Nothing Lasts Forever...
In Denise Scott Brown's text, Learning from Pop, she looks at how architects can learn from pop culture to better design for what the public wants/needs. This can come from examining the "architecture" that the masses consume in movies to the backgrounds of cigarette ads. I recognize that she was writing this from the perspective of her own time and that she may have given modern architects different advice than she does in her article. However, I think Denise Scott Brown's essay translates well into today's society. As technology develops, we continue to be influenced by pop culture, and no designer is safe from it. She mentions the Stardust signs' experiential qualities don't show up well on a land use map. The internet, social media, and massive screens appear poorly, too, in architectural drawings. How will the way we design form change as technology continues to advance? What parts of architectural space will become obsolete in the future? Are there specific spaces that remain because they are familiar but are unnecessary? We can see this in Las Vegas today. The Las Vegas Denise Scott Brown analysed is gone, and most signs have been replaced with new technology. The famous Pioneer Club of the 70s exists only as a nostalgic fake facade on another casino, and a large digital screen pavilion covers Fremont Street with a pixelated sky. As technology advances, architecture will become easier to replace when the next best thing comes along. What will happen to today's built environment in 10, 15, and 20 years?
Great insight and use of the quote at the beginning of the article. I think you touched on the element of time really well in your feedback. As we strive to be responsible designers aware of our environment, trying to build something that will last 50, 100 or even 500 years seems nearly impossible with how quickly technology evolves. I think Denise Scott Brown captured this conundrum with her work and you've illustrated that quite well.
ReplyDeleteZoe, very interesting blog. I also agree with your analysis on Denise and he views on architecture. Architecture and technology have been changing very quickly for some time... and culture simply can't keep up. Because of the technological advancements in society and life, culture is a rapidly changing entity that we as humans can not keep up with. Which may be why those of different age groups act so differently (outside of lacking maturity). The stimuli from midnight lights bouncing off below average materials (built medeorcially) does not become processed for even a moment from the average 'naked eye'; but the glowing neon lights instantly put our easily distracted human brains into a spin. Humans are flawed and we do what comes to us the easiest; without education and knowledge we settle for what comes to us naturally. Are we settling on becoming distracted by the cheap (neon lights) and ignoring the truth (architecture) for an endless circle of distraction? Does this contribute to the constantly evolving negative culture we are creating?
ReplyDeleteHi Zoe,
ReplyDeleteI think you touch on a really important topic, the longevity of Architecture. We live in a time where communities want flexible spaces that can house different programs but also be defined enough to be useful to those programs. It's hard to design a building that could be flexible enough to switch back and forth without making it obsolete design. I think that is where we are challenged as designers to step in and create something that can help bridge the needs of the user and create long-lasting Architecture.