citizen expert vs expert citizen
I think a part of the reason why architecture can so easily forget the role of the user is because designers forget that we are subject to design ourselves; in an egotistical way we design things to be seen, we know they will be experienced, but we don’t want to include the user in the process of crafting the experience. Instead of prioritizing context we end up creating objects. The irony of that is some architects swear they aren't just artists making art.
“Architects cling to a perfected model of practice, neatly and simplistically summarized in an idealized version of the Vitruvian triad –commodity, firmness and delight.”
Mainly, architecture wants to get its point across as clearly as possible with as many flashy diagrams as we can but we should value the experience of the user in a more pragmatic way.
“The challenge, therefore, is how to move architectural participation from the pseudo to the transformative. To achieve this one has to overcome any notions of participation as a threat and to see it as a process that is transformative for all parties.”
Obviously, a challenge because as the citizen expert, architects are expected to know both sides of the coin. It’s not like you as an individual can bring both every time. Thats why we as architects need to see architecture more as a team effort than sole individual work. Walter Segal had a method and he made it accessible. Walters Way became his published legacy, but in the end it is all about the self builders and the longevity of the community. Habraken references this dilemma with the example of Le Corbusier. He published his work "with a vengeance" and "greatly reinforced a popular view of architecture as the story of gifted and successful individuals." There is an authority in attractive published work which makes us forget that architecture is for the people.
Everything is architecture. Architecture is for everyone. Trained architects are to bring it all together for the expert citizen/user.
Adrianna,
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate your exploration of the role of the architect and how you see that as someone who brings it all together FOR the expert citizen/user. I think that in general, architects (and architecture students) have a difficult time grappling with their place in their design. They either, as you said, forget that they are subject to design as well and try to totally remove themselves or they use their personal preferences as a basis for their design decisions. Neither one resulting in a body of work that is for everyone. But, through teamwork and collaboration this becomes a moot issue. I also agree that the actual role of the architect is about "bringing it together" opposed to being a spout of creative genius. To me, an architect is more translator or facilitator than a stand-alone artist.