that discussion is much more responsible than deciding to simply defer judgement as Scott-Brown suggests.
I found it intriguing that although Scott-Brown chooses to defer judgement regarding what architecture is worthy of validation, she makes clear judgements about the role of architecture in the past. Her views of urban renewal and the social role of architecture are clear. I believe that the point is also being made that urban renewal was the result of poor judgement, which is undeniable, but instead of making better judgements, this poor judgement is used as an excuse to abstain from judgement. I argue that this is a poor excuse to instead shift to bringing current trends to the academy without accompanying discussions of impact. But, again, what is the responsibility of the architect?
Courtney,
ReplyDeleteI love that you brought up the responsibility of an architect. I think that this is important for each architect/intern architect to think about as they start their journey into their career. The impact of architecture and the lack of discussion on the responsibility of an architect (and also anyone in the built environment) is clear in many phases of architecture. In Ian's post, he talked about arrogance being so prominent in our field, and I do believe that is true. Why are some designers so arrogant but have little/ no opinion on being a responsible designer? or maybe it's that they just don't bring up the discussion.
Courtney,
ReplyDeleteThe question you bring up is more important now than ever. Our society is constantly changing around us and sometimes as young professionals (even experienced architects), no one really has the right answer. I agree with Hailey when she says there often can be a level of arrogance in our field. I think this is a very important topic to discuss as students and how we can strive to make this a wider and more open discussion among future clients and colleagues.
I love the question you pose, Courtney! I would hate to be the devil advocate. But there we go. There are so many level of complexity to your question than just architects' responsibilities to the "impact of the welfare and wellbeing of both people and environment." Though I agree as architects, we have certain level of responsibility in this matter. But this matter to me would be collaborative afford of the entire Earth populations, not just architects. It is like we all have to act like a unified colony of ants. But the reality is we are not like that. I am not saying to stop advocating for protecting our planet through the choices we make to the built environment. I am saying that it is much more than an architect. For example, the means in creating an environmental responsive environment should be more economical to everyone. So that the decision of "going green" is affordable to everyone. This means that product costs has to come down; effecting the supply chain; so on and so forth. Creating this whole riffle effect. Not until everyone and every country act as a unified entity that we would see significant change. I know nothing change overnight. But 50 years and we made little improvement on preserving our planet is a long time.
ReplyDelete