In One Ear, and Out the Other
It should not have been a surprise when I subtlety rebelled from one of the first social rules I had been taught as a child: to never speak of politics. I chose a career that is dictated by such. Fundamentally, this begins with architectural jargon. After Lefebvre's writings and searching definitions of the terms used or when Lefebvre must redefine a word/phrase after immediately using it, I went back to one of the original thoughts I had of architecture after entering higher education. How can the public understand what the architect envisions if the architect cannot speak clearly?
Just as a politician does, an architect can exaggerate terminology and enable tactics to make them appear more intuitive than what they indeed are. Listen carefully; such terms are often misused.
Lefebvre, Harvey, and Jacobs' utopias will never be a realization. These three are only a few of the major players in what utopia for our society should look like, and yet, they manage to flair their ideas and persuade a large population of people to lean one way and not another.
In addition to language, it startled me how effortlessly Lefebvre grouped the "architect, the planner, the sociologist, the economist, the philosopher and the politician" together (Lefebvre, 150). These categories of individuals often do not want to be associated with one another. And yet, they all dance into these different categories of careers daily on the job. They believe they are a gift to society; egos fueling their drive to develop and pursue their agendas of a utopian society. Now, Lefebvre lays the foundation down of a divide amongst architects/planners and those of other fields. Standard vocabulary is needed to understand the ideals between these groups. A complete understanding between these overarching influencers of society is necessary to bring forward ideas to citizens. Even if ideas are different (take Harvey and Jacobs), a common language will allow the population to understand the fundamentals of what is being pursued. It is essential to take a step back from the whirlwind of architectural debate and ask: They are listening, but are they understanding?
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteIt's always been so interesting to me the intricate meanings behind certain job titles and the responsibilities they carry out, but I often wonder how much of it is just a bunch of bologna. For example the titles architect, planner, sociologist, economist, philosopher, and politician all only really have any meaning because we deem them so. And the ironic reality of the comment on their lack of desired interaction is that as architects we take on the role of all of these titles a lot of times. This could be the reason Lefebvre just lumped us all together. Perhaps that's why these titles are there in the first place though, to keep us architects from taking over everybody else's jobs.
Sarah, this is something that I have truly always wondered myself. I believe that is why, to this day, I always explain my building to my mother and ask her if she understands before a final review. It is the only way I know that anyone would understand. Sometimes architects have to take a step back and realize that our clients may be high society citizens, but that does not mean the people we are designing FOR are. I think that is often where we misstep as designers, and I think only until we understand user integrated design that architecture can truly become an understood discipline.
ReplyDeleteSarah, I really love this insight, and I truly agree. When I came over to architecture from engineering, I did not understand the social and political realm I was walking into. I was resistant to much of theory at first because it felt like a senseless, verbose mixing of all kinds of disciplines when I just simply wanted to design beautiful things. I've since come to realize how vital theory is to our discipline as well as the intersection of so many other roles. But to your point, I think I would have understood this importance much earlier on if someone had just taken the time to speak plainly to me.
ReplyDelete