Ethical Form
Bjarke Ingels and the late post-critical architecture he presents brings about a sort of neo-humanistic sensibility that gives greater meaning to architecture and seems prevalent among contemporary discourse. It is clear that he expresses the evolution of ideas of a list of successive architects who sought to shift the paradigm away from the "sublime uselessness" (Tafuri) and the "abstraction, atonality, and atemporality" (Eisenmen) of the modernist movement. However, his approach to elevating architecture beyond the typical, differs from that of post-modernists like Eisenmen or Liebskind, who give form through autonomous or abstract theoretical methodologies. While in many cases Bjarke's projects can also certainly seem abstract or oversimplified, nonetheless he attempts to offer an approach to form that seeks a more universally ethical rationale and generally succeeds in giving a greater return on investment for society and our planet. This is the result of his process being a descendent of Koolhas's diagrammatic approach and giving greater concern to program and the user. In addition his process is also rooted in the context of the current state of the world and seeks to solve issues that we face today. He is able to discover unique forms that push limits through the post-critical sensibility that is much more of "doppler effect" architecture, concerned with context and comprised of complex systems, programs, and inter-disciplinary collaborations.
Bjarke is a really interesting case study for this conversation, it's clear to see how he's been influenced by Koolhaas but his 'ethical' solutions are nothing more than ornamentation on top of Koolhaas's ideology. An argument can be made that he has done important work bringing attention to the need for sustainable solutions, but in doing this his approach of "hedonistic sustainability" harms the movement by pushing forward the notion that sustainability takes almost no sacrifice.
ReplyDeleteHi Jared, I appreciate your response and that it forced me to look deeper into the meaning of "hedonistic sustainability". I agree with you that in order for humans to live in harmony with this planet in a truly sustainable fashion, it will require a level of sacrifice that the majority of people living now are simply not willing to give. For, this reason I believe his approach to hedonist architecture definitely can water down the true meaning of sustainability but I strongly believe he has been successful in making people more comfortable with the idea that architecture can serve as a vehicle for change and innovative solutions. I agree that some of Bjarke's work is far from perfect and often falls short of what we really expect from sustainable architecture. To me, however, just like how Koolhas was a step in the right direction (away from uselessness), I believe that Bjarke's work is as well. That is what I meant from ethical architecture more so than the sustainability aspect. The idea that architecture can have a higher purpose outside of just existing or serving a program.
DeleteKevin, that's totally fair. Overall, I would say the impact he has had is more positive than negative, I suppose he's an easy target when it comes to this conversation. Are you familiar with his 8 House project? to me that is one of his strongest and a perfect example of the ethical form idea you're talking about. It does a great job flipping the ideal of housing on its head and making it much more humanistic.
DeleteJared- I have come across the 8 house project in the past but I had some time to look at it again today. I agree that it is a good example of what I was attempting to describe (thank you). The layering of programs horizontally and the placement of such - along with the decisions which alter and ultimately formulate the form, are done so in a manner which are overall more concerned with the human experience (dwellings with adjacent terraces mimicking that of a vernacular rowhouse lined street, the public terrace/promenade that connects down to the ground level - offering the ability to connect with ones neighbor or simply offering an alternative to taking the elevator), the social implications of blending these programs, how the building interacts with the context, etc.
DeleteSo in my view, the building's form is elevated to a higher degree of sophistication in a way that is of a more virtuous position, when compared to say, the Wexner Center for Arts (which may be a smashing success functionally). However, when discussing the form, the Wexner is more driven by a sense of experimentation, a sort of "just because we can" attitude which in my view is less virtuous. This is totally my subjective view on these approaches. My reasoning behind this is that buildings of a certain scope, like the 8 house project require resources, land, money (potentially tax dollars), in addition to the day in and day out struggle to actually build the thing which requires tremendous effort from a lot of people from many different walks of life to ultimately realize. The building and its vision ought to be a worthwhile and meaningful goal to invest our collective time and effort into and hopefully it can serve as an accomplishment for all those involved and uplift the lives of those who will ultimately occupy it.
There is not feature allowing me to edit the comment. In the last sentence of the second paragraph I say, "buildings of a certain scope require resources, land" etc. I meant to say they require A LOT* of those things, because obviously any building requires those things.
Delete