Beauty in the Ordinary




Architects and scholars like Charles and Ray Eames and John Habraken championed the philosophy of architecture as a backdrop or architecture as a frame for life. Habraken, much like the Eames, were focused on what Habraken calls “live configurations” of space: proof of facility or ownership. They and others like them understood that architecture for the people requires a substantial dissolution of the architect’s ego, almost as if the best architecture would remove the trace of the hands that designed it and would instead allow for expression and ownership to flourish in its place. This is an architecture that does not exclude the client, as much of the larger celebrity firms, and instead celebrates the processes of everyday life and does not try to exclude the mess. As architects and as designers, we need to explore how we plan to design and how we market our designs – in a way that prioritizes the occupant over the client.

Comments

  1. Eric, this is exactly what I have been trying to say through my posts as well and I am so glad someone else sees it this way! If our client is a builder say, and the occupants are renters to their lavish upscale apartments....who are we designing for? I think often this can happen in the real world as well as in architecture school. Sometimes we really have to think about who we are designing for even if the client may disagree, we have to do our best to be advocates for those without a voice.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Eric, I make a similar point in my post about the "architect's ego". I talked about stopping pretentious architecture which attempts to impress by seaming important and by being present but in reality, most of this architecture ends up being detrimental to the community in which it is located. The architecture that is most successful in the eyes of its inhabitants is the one that understands how to improve their every day life and the solve the issues that they might be having for years or that may present themselves in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I love this idea of architecture as a backdrop. At the end of the day, people are going to do whatever they want with a space regardless of how we design it. I think we cannot be too attached as architects to our design to prescribe exactly how the client/occupant should live in their space. That being said, I think we can design spaces with this in mind and allow the user the opportunity to make the space theirs without overpowering our original intent as architects -- namely a backdrop.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts