Who's in Charge?
One thought that has come up recently in both, our class and the readings, is the influence that architecture indirectly has on a wider set of issues associated with the social, political, and physical aspects of the world at large. Architecture can be used as both, an element of progression and resistance. However, there is a limitation to the degree to which architects can control the environment. There are things that are out of their control such as the way users will utilize the spaces, how people will interpret the architecture, and the external networks that influence the dynamics of the society we live in. Both Jeremy Till and Saskia Sassen mention a set of intermediary arrangements that repetitively occur throughout the globe. It seems to me that these networks have more power over our society than we realize and it made me question the degree of influence that architects have. Do architects have the illusion that they can influence the world more than they actually can? Are we destined to follow the path that the major financial centers set for us? Are these socioeconomic systems and intermediary networks the true influencers of the global and local dynamics, leaving little to no say to any other systems involved?
Thaly,
ReplyDeleteLove this write-up. It is wild to fully understand what we know and what we are told... by the way of media portrayal. Whatever we do, if it becomes 'popular,' that is only because of the decision by media outlets to cover and enrich the story.
On top of that, this idea of corporations and the REAL constraint of built forms, not because of availability or technology, but solely because of cost, are such a damper on what we are able to do as designers.
Hi Thaly,
ReplyDeleteI used to feel unrealistic that an architect could influence and change the world. But the reality always reminds me that it is very limited for architects to change society by themselves. There are too many factors hindering what architects can do to this society and humans, like
capitalism, marketing, technology. But I still hope that architects can join forces with people in other fields to serve this society and make meaningful contributions.
The interesting component about this argument is the idea that architects intentionally change our environment. I'd rather like to think of it as architecture radically changing itself on its own accord. The affects of the previous embolden the new to "change" the status quo. The architect that becomes revolutionary in how the world operates becomes renowned because of a recognition of a changing world and architecture changing with it.
ReplyDeleteThaly,
ReplyDeleteI agree that a lot of pressure is put on architects to have a large roll in bettering a place in both the sustainable and the social aspects. I think we believe buildings control how people will act as individuals and as a whole, but in reality, the people control how a building will act. We also can not better the world as just architects. I do not see our profession going out of its way to work with biologists or chemists or geologists. Why is it just the job of the architect? What pressures can be transferred to all innovative fields to help better the globe?