Is Tafuri Crazy or Am I?
In class this past week, we discussed architecture as crisis, form, language, and projective through the eyes of Manfredo Tafuri, Colin Rowe, Peter Eisenman, and Rem Koolhaas respectively. While all four views were very interesting and raised more questions than they answered, what struck me most was this quote by Tafuri. If I understand it correctly, it seems to say that for a designed thing to be truly "architectural," it must serve no other purpose than to simply exist. In other words, to be an architect is to design simply for the sake of design. I struggle with this idea for many reasons, one of which being it seems to be a contradiction in itself. Is it really possible to design something that serves no purpose, or to design "just for the sake of design?" If we create an object or space purely "just for the sake of design," then "an exploration of the possibilities of design" becomes its purpose, and since it then has a purpose for existing, it is no longer architectural. Furthermore, no matter what we create, no matter how hard we try to make its existence "pointless," as soon as we release our hold of it, it is left up to the interpretation of its viewers, who can't help but assign a meaning to it (and thus a purpose) even if that meaning is to simply inspire thought. As an aspiring architect, I find Tafuri's view problematic because, if I have understood it correctly, his view of architecture goes against nearly every part of the architect's code. A designed/architectural space cannot be "without purpose" while simultaneously fulfilling the tenants of the architect's code. I am curious to see what others thing of this. Have I been thinking about this all wrong? Am I completely misunderstanding what Tafuri was trying to say?
Aaron, you are the crazy one. Joking. I agree with your understanding as well, as his belief has gone against everything we have been taught. It kind of reminds me of a question that came up in my hist/theory class in Charleston. "Does architecture need man, or does man need architecture?", which then led to a conversation of even if something is intended to have no meaning, there is atleast 1 person who will find a meaning.
ReplyDeleteThat's a fair though Olivia. But, Architecture a=was created to serve man so it's always had a purpose. Of course architecture needs man, I think without man, it wouldn't be able to serve it's purpose, which I believe to be a place of dwelling. Architecture only exists because we need it to.
DeleteNo I totally agree with what you're saying. But I also wondered if although Tafuri's theory of architecture doesn't necessarily have to be rooted with a particular meaning, if it could still have an impact (positive or negative); therefore, serving a purpose? Tafuri's infamous phrase "sublime uselessness" isn't entirely awful. Sublime = beauty, uselessness = no function? Plenty of famous works of architecture are like that. I'll try to think of a "successful" example and we can chat further...
ReplyDelete