The Architecture Found Between
Is architecture about "culture or form", "kitsch or avant-garde", "literal or phenomenal", "objecthood or art", "capitalist development or design"?
Why, yes -- to every single one.
Architectural greats have debated these seemingly oppositional points for centuries often dividing the architectural communities of thought. Yet as Somol and Whiting point out these "discourses most fully enable if never completely realize, the critical project of "betweenness", whether within history/theory, as with Hays, or in terms of design, as with the work of Peter Eisenman."
What if critical architecture, or rather, the practice of critical architecture is found in the "betweenness"? What if the most beautiful pieces of architecture pull from a combination of seemingly oppositional positions?
In critique of Rowe and Tafuri, Somol and Whiting point out this very paradox saying, "Even before examining the various reconfigurations of Rowe and Tafuri, however, it is important to recognize that the opposition between them is never as clear as would be imagined..."
Perhaps, it is this very place of "betweenness" that has enriched and sustained the every changing practice of architecture. Perhaps, the best architects are stuck somewhere in between as well.
I love the wording betweenness, it summarizes perfectly of what architects try to achieve. I feel like not matter how much theory or history I hear or read on architecture, it can never escape what the three principles of what Vitruvius said about architecture and I think the modernism era is leaning more towards the "commodity" side, whereas the post-modern is trying to rediscover what "delight" that architecture can bring and sometimes even would look past "firmness".
ReplyDeleteSo that's why I couldn't agree more that "the best architects are stuck somewhere in between as well" .
I think the best part about architecture is its ability to address a variety of different subjects and have an effect on all of them. It is definitely a multi-disciplinary field. The best architecture not only considers these adjacencies, but it creates beautiful juxtapositions that can create meaning. I love your point about "betweenness." Architecture would not be as rich of a field if it wasn't for the architect's ability to quite literally read between the lines.
ReplyDeleteI really love how you framed this. We learn about all of these opposing ideas as if there can't be a mesh. As if we don't pull from many cultural backgrounds, perspectives, and ideas. Architecture is rich from all of the worldly influences and I think it hurts architecture to stay purely in one category. It is a combination and as you said, a "betweenness" that allows architecture to flow with society and engage the public.
ReplyDelete